    [Senate Hearing 118-679]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 118-679

                     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT,
                      AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
                      FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARINGS

                                    BEFORE A

                              SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                             COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
                                UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                       on

                               H.R. 8998/S. 4802

       AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
    ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER
                        30, 2025, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES

                                   __________

                          United States Forest Service
                        Environmental Protection Agency
                           Department of the Interior
                             Indian Health Service
                           Nondepartmental Witnesses

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                   __________

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    55-305 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025

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

                          COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                       PATTY MURRAY, Washington Chairman

    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine, Vice
    JACK REED, Rhode Island                  Chairman
    JON TESTER, Montana                  MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
    JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
    CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii                 JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
    TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin             JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut      SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia          Virginia
    CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland           JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
    MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi
    GARY PETERS, Michigan                BILL HAGERTY, Tennessee
    KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              KATIE BRITT, Alabama
                                         MARCO RUBIO, Florida
                                         DEB FISCHER, Nebraska

                          Evan Schatz, Staff Director
                  Elizabeth McDonnell, Minority Staff Director

                                     ------

     Subcommittee on Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
                                    Agencies

                         JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon, Chairman

    JACK REED, Rhode Island              LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Ranking
    JON TESTER, Montana                      Member
    CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland           MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
    MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico          SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    GARY PETERS, Michigan                    Virginia
    KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              JOHN HOVEN, North Dakota
                                         DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
                                         KATIE BRITT, Alabama

                               Professional Staff

                               Melissa Zimmerman
                                   Ryan Hunt
                                  Rishi Sahgal
                                Anthony Sedillo
                                 Angela Caalim

                            Emy Lesofski (Minority)
                             Lucas Agnew (Minority)
                             Nona McCoy (Minority)

                             Administrative Support

                           LaShawnda Smith (Minority)

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                    hearings

                           Wednesday, April 10, 2024

                                                                       Page

    United States Forest Service.....................................     1

                             Wednesday, May 1, 2024

    Environmental Protection Agency..................................    51

                             Wednesday, May 8, 2024

    Department of the Interior.......................................   105

                             Thursday, May 23, 2024

    Indian Health Service............................................   365

              Statements and Letters of Nondepartmental Witnesses

    Nondepartmental Witnesses........................................   413

                                  ----------

                                  back matter

    List of Witnesses, Communications, and Prepared Statements.......   759

    Subject Index:

        United States Forest Service.................................   763

        Department of the Interior...................................   763

        Environmental Protection Agency..............................   763

        Indian Health Service........................................   764

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, APRIL 10, 2024

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:00 a.m., in room 124, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Merkley, chairman of the
    subcommittee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Merkley, Tester, Van Hollen, Heinrich,
    Sinema, Murkowski, Hoeven, and Fischer.

                          UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE

                          STATEMENT OF HON. RANDY MOORE, CHIEF,
                                  U.S. FOREST SERVICE

                   opening statement of senator jeff merkley

        Senator Merkley. Good morning, and welcome to the first
    hearing of the Interior, Environments Appropriations
    subcommittee on the fiscal year 2025 President's budget. Chief
    Moore, thank you for being here to present the President's
    budget and discuss a variety of topics important to our States
    and important to the nation.
        As you and the members of this committee know, I continue
    to beat the drum about the dangers of climate chaos. This past
    year, we had the hottest day, hottest month, hottest year in
    human history, and we see the consequences all around us.
        In my home State of Oregon, the average snowpack in the
    Cascades has dropped 20ft in the last 90 years. A lot less
    snowmelt that contributes to the quality of our streams. A lot
    less snowmelt that contributes to the water for our farmers and
    ranchers.
        As droughts have deepened, and temperatures have soared,
    our wildfire season is getting longer and more extreme, and
    then we have the threats of insects and disease making a bad
    situation worse.
        So, we need to do all we can to help make our forests more
    resilient. Over the last 4 years since you became Chief and I
    became chair of this committee, Congress has invested
    significantly in the Forest Service.
        A major focus of these investments has been on restoring
    forest health and reducing the conditions of catastrophic
    wildfires. The Administration's Wildfire Crisis Strategy
    Implementation Plan details how we need to build landscape
    resiliency and cultivate healthy conditions.
        And the annual funding provided by this appropriations
    subcommittee, supplemented by investments from the bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act is making a
    difference. But forest improvements do not stop when a
    particular project is finished. We're touching only a small
    percent of the total number of acres that need to be addressed.
    And of course, the projects we've completed, the forest
    continue to grow on that land.
        I know that you and I share the goal of ensuring our
    forests are healthy and resilient in the face of climate chaos.
        We've put some of the best practices to work, to clear
    undergrowth, to thin stand density, to use prescribed burns to
    reduce individual wildfire events. And I've really seen how the
    attitude towards prescribed burns has changed in our state,
    where folks used to resist smoke on a single day, they now
    would much rather have smoke on a single day or a few days,
    rather than see the threat of their town burning to the ground,
    as happened in six communities in the Labor Day fires of 2020.
        I know my colleague from New Mexico is here. We also have
    to make sure prescribed burns stay on the prescribed landscape.
    And we should learn from the Tribal knowledge and incorporate
    indigenous practices into our maintenance and conservation
    efforts. But forests in the United States, they are way behind
    the benchmarks of where they need to be to withstand
    significant fire activity.
        As we celebrate the investments of the last few years,
    there are still a number of concerns regarding the ability of
    the Forest Service to sustain this work and set the stage for
    long term resiliency. The additional resources provided in the
    bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act,
    those are one time investments, and those funds are running
    out.
        The Legacy Restoration Fund, from which this subcommittee
    allocates $285 million dollars each year to the Forest Service
    for deferred maintenance, expires next year. Over the last 5
    years, these funds have been used to repair roads and bridges
    on our public lands, to provide needed access and assist fire
    response, to renovate employee housing in remote areas for
    seasonal staff and firefighters, and to build and repair other
    facilities related to recreation in our National Forests.
        And then we have accelerating climate chaos. The world is
    not standing still in this regard. And we need to continue the
    Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund, which expires in fiscal year
    2027. That is quite a few significant headwinds that we are
    facing.
        Turning to the fiscal year 2025 President's budget for the
    Forest Service, I'd note that the budget does not contain grand
    new policy initiatives. That's not a criticism. It's a
    recognition of the budget circumstances in which we are
    operating. But the budget does make an important statement that
    the Forest Service continues to prioritize its workforce, and
    that's important because that workforce is the way that we get
    the projects accomplished.
        We depend on our team members to deliver for the people and
    to deliver for the land. I want the Forest Service to have the
    resources it needs to confront the challenges of building
    forest resiliency in the face of climate chaos.
        I thank you for your dedication, to the people and to the
    mission of the Forest Service, and I am delighted that on this
    subcommittee, I have a partner from Alaska who understands
    these issues from the perspective of growing challenges for the
    forests of her home State. Been a pleasure to work with her,
    and I will turn the microphone over to her.

                      statement of senator lisa murkowski

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's tough to
    figure out our calendar anymore. Having just completed fiscal
    year 2024, we are now racing into fiscal year 2025, and it is
    the 9th or 10th of April. Anyway, we are where we are.
        Chief Moore, welcome, to the committee. I appreciate this
    opportunity to discuss the President's budget and the role that
    the Forest Service plays in my state, but in the states across
    the country here.
        So, before we get into the budget, the President's budget
    request though, I want to talk a little bit about Christmas, if
    you want to talk about a confused calendar because we are
    excited for Christmas.
        We're excited for the holiday season in Alaska because once
    again, Alaska has been asked to host the Capitol Christmas tree
    that will grace the West Lawn. We were able to do this in 2015.
    Had a magnificent tree that came from the Chugach. I think
    we've all had an opportunity to host the tree, but logistics
    are just a little more complicated coming out of Alaska.
        But we managed to do it beautifully, so well that we were
    asked again. And this year, the tree will not come from the
    Chugach National Forest. It will come from our other great
    National Forest, the Tongass National Forest, a part of the
    state that I grew up in and is an amazing region, rich with
    resources and native cultural histories.
        So, Chief, I want to thank you and your staff for the work
    that you have already done in anticipation of this, working
    with our team, as we identify an extraordinary creation that
    will be here on the Capitol lawn on in some months. It is hard,
    though. It is hard.
        And sometimes I feel it's more than just a little bit
    ironic that we're gonna be able to harvest an extraordinary
    tree from the Tongass, but we can't seem to throw a lifeline to
    the timber industry in the region.
        This Administration--and you and I have talked about this
    many, many times before, and the committee has heard it also,
    but this Administration abandoned the Alaska Specific Roadless
    Rule in favor of reinstating the 2001 National Roadless Rule on
    the Tongass.
        Despite all the data and the analysis that supported the
    Alaska Specific Rule, the Administration has really made it
    near impossible to have a sustainable regional timber economy.
        It was Secretary Vilsack who promised me not only once, not
    only twice, but multiple times, and to my colleagues from the
    state, we were going to see a transition from old growth
    harvesting to harvesting young growth that would allow the
    Tongass to retain a small but a viable timber industry, and
    that transition simply has not materialized. It is more than
    just another broken promise to the residents of Southeast.
        Years of work and collaboration with the agency,
    environmental groups, and Tribes to invest in the promised
    transition has resulted in an all but dead timber program in
    the Tongass. And I certainly have conveyed my frustration. You
    have heard it. But it is frustrating that the Administration
    doesn't seem to agree that the Southeast part of the state can
    have both a healthy forest and a sustainable timber industry.
        I think the Administration can and should do more to
    provide opportunity for the people there of Southeast Alaska.
    Talk about wildfires. You know, we have significant wildfires
    in the state of Alaska. Oftentimes, it is eye popping the
    numbers of acres, hundreds of thousands, millions of acres. But
    they're usually in parts of the state where we have not much
    intersect with human population or property.
        We're seeing that change though in the state. And we have
    had a conversation again to speak about what is happening, as
    we're seeing warmer temperatures. The beetle kill that is
    moving up and around the state, the management decisions that
    are impacting our fire risk. This is significant in so many of
    our communities now.
        So, we pay close attention as my colleagues in the West do.
    I am looking forward to you sharing the wildfire outlook for
    us. Again, we're dealing with issues of drought, of mortality,
    and it just seems to build on that enhanced fire risk. I'm
    hoping that you're going to address how the Forest Service is
    using the major infusion of funding that we've seen in recent
    years aimed at wildfire risk reduction to invest in combating
    the threats to our collective states.
        I do want to note that the continuation of the proposal to
    modernize and reform wildland fire workforce pay is very
    welcome. As you know, in a tight budget environment in fiscal
    year 2024, we made it a point to invest heavily in our wildland
    firefighters.
        We ensured that they do not see a reduction in pay that is
    due to them in fiscal year 2024, but we all know that they're
    are looking for a permanent fix, and I know the authorizing
    committees have been working on this.
        So, I am looking forward to continuing to do what we can on
    the Appropriations side to take care of our frontline
    firefighters as they engage in this very dangerous line of
    work. As I am sure all my colleagues who interact with the
    Forest Service can tell you, there are so, so, so many needs in
    our states beyond wildfire, but oftentimes it is that one issue
    that literally sucks the oxygen out of the room.
        So, we don't want to lose focus on what we do to support
    our robust recreation industry, provide capacity to support
    critical mineral mining projects, broadband access, and of
    course, a timber supply for our withering timber industry. One
    important way we can enhance capacity is to empower Tribes to
    be partners with the Federal Government.
        And again, that is something that I look forward to
    extending conversation on. I do want to stress that what we
    need in our forest is not just capacity for its own sake, but
    rather the right capacity.
        The right workers with the right skills to meet the needs
    of our forest and our communities. So, I'm looking forward to
    hearing your vision of how the President's fiscal year 2025
    budget request will do just that. Now that you have a committee
    here that wants to try to work with you to do good things
    across our country.
        So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and look forward to the
    testimony this morning.
        Senator Merkley. Chief Moore, we look forward to your
    testimony.

                     summary statement of hon. randy moore

        Mr. Moore. So, Chair Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski, and
    members of the committee, thank you for the--inviting me today
    to testify, and we're grateful for your continued support.
        The President's budget names three primary goals for us, to
    modernize wildland fire management, sustain investments
    critical to mission, and ensure equitable access and benefits
    to Americans.
        Today, I will share our progress as we put money to work to
    confront serious challenges. I'll share how our work will
    continue to be a sound investment. We directly steward
    approximately 193 million acres of National Forest system
    lands. We reach across boundaries to assist states, Tribes,
    communities, and private landowners to keep millions more acres
    of forest healthy and productive.
        Every American benefits from these forests, directly or
    indirectly. Together, these lands provide basic needs for life,
    clean air, and water, while they contribute to energy
    production and support local economies.
        National Forest alone contribute more than 410,000 jobs and
    $44.3 billion dollars to the GDP. To sustain productivity and
    health, forests must be able to withstand these threats that
    are posed by wildfire, climate change, drought, disease, and
    insects. We invest the resources to act and ensure that they do
    just that.
        Foremost, we provide work to reduce wildfire risk,
    safeguard communities, and create resilient, healthy forests.
    In calendar year 2022, we launched the 10 year wildfire crisis
    strategy, and we have since moved to implement it. Annual
    appropriations, coupled with the historic bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act, provided an
    extraordinary opportunity to take bold and strategic actions.
        We did just that. We progressed to deliver on a promise to
    increase pace and scale of our treatments. We're not just
    treating any acres, we're treating in the right acres, in the
    right places, at the right scale.
        We focused initial efforts on 21 priority landscapes within
    Western fire sheds that are at highest risk. They account for
    roughly 80 percent of wildfire risk. These investments are
    paying dividends. Experts roughly reported that $700 billion
    dollars worth of housing and infrastructure are at risk within
    priority landscapes, this includes about $6.5 billion of
    municipal watersheds, which supply drinking water to 12 million
    Americans.
        In the last 2 years, we reduced the average wildfire risk
    to these assets by 8 percent for infrastructure, 8 percent for
    housing, and 12 percent for watersheds. That means we protected
    more than $175 million worth of homes that are at risk.
        In the Stanislaus National Forest, for example, 17
    communities are at lower risk, including the towns of Cold
    Springs and Strawberry. A million socially vulnerable people
    are at less risk. Nearly half of National Forest lands and
    priority landscapes are now considered unlikely to burn at high
    intensity.
        We must remain on course and build on these gains that we
    have seen and that we are seeing. We must also invest in our
    firefighters. We recognize the urgency of investing in a
    permanent and comprehensive pay increase to provide a more
    livable wage, enhance recruitment, and stabilize retention.
        We must also improve housing conditions and provide better
    care for firefighters' physical and mental needs and health. We
    look forward to seeing an end to reports of firefighters living
    in cars, with few benefits and limited mental health care.
        In addition to work to address the wildfire crisis and
    firefighters, we continue to take actions that support access
    and benefits from forests. Visitor use, hunting and fishing,
    energy and minerals development, forest products and livestock
    grazing generate 69 percent of the contributions to the
    economy.
        Thanks to the Great American Outdoor Act funds, we relieved
    some of the pressures from the $8.6 billion maintenance
    backlog. The budget requested $58 million to maintain critical
    recreation services, with a focus on offering welcoming and
    equitable opportunities. We are also making a difference in our
    urban environments.
        The Forest Service and partners are planting and
    maintaining trees in cities and suburbs, where about 84 percent
    of Americans live. Trees combat extreme heat and climate change
    and improve access to nature.
        The 2025 budget returns basic funding to most programs.
    This include forest products, which are vital to sustaining our
    rural economies. This includes sustainable timber supply. We
    know it's a critical component and is part of a complex, market
    driven system.
        And while we don't control markets, we can support industry
    through forest products and wood innovations, which help mills
    adapt and modernize.
        So, in closing, we are fully committed to meeting the
    challenges before us with resources that Congress provides. The
    people of America deserve nothing less than to see their money
    put to work to benefit all. Thank you, and I welcome your
    questions.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Hon. Randy Moore
        Chair Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here today to testify on the
    President's fiscal year (FY) 2025 Budget request for the U.S.
    Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service.
        The fiscal year 2025 President's Budget for the USDA Forest Service
    discretionary appropriations totals $6.5 billion for base programs and
    $2.4 billion for the wildfire suppression cap adjustment (through the
    Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund). The fiscal year 2025
    Budget focuses on three primary areas: modernizing the wildland fire
    management workforce; sustaining the foundational investments critical
    to the mission of the Forest Service; and ensuring equitable access to
    and benefits from the National Forest System.
        America's forests provide timber, clean air and water, forage, and
    energy production. They support local economies through employment,
    trade, recreation, tourism, green jobs, and livestock grazing. They
    host and protect sites and landscapes of high cultural, spiritual, or
    recreational value. These benefits are at risk from wildfires, pests,
    diseases, invasive species, and drought, all of which are exacerbated
    by climate change. It is vital to continue to act now to mitigate these
    threats and protect our resources. Alongside our partners, the Forest
    Service will continue to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires to
    communities in FY 2025 through investments in the wildland fire
    management workforce and throughout the high-priority landscapes
    identified within the agency's 10-year Wildfire Crisis Strategy. The
    investments highlighted below reflect services the Forest Service
    delivers through work on National Forests, partnerships with State,
    Private, and Tribal landowners, and our Research and Development
    mission area. These investments enable the Forest Service to restore
    long-term forest health and resiliency across landscapes the American
    people rely-on while ensuring equitable access to the resources on
    National Forest System lands.
        Recent analysis shows that in FY 2022, Forest Service programs and
    work contributed approximately 410,400 jobs (average of annual full-
    time, part-time, temporary, and seasonal) and $44.3 billion in Gross
    Domestic Product (GDP). Recreational visitor use, hunting and fishing,
    energy and minerals development, forest products, and livestock grazing
    generated 69 percent of the economic activity. The Forest Service
    continues to be a good place to invest and will maximize every dollar
    invested into our agency, making every dollar work for the American
    people. The citizens we serve deserve nothing less than to see the
    value of their money at work for their benefit.
         the president's fy 2025 budget request for specific priorities
        The following investments align with and enhance the agency's
    efforts to modernize and invest in our wildland fire management
    workforce:

      --The 2025 Budget proposes $2.6 billion for base Wildland Fire
            Management activities, investing in firefighter compensation,
            benefits, mental health, and wellbeing, and supporting the
            objectives of the agency's 10-year Wildfire Crisis Strategy.

        --Provides $216 million to implement a permanent, comprehensive pay
                increase for the wildland firefighter workforce, providing
                a more equitable wage, enhancing recruitment, and
                stabilizing retention.

        --$136 million for additional Federal firefighting capacity (570
                more permanent firefighters and continued transition to a
                more full-time workforce) to enable the Forest Service to
                more effectively meet the demands of the increasingly year-
                round wildfire season, while improving the work-life
                balance of firefighters and support personnel.

        --$10 million for mental health and well-being assistance to ensure
                our wildfire firefighter workforce are supported in
                managing the mental and physical aspects of their mission.

      --In addition, the Budget proposes $25 million to address the urgent
            need for suitable employee housing through necessary
            maintenance and repairs of Forest Service housing units.

        The 2025 Budget proposes to fund the National Forest System at $2
    billion, prioritizing recreation service delivery, climate smart land
    management, forest products, law enforcement, and the Collaborative
    Forest Landscape Restoration Program, while maintaining foundational
    hazardous fuels treatments to reduce wildfire risk:

      --$207 million for Hazardous Fuels Reduction: to return to previously
            enacted program levels and mitigate wildfire risk on 4.0
            million acres with a focus on high- priority and high-risk
            firesheds, building on hazardous fuels funding from the
            Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and Inflation Reduction Act, and
            in aligning with the agency's 10-Year Wildfire Crisis Strategy.

      --$58 million for Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness: to provide
            critical recreation operations, planning, services, and
            improvements, with particular emphasis on creating welcoming,
            sustainable, and equitable recreation opportunities for all
            Americans with a focus towards underserved and Tribal
            communities.

      --$41 million for Forest Products: to support the foundational
            funding needed to maintain the Forest Service's ability to sell
            timber, which can be a critical component to sustaining local
            rural communities.

      --$33 million for Vegetation and Watershed Management: to provide
            support for healthy and resilient watersheds and landscapes,
            sustain the production of clean and abundant air and water,
            assist with meeting the Administration's climate goals, and
            contribute to healthy and productive communities and Tribal
            Nations.

      --$34 million for Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program:
            to invest in communities and regions with a collaborative,
            common purpose in reducing wildfire risk and improving forest
            health and resiliency.

      --$21 million for Law Enforcement Operations: to provide critical law
            enforcement response for the prevention, detection, and
            criminal investigation of violations of Federal laws and
            regulations for the protection of visitors to National Forest
            System lands, Forest Service employees, and natural and
            cultural resources.

      --$1.5 billion for National Forest System Salaries and Expenses: to
            maintain the workforce needed to support the agency programs
            critical for forest health and resiliency, which complement the
            10-Year Wildfire Crisis Strategy.

        Further investments ensure that the Forest Service relies on the
    latest science and technology to deliver results on the ground and for
    the people:

      --$470 million for Information Technology Capabilities: continue
            modernization of our Information Technology systems that allow
            the public to better access our services, sustain emergency
            communication systems, and provide our workforce the tools they
            need to carry out our conservation mission.

      --$316 million for Forest and Rangeland Research: continue
            investments in research priorities, with a focus on climate
            change-related research including reforestation, carbon
            accounting, and fire and fuels research.

        These investments continue to build on the historic investments
    provided by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) (Public Law 117-58)
    and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) (Public Law 117-169). The Forest
    Service will continue to strengthen our long-standing work and
    relationships with States, Tribes, local communities, private
    landowners, and other stakeholders to adapt lessons learned into a
    coordinated and effective program of work to improve the resiliency of
    landscapes and watersheds, reduce wildfire risk, protect and maintain
    infrastructure, support outdoor recreation, establish tree canopy in
    nature-deprived communities, and invest in the reforestation of
    America's impacted landscapes.
        The Forest Service cannot succeed in this work alone, especially
    when addressing the firesheds highest at risk, which are typically in
    multiple ownerships. Through meaningful communication, expanded
    partnerships, and broader community support, the Forest Service will
    increase the use of prescribed fire and other fuel treatments and the
    management of unplanned ignitions to reduce long-term wildfire risks.
    Fortunately, we have decades of experience working through partnerships
    and collaboration based on common values and shared goals across shared
    landscapes as set out over 20 years ago in the National Cohesive
    Wildland Fire Management Strategy.
      ensuring equitable access to and benefits from the national forest
                                     system
        The Forest Service remains unwavering in its commitment to the
    values of equity, inclusion, and equal opportunities for its employees
    and the public it serves. The Forest Service maintains the intent to
    focus on prioritizing activities that will provide benefits to
    disadvantaged or underserved communities. The Forest Service vows to
    proactively engage in actions that ensure a safe, resilient, and
    harassment-free work culture where employees are treated with respect
    and dignity.
        The Forest Service will continue to invest in actions that
    facilitate access to the vital resources our forests and grasslands
    provide. This effort is twofold. First, we must ensure that those who
    rely on these services and benefits can access those benefits safely.
    Therefore, we are committed to improving the operation and maintenance
    of our extensive infrastructure portfolio that includes buildings,
    dams, communication sites, recreation sites, roads, trails, and
    bridges. Second, to carry out this work effectively, the Forest Service
    is committed to continued intentional internal and external engagement
    with Tribal Nations and communities that live by, visit, and depend on
    national forests. The Forest Service is committed to identifying and
    removing barriers to access Forest Service programs and services for
    historically underserved communities. This will be done by integrating
    equity-centered criteria in the design, funding, and prioritization of
    all policies, programs, and activities to center equity considerations
    as part of the decision process. The Forest Service will also work to
    remove barriers and boost economic opportunities through improved
    access to contracts, grants and agreements, and permits.
                   leveraging additional funding authorities
        It is expected that by FY 2025, much of the funding from the IRA
    will have been invested, but along with the tools and investments
    proposed in the FY2025 Presidents Budget, the Forest Service will
    continue to leverage funding within the BIL to combat climate change
    and confront the wildfire crisis, create new markets and technology for
    wood products, and restore forest health and resiliency through
    partnerships and collaboration across landscapes.
        The BIL provided $1.4 billion for hazardous fuels treatments, while
    the Inflation Reduction Act provided an additional $1.8 billion for
    hazardous fuels work within the wildland urban interface. In February,
    we announced $500 million for FY 2024 to expand work on the Forest
    Service's strategy to reduce the risk to communities, critical
    infrastructure and forests from the Nation's growing wildfire crisis.
    From 2022-2024, we have invested a combined $1.6 billion in the 21
    high-priority landscapes identified under the agency's 10-Year Wildfire
    Crisis Strategy as we continue moving these landscapes towards a
    maintenance state. These investments will help reduce the risk of
    wildfire to communities, Tribal lands, ecosystems, and critical
    infrastructure, including utility corridors and public water sources.
    Our work under the 10-Year Wildfire Crisis Strategy provides many
    values the public depends on and cares about including beginning to
    reduce risk to approximately 550 communities, of which 475 are
    underserved; 2,500 miles of power lines; and 1,800 municipal
    watersheds.
        Through Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA) (Public Law 116-152)
    funding, the Forest Service continues to repair and upgrade vital
    infrastructure and facilities in the National forests and grasslands
    through the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund
    (GAOA- LRF). In both FY 2024 and 2025, increased emphasis was given to
    using GAOA-LRF funding to address deferred maintenance on Forest
    Service-owned housing units as one step towards helping our employees
    confront the housing availability and affordability crisis in this
    country. In addition to the $40 million Congress approved in FY 2024,
    we are proposing another $30 million in housing-related GAOA-LRF
    projects to address this critical need. It is estimated that in FY
    2025, GAOA-LRF projects at FS will contribute 3,200 jobs and $360
    million in GDP.
        In closing, the President's FY 2025 Budget request for the Forest
    Service proposes a landmark investment that reflects the
    Administration's ongoing commitment to building and sustaining a robust
    and resilient Federal wildland fire management workforce, maintains
    funding priorities for risk-based wildfire reduction, and improves
    overall access to and utilization of our National Forests System. The
    FY 2025 Budget request also highlights the importance of restoring and
    creating resilient landscapes, improving infrastructure, and removing
    barriers to access. We look forward to working with this subcommittee
    to fulfill the President's goals and our key responsibilities for the
    long-term benefit of the Nation's forests and grasslands, and for all
    Americans. I will be glad to answer your questions.

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Chief Moore. And the
    first question I wanted to put forward is related to mass
    timber.
        In the fiscal year 2024 bill, we have the comment that the
    committee believes the service should be an exemplar in using
    mass timber building materials and require the use of mass
    timber in the construction, renovation, or repair of its
    facilities.
        The mass timber movement has really increased the ability
    to build buildings of multiple stories with timber rather than
    with concrete and steel, and so we are sequestering carbon
    rather than spending a lot more energy because concrete and
    steel are very energy intensive.
        Also, the buildings are very beautiful, they are more
    earthquake resistant, and they can be put up a lot faster. So,
    with all those advantages, we would literally like to see the
    Forest Service lead the way in using these materials. In some
    parts of the country, the building codes haven't changed and
    have created an obstacle.
        We've certainly changed them in Oregon and a number of
    other States, but those building codes don't apply on Federal
    land. Can you help lead the Forest Service into being kind of a
    driver of the mass timber movement, given all those advantages?
        Mr. Moore. Thank you for the opportunity, Senator, to
    respond to that question. And the short answer, of course, is
    yes.
        We feel that we are also making huge contributions for this
    area. In fact, my staff has informed me that looking at where
    we currently are and for this year, there is well over 2,000
    buildings that have been built, designed, or being designed
    using cross laminated timber.
        I would have you know that our forest products laboratory
    out of Madison, Wisconsin has been really one of the leading
    researchers on using this kind of technology, and we have been
    working with other companies like Woodwork and others to help
    push this issue of mass timber or cross laminated timber, those
    types of new technologies.
        So, we feel pretty good that we are responding. We have a
    lot of great partnerships. To give you an example of one of
    these successes that we would like to for you to consider, if
    you don't already know, we have actually the tallest building
    in the world right now using cross laminated timber that is in
    Milwaukee, Wisconsin and it is 26 stories high.
        And we think that this type of technology is going to
    continue to refine itself. Now, one of the challenges we have,
    and our researchers are working on this, is being able to use
    low value, small diameter material to use in these products.
        And so, that science is being perfected now, but it is not
    where it needs to be the same--particularly in terms of the
    large, commercial graded timber and lumber.
        Senator Merkley. Okay. Well, I am very glad to hear that. I
    am going to follow up to get more of a comprehensive report
    from your team on the uses in Forest Service buildings and the
    planned uses.
        And one of the advantages is that you can use small
    diameter. In fact, there is no reason not to use small
    diameter. So, it works very well with second growth forests and
    repeated harvesting on a multi-decadal cycle. Shifting gears,
    we have seen a number of sawmills close or prepare to close in
    Oregon this last year. I have a list of five of them. And the
    supply of timber is often cited as a significant factor.
        And one of the--there is multiple things that are going
    into this. One of these is, from some of our fires, we had big
    surges in salvage logging, which then may be wrapped up. We
    also have private timber companies that are shipping a lot of
    logs to China and to Japan.
        But does the Forest Service in its role--there's a
    partnership with the sawmills--kind of analyze the flow of logs
    and can help us gain insight on these various dynamics as we
    try to preserve these local sawmills.
        Once you have to carry the logs a longer distance, that is
    a big problem. And, of course, one of the reasons that I have
    been really supportive of forest management is that one, it
    makes our forest more resilient to fires, but it also supplies
    a steady supply of saw logs to the local mills and other
    cellulose.
        One mill owner said it's like we are weeding the woods, and
    he's producing like three or four different products from small
    scrap of wood, including pellets that are shipped over to Asia
    to burn.
        Anyway, the core question here is, does the Forest Service
    kind of track and analyze the flow of wood with these various
    influences as it tries to ensure this partnership with local
    sawmills is sustained and the sawmills stay open?
        Mr. Moore. Yes. Senator, the BIL and IRA, by the way, have
    really allowed us to increase the number of large scale
    contracts and agreements that we feel will provide increase
    availability of wood and wood products in the--for the long
    term. Now, while timber supply and some of the changes in the
    types of wood that is available now has created some concerns,
    there's other factors that are in play.
        The forest product industry, for example, and the
    associated mill and infrastructure, they're facing a set of
    what I would consider to be really complex challenges. The
    example that I use is over the last 20 years, the pulp industry
    has experienced a significant decrease in demand for paper
    products while moving toward a much higher proportion of
    recycled feedstock.
        And when you look at some of these shifts and changes that
    are taking place, I think our role, and we have been working
    with a lot of our partners, is to really create opportunities
    through wood innovations. Because when you look at National
    Forests, and when you look at the majority of products that
    come off National Forests, it is by and large small diameter,
    low value material. Now, that material still has a use.
        And so, how do we transition, I have to come to transition
    from not only just commercial saw logs, but also being able to
    use this material for things like what you've mentioned, cross
    laminated timber, nano cellulose material that strengthens
    products. How do we look at, you know, other, concerns like
    biochar, biofuel, and some of these types of things that are
    taking place across the country.
        And then there is market driven conditions that are taking
    place across the country. You know, if you look at the price of
    lumber right now, it is pretty low. When you look at what the
    Forest Service is doing, in many of our locations, we have wood
    that we have sold that has not been cut.
        And I think market conditions are driving a lot of those
    types of things. And so, the timber industry right now have a
    lot of concerns, a lot of complex issues, and they are
    legitimate.
        But I can tell you with certainty that if we do not have a
    vibrant timber industry, we are not going to be able to manage
    our forest and make them healthy and resilient. So, it's in all
    of our best interest to work together as partners.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Chief. Senator
    Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that--those
    questions. And thank you, Chief, for the very final comment
    that you said right there. You said that if we don't have
    viable timber harvest in our National Forests, you know, this
    whole thing just--it doesn't work, right, if we are going to
    manage them properly.
        And I've just listened carefully to your statement that you
    have provided here at the table, and I think I only heard you
    mentioned the word timber a couple times. You said specifically
    forest products includes a sustainable timber supply.
        We get that. But in your written testimony, you mentioned
    the word timber twice, and maybe I am just--maybe I am just a
    little too focused on the words this morning. But we can't get
    to forest products, we can't get to the management, unless we
    acknowledge and accept that these trees, this renewable
    resource that is on these great public lands, that there is a
    use for them, a very important use for us.
        But also, if we fail to manage them, there are
    consequences, and we see those consequences play out more and
    more as we are seeing the catastrophic loss to property, to
    human life when we see these major fires coming through so many
    parts of the country.
        And so, I want to just ask a little more specifically in
    terms of what role you see the timber program playing in the
    Forest Service for the long term here. Because the fear that I
    have, you have got this old growth conservation plan, you have
    the comments that Senator Merkley has made--bless you--about
    your small sawmills.
        What you are gonna have is you are gonna to have the
    industry, the folks that have been kind of hanging on by their
    fingernails, who do not see enough timber coming to them, so
    they close their shops.
        And we can talk about thinning, we can talk about forest
    products, but if we don't have a viable industry out there
    then--you don't expect the Federal Government to be in the
    sawmill business necessarily.
        So, how do we marry this all up? Because I am concerned
    that Forest Service has gone from the mission and the focus of
    multiple use, including timber harvest that can help these
    communities. And you spent a lot of time in your written
    testimony talking about the--ensuring equitable access and
    benefits to the National Forest system.
        And I've got all of my communities that sit in the Tongass,
    whether it's Ketchikan or Craig, going all the way up to
    Yakutat. Those communities are suffering economically because
    we're not seeing any harvest. And I am not talking big stuff
    now.
        And you and I know that because we have ratcheted back so
    far under the policies not only of this Administration, but of
    other Administrations as well, to the point where there is
    nothing there.
        So, how do we balance all that? That's a rambling question
    to a very important--a rambling set up for what I hope you will
    share with me as to what role you see the timber program
    playing in Forest Service policy going forward.
        Mr. Moore. So, thank you, Senator Murkowski. And I
    understand what you are saying. You know, it's a question that
    I think all of us have to sit down and talk about, and it goes
    back into the history.
        And I'll just go back as far back as 1986 to 1989, where
    timber that was provided off National Forest was--represented
    about 17 percent of all the timber that was managed across this
    country. Today, it is somewhere around 3 to 4 percent. And when
    you look at the conditions on the landscape, that have changed
    over time.
        And you look at the largest land use shift that we have in
    this country, which is wildland urban interface areas, you have
    a lot of communities that have built homes and communities into
    the wildland interface.
        And so, now there's a basic question that I think we are
    trying to respond to is that, should we be moving to protect
    communities from wildfire. And I think the answer is yes. But
    when you look at the wildfire crisis strategy and what it's
    trying to focus on, it's doing that.
        Now, the type of material that you have generally,
    generally is small diameter kinds of things. And so, when you
    remove that, it's not as much biomass or it's not as much
    material in the smaller trees than what we have historically
    had, and we're cutting back in the 80s and before.
        And so, what I think we have a duty to do--and I say we. I
    am talking about us, but I am also talking about industry, and
    I am talking about all the communities we serve, is how do we
    transition the industry to take more of the type of materials
    that we have in abundance.
        And that is why under the BIL and IRA, we have been
    investing quite a bit in wood innovation so we can help
    transition more towards some of the type of material that we
    have in abundance.
        And I keep going to the small diameter, low value kinds of
    material, but we are creating products out of it through our
    scientists and working with other partners and universities.
    And I talked about the nano cellulose material. For example----
        Senator Murkowski. Before you get into the technology,
    because I get where you are going there and I understand that
    we need this technology to address some of the lower value,
    younger growth.
        But you still have significant forests around this country,
    National Forests around this country, that are not that lower
    value, but that are dead or dying because they're old, because
    they have been subjected to disease, and are presenting a
    threat to this wildfire.
        Now, I'm not suggesting that the answer is just to go out
    there and clear cut it. But what you've just said to me is that
    Forest Service role here is more from a timber management role,
    to one where it is designed to protect from wildfire, which if
    that's really what you think Forest Service role or mission is,
    I think that that's a different approach.
        Mr. Moore. Yeah. No, that's not it. But it is a basic
    question that I think need answering because we only have so
    much capacity to go in either one of those directions, or you
    just balancing both needs.
        Senator Murkowski. Yes. Why does it have to be an either,
    or? I think you have got a compatibility. You have the ability
    to be able to harvest sustainably, while at the same time
    protecting your communities from threat. I don't think it
    should be viewed as an either, or. And if that's the way we're
    structuring things, I think that's a risk to us.
        Mr. Moore. Yes, of course it is. And its different all
    across the country. And so, what you may be seeing in Alaska is
    different than what I see in Utah.
        Senator Murkowski. Sure. Sure.
        Mr. Moore. And so, how do you balance all of those
    differences, the diversity across the country. And when I look
    at--I mean, I'll give you an example of dead and dying trees
    and how when we have been working with the logger to market
    that type of material, the kind of creativity that's coming
    out.
        So, there on the Manti-La Sal National Forest, as an
    example, a lot of dead and dying trees, which most of your
    lumber companies, timber companies don't have a use for that.
    But they started working with this one logger to look at how do
    you market this dead and dying material, and they've created a
    market.
        Just to give you an example, before it didn't have much of
    a timber sale program. Now, timber sales is in excess of 300
    million board feet on that small forest. It's because they've
    created a use for small diameter, low value type material and
    dead and dying trees that we didn't have before.
        And so, I think the solution is really to engage the
    community and finding uses for the type of material that we
    have geographically across the country. I think that's where we
    can be successful.
        So, what I would do in Alaska may be different than what I
    would do in Utah, or vice versa. And that's what we trying to
    do, is how do we engage the community into helping us make some
    of these decisions where we have been traditionally making
    those decisions. Because I think the best solution is working
    with the communities and our partners.
        Senator Murkowski. I want to defer to my colleagues because
    I have exceeded my time, but I would certainly urge you to
    engage with the Southeast Alaska communities who, again, see a
    great resource, a renewable resource, and want the ability to
    not only provide that value, but also see the economic value to
    the region. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We come back for second
    rounds and thirds.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Chief, I want to follow up on Ranking
    Member Murkowski's question. What I am not--in that individual
    case to the Manti-La Sal, what is the use case for the low
    value, dead and dying timber that they are taking off the
    forest?
        [Inaudible.]
        Mr. Moore. So, they were--in one case, they worked out a
    contract with this unintelligible company, where you sell fire
    wood at some of these gas stations. That is one of the
    opportunity there.
        So, there is a lot of different uses for the type of wood,
    and that's where we have worked with the local community to
    market the type of material that is in that whole community.
        Senator Heinrich. Yes. I think that makes a lot of sense,
    given the geographic diversity of our forests and the fact that
    we all have this issue of--the biggest challenge is the
    economics of trying to take small diameter wood out of the
    forest that we don't have the money to extract.
        And so, I think the more focus you can put on that in many
    of our states, the more we will see the forest condition
    improve as a result.
        You and I met last September with Director Chuck Sams from
    the National Park Service, to talk about how to prevent the--
    prevent cattle from grazing allotments on the Santa Fe National
    Forest from trespassing on to the Valles Caldera National
    Preserve and damaging the sensitive trout streams across the
    Northern portion of that preserve.
        That's been an ongoing problem. It's something I get
    complaints about all season long. What progress has been made
    on that problem since our meeting 6 months ago?
        Mr. Moore. So, Senator, Director Sams and with the National
    Park Service have talked about this and we have talked through
    the issues and we've basically committed to work together. So,
    the question was, well what's the result of that?
        And so far, the results have been the same, because we
    can't seem to get beyond where we are. One of the challenges we
    have, and the problem we are having is where the fence is
    located around forested areas, every winter, you know, trees
    fall and just break the break fence down.
        I do think that if we could pursue a hardier type fence,
    that would be more of a solution, but neither of us have the
    funding to provide the type of fence, say like the pole fence
    or something like that, that would provide a lot of stability
    and it would harden that fence line.
        Senator Heinrich. Well, its good that you are in front of
    the Appropriations committee then. I will be more than happy to
    work with you on a pipe and cable fence that can survive the
    winters out there. But what I would ask of the Forest Service
    is for the Forest Service and the Park Service together,
    together to take responsibility for the maintenance of that
    infrastructure and of any of the infrastructure we build to
    maintain that separation between the park and the forest. Is
    that something you are willing to commit to?
        Mr. Moore. Of course I am.
        Senator Heinrich. Okay. Thank you. That's progress. FEMA
    recently awarded a $1.9 million dollar grant to the state of
    New Mexico for watershed planning in the Hermits Peak Calf
    Canyon burn area.
        I want to ask if the Forest Service will participate in
    that planning process, cause we need to make sure so that the
    watershed plan can incorporate the flood risk for local
    communities from the damaged watersheds on the National Forest.
        Mr. Moore. Senator, yes, we would participate in that.
        Senator Heinrich. I appreciate that very much. We talked a
    little bit earlier about the backlog of infrastructure that you
    are seeking to address through the Great American Outdoors Act
    (GAOA). Can you elaborate a little more on the progress that
    you have made utilizing Great American Outdoors Act funds to
    reinvest in Forest Service infrastructure?
        Cause I know earlier that was a struggle for the Forest
    Service. And so, if you are doing better, I would love to know
    specifically where you're making progress, and are we going to
    get to where you are utilizing the full funds that we
    authorized?
        Mr. Moore. Yes. So, Senator, we are making some progress.
    The challenge that we really having, though, is that deferred
    maintenance is such a huge backlog that it's hard to make a
    dent in the amount of money that we have gotten through GAOA.
        But now, if we had not gotten the dollars through that, we
    would not have been able to do this. And I'll give you an
    example. We have $8.6 billion dollars worth of deferred
    maintenance. Every year we have more going into that.
        And we've estimated that it would take about $1 billion
    dollars a year to handle all of the deferred maintenance that
    we have. Now, we have been allocating roughly $285 million
    dollars or so from GAO monies to get at that backlog and that
    has been very helpful. So, thank you for your support and for
    this committee's support in providing those funds.
        But $8.6 billion dollars is a lot to try and get a handle
    on without a lot of additional resources, but we are doing it.
    We took our time with GAO monies, and we've had a lot of public
    meetings so that we could invite the public into helping us to
    decide how we would develop criteria to address this issue.
        And so, where we focused on was high public use areas, and
    we have a lot of support in the different communities because
    our criteria was based on those high public touched areas. And
    so, that's been our focus.
        Senator Heinrich. I think that's been a good focus. You
    know, we've seen that any closed infrastructure in National
    Forests is an economic limiter to these rural communities. So,
    if you have a campground that's closed, if you have
    recreational facilities that are closed, that has a direct
    impact on the gateway communities.
        And so, I very much support that focus. Last question,
    cause I am running out of time here. I know you've requested
    funding for 570 new full time firefighters, but we also
    recognize that we are not adequately compensating firefighters,
    even with the changes that have been made.
        We need to do more. Do you believe that you'll actually be
    able to find 570 new hires under the current conditions?
        Mr. Moore. I believe so. We are certainly moving into the
    hiring season with every intention of reaching that goal. You
    know, the challenge for us as it relates to a firefighter it's
    just a couple of things.
        One, that the trust is low that the pay bump will be
    permanent. And so, there's a lot of hesitancy within the
    agency. What we are also finding, though, is that when you have
    an employee who has worked 15 to 20 years, and when that person
    leaves, we've lost about anywhere between $1 and $2 million
    dollars investment in that person to get them up to speed where
    they are.
        And so, when you lose that kind of investment, it's just a
    continuous cycle of bringing new people in trying to get their
    proficiencies levels up to where that 15 to 20 year employee
    was at. So, its a real challenge for us, and that's what we're
    facing now.
        Senator Heinrich. I think that really raises for us,
    chairman, the challenge we have, which is we need to make these
    changes permanent. We need to address the housing challenges,
    the mental health challenges, and send the signals to these
    wildland firefighters that we value them and that that's going
    to be more than talk. It's going to be real resources.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. Senator Murray.
        Senator Murray. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Chief Moore, really glad to have this opportunity to hear about
    what you need for the Forest Service really important work.
    Like so many visitors, each year, I love the beauty of our
    National Forests in Washington State.
        We have the Olympic, the Okanogan, Wenatchee, Gifford
    Pinchot, Colville, and they're all amazing. They really are a
    national treasure, but they are also home to keystone species,
    including salmon, which are so important to my state. They are
    a resource in so many ways to our Tribes and to our
    communities, and they are part of our history.
        One of the first big businesses in Seattle was actually
    selling lumber to build cities across the West Coast. So, I
    really believe that we have a responsibility to not just manage
    our forest resources, but to maintain these for generations to
    come. And that means investing in our forests.
        Because if we shortchange them, there is not enough money
    in the world to restore forests if we fail to protect them now.
    I really don't want future generations hearing about the
    forests that we once had, or the trees that once stood really
    tall, or the salmon that once swam in their rivers. I want to
    make sure we pass those riches on to our kids and grandkids
    intact.
        And that means making sure that our Forest Service has the
    funding it needs to help preserve the public land in its care,
    to work with our communities, to be good stewards of our
    natural resources, and prevent and respond to threats like
    wildfire.
        And when it comes to wildfires, I am especially focused on
    making sure that we extend the fire fix and address the
    underfunding challenges that we have had for that work. So,
    first of all, thank you for your recent investments in Central
    Washington Initiative, which is delivering IRA wildfire risk
    reduction funding to the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.
        That forest has hundreds of thousands of acres that need
    forest restoration and wildfire risk reduction work. It
    contains communities with some of the highest wildfire risks in
    the nation. And I have heard from my constituents there that
    they're concerned about staff turnover, especially among senior
    leaders in Washington State, which will really inhibit projects
    like the Central Washington Initiative.
        What are you doing to stabilize staffing, especially among
    senior leaders, and reduce that turnover?
        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Senator Murray. And I had a chance to
    visit that area that you mentioned earlier last summer, and I
    would agree with you, it's a beautiful area, but it's at risk.
    And we've been doing a lot of work in there trying to protect
    that community from fires that could go through there any day.
        And so, we've made that one of the high priority areas, and
    we've began to see a lot of results working with partners in
    that community, with the collaborative and whatnot. So, in
    terms of, you know, employees moving, those are personal
    decisions that they make, you know, to look at advancing.
        And so, one way that we've tried to respond directly to
    that issue is not necessarily require or put a high value on
    people moving all across the country. That still provides a
    value but not the same as perhaps what we used to do in the
    past.
        The pandemic has changed a lot of how we look at employees
    and how we look at keeping them in an area. And so, we making
    adjustments now based on what we have seen, living through the
    pandemic in terms of employees wanting to leave or not wanting
    to leave.
        And what you'll see is that we try to be as flexible as we
    can to allow the individual employees the flexibility that they
    need or desire. We decided to do when I first became Chief of
    this agency, and this is a conversation I had with the
    Secretary, is that we needed to--if we gonna implement the BIL
    and IRA, we really need to hire additional employees.
        And when I looked at the agency and what had happened over
    the last 15 years, we lost 38 percent of the non-fire
    workforce. And that equaled to about 8,000 people. And so, what
    we wanted to do was hire half of that back, and then leverage
    the other half working with communities and partners to do the
    work, and that did a couple of things for us.
        One, it brought the community to the table to help make
    decisions so that we can make decisions collaboratively about
    certain geographic areas. Now, we've done that. And what we've
    also had to do was look at a different skill sets that we need
    to break into the agency to meet the needs of the future.
        You know, you look at the trends that are developing across
    this country, whether it's climate change, whether it's those
    types of things, carbon sequestration and those types of
    issues, we needed to add capacity to the workforce to deal with
    those issues.
        And so, we have been doing that and we added additional
    people, non-fire positions as well as fire positions, to the
    workforce. Now with the budget situation as it is, we have to
    take another look to see where and how we make adjustments in
    some of those decisions.
        But it gave us a chance to pivot to prepare the
    organization for the future and how it's managing issues and
    concerns.
        Senator Murray. Okay. Well, we are concerned there because
    we are seeing staff overturn at the top. And you start working
    with the communities and you don't have that continuation, it
    really makes it challenging.
        Mr. Moore. Senator, I will tell you this, what I am hopeful
    about is that we have excellent employees that can move up.
    Now, it doesn't get directly at your question, but I want to
    give you some assurances that we have excellent employees in
    the pipeline and what they need are opportunities now.
        And this is providing opportunities to get local people to
    move into these positions at a much greater rate than what they
    have in the past. And so, that's the plus side of this.
        Senator Murray. Okay. Can you just talk really quickly
    about the impact of the fire fix, how it's impacted your
    operations, and what a lapse in that would mean?
        Mr. Moore. Well, I if I understand the question right, you
    know, getting a fire fix really means stop the bleeding from
    our firefighters because we're we had been losing them at an
    alarming rate, particularly the experienced firefighters.
        We had also been getting some declinations over the last
    couple of years because of the pay and the fact that you could
    work at a fast food restaurant and make more than a lot of our
    firefighters on the lower end of the pay scale was making. This
    pay bump that Congress has provided has been the difference in
    keeping people in place longer.
        But I'll tell you, they're real, they're concerned that
    this may not be permanent. And so, they are looking at their
    options on whether they can provide for their families by
    taking another job or whether they should stay here and trust
    that Congress is going to provide the stability that they're
    looking for. Because they love the work they do. They love
    working for the agency. It is just that they have families to
    care for.
        Senator Murray. Okay. And I'm out of time, but I did want
    to ask you quickly about the Mount St. Helens Johnston Ridge
    Observatory. There was a massive landslide there last May. And
    that observatory means a lot to people who visit the region and
    families in my state. I know there's ongoing long term planning
    to restore that. It's gonna to take several years, and I just
    wanted to find out from you what the intermediate access is for
    recreation opportunities is going to be.
        Mr. Moore. I don't know that, but I can find that out,
    Senator, and get back with you.
        Senator Murray. Would you? I would appreciate that. Thank
    you.
        Mr. Moore. Yes.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator Murray. And I
    was just in the town of Saint Helens, which happens to be on
    the Oregon side of the border, cause it has such a spectacular
    view of the of the mountain. Let's turn to Senator Sinema.
        Senator Sinema. Thank you, Chairman Merkley and Ranking
    Member Murkowski. And thank you to Chief Moore for being here
    today. It's good to see you again, Chief Moore, and I hope to
    get you out to Northern Arizona again quite soon. I am looking
    forward to discussing critical forest restoration and
    firefighting needs with you today.
        My first question for you is, you know, thanks to the
    increased funding from the bipartisan infrastructure law and
    the IRA, and hard work from local Forest Service staff, the
    Four Forest Restoration Initiative, known as 4FRI, is beginning
    to make real progress in reducing wildfire threats across
    Northern Arizona.
        Partners like Coconino County, the City of Flagstaff, SRP,
    The Nature Conservancy, the National Forest Foundation, the
    Arizona Department of Forest and Fire Management, and many
    others have invested over $40 million dollars in partnerships
    with the USFS to get 4FRI where it is today. In addition,
    private industry, like Restoration Forest Product groups, has
    invested over $250 million dollars in infrastructure in the
    past 2 years to meet this challenge.
        So now is not the time to cut funding from this important
    wildfire crisis landscape. So how does the Forest Service plan
    to support this effort over the next 5 years as forest
    restoration implementation increases on this landscape?
        Mr. Moore. Yes. First of all, thank you for your support
    Senator over the years. We really appreciate it. One of the
    concerns that I would agree with you on is that 4FRI, for a lot
    of different reasons, has not been as successful as what we
    need it to be.
        And so, what we have decided to do was to take a step back,
    engage with people in the communities, and try and bring them
    to the table on how we are gonna to move forward with 4FRI. And
    I was just down there meeting with the region about a month or
    so ago to get a briefing on where we were going with 4FRI, and
    I have also assigned a person out of my office here in D.C. to
    work with them. And we have got a couple of things going on
    there.
        We have the need to work with Tribes. We have a need to
    work with the small operators. And we have a need to work with
    the large operators. And so, what we are doing is moving to a
    larger scale type of program or project that will allow the
    larger companies to have the products that they need to stay in
    operations, but also the smaller operators who have
    traditionally used those lands for those purposes as well.
        We feel like we have a really good path forward, looking at
    some of the stewardship contracts and just some of the
    agreements that we are working with the different folks in the
    community, and I'm hopeful that we'll be successful. We seem to
    be having success currently.
        Senator Sinema. Thank you. Another committee, I sit on the
    Homeland Security committee, recently held a hearing regarding
    the wildfire crisis.
        And I want to ask you the same question I asked a witness
    from the GAO. They've examined the impact of low pay on
    recruitment and retention of qualified wildland firefighters. I
    was proud to secure the temporary pay increase in the
    bipartisan infrastructure law, and we introduced a permanent
    pay fix for wildland firefighters, the Wildland Firefighter
    Paycheck Protection Act.
        Now, this legislation passed out of our committee last year
    with broad bipartisan support. It's urgent that the Senate
    consider this legislation quickly. But in your experience, how
    has the temporary increase in pay impacted the ability of fire
    services to recruit qualified candidates?
        And how has the promise of Congress working towards a
    permanent solution impacted workforce morale? And finally, what
    would be the impact to our Federal wildland firefighting
    workforce if these much deserved pay increases were to go away?
        Mr. Moore. So, let me start with the current status of
    them, whether it is through a CR or whatnot. The downside--the
    good side is that they are continuing to make the money. The
    downside is that it doesn't count toward retirement.
        And so, until it's permanent, the pay bump is not going to
    count towards their retirement. So, when you look at a
    firefighter that is up toward the end of their career, that
    have a, you know, 20 years in before they can retire, that
    doesn't do them any good.
        So, there is hesitancy there at that real high skill level
    area. Looking at the entry level type positions, they have
    other options that other companies and other entities are
    providing them that pays better, and the work is not as
    arduous.
        And so, the firefighters that we are recruiting, as hard
    and as dirty as that work is, they love it, and they are good
    at it. They are just not sure if this is the right decision for
    them. And so, we are having to deal with a lot of hesitancy. It
    affects morale, as you would imagine.
        And it's just a lot of tenuousness in the organization that
    we didn't have prior to this. And so, it's really critical that
    we have a permanent solution here, so we don't have to deal
    with that kind of an organization, or that side of the
    organization.
        Senator Sinema. Thank you. Switching back to forest
    management and 4FRI, I hear from constituents across Arizona
    that there are policies and procedures currently in place that
    are inefficient or restrict industry in reaching the pace and
    scale desired by the 4FRI initiative.
        What barriers do you see that hinder the Forest Service
    from meeting your goals of the wildfire crisis strategy, and
    are there policies that we in Congress need to address to make
    the Forest Service more effective?
        Mr. Moore. Yes, so we've been addressing those policy
    issues, Senator. I'll give you an example. When we got the BIL
    and IRA monies, we were going to do a lot of our work through
    partnerships.
        And in order to do that work through partnerships, we had
    to look at the policies and just kind of how it was guiding us.
    And to give an example, you know, to be a partner, we had to
    leverage--our partners had to provide 25 percent of the
    project. And if it's a significant cash contribution, up to 50
    percent. And when you look at the dollars we had under BIL and
    IRA, no partner could do that.
        And when you look at going outside of our traditional
    partners and going to nontraditional partners, they had even
    less of an opportunity. And so, I asked the question that, can
    we get rid of everything that is not in statute in terms of
    match requirements? Because if you take the Tribes as an
    example, there is indigenous traditional ecological knowledge.
    We didn't put a value on that, but that is very valuable.
        And so, the rules and the policies as they were, didn't
    allow for some of what we were finding working with our
    different communities. And so, bottom line is that everything
    that is not in statute has been eliminated from being a
    partner.
        And so, that has given us the opportunity to bring
    traditional and nontraditional partners to the table to do a
    lot of this work and to value their contributions differently
    than what we have in the past. And those are internal things
    that we have been making to allow us better opportunities to
    work with different people in the community.
        Senator Sinema. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, my time has
    expired but I have a few more questions for the Chief that I
    just submit.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. They'll be submitted
    for the record. Senator Fischer.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Chief.
    Nice to see you. In Nebraska, nearly 94 percent of the fire
    departments are entirely volunteer run, and the State has
    experienced an increased number of wildfires over the past
    couple of years. This has made programs like the Volunteer Fire
    Assistance Program vital to ensuring fire departments across my
    rural State are able to prepare and combat wildfires.
        The Nebraska's Forest Service was able to help hundreds of
    fire districts in my state, 475 in 2022 alone, improve their
    ability to prepare for and suppress wildfires through this
    program. And I was very pleased to see Nebraska receive
    recognition in the fiscal year 2025 budget on how our rural
    fire departments were able to utilize the program to purchase
    wildland firefighting protective equipment.
        In your budget request for the second year in a row, this
    program was level funded, along with other important programs
    like the State Fire Assistance Program. Given the integral role
    that volunteer firefighters play in combating wildfires in
    rural communities like we have in Nebraska, can you discuss how
    that decision was made?
        Mr. Moore. I don't know how that decision was made,
    Senator, because, you know, we react and respond to the budget
    that Congress provides us. Now, in terms of how we are working
    together.
        Senator Fischer. But this was in your budget request, that
    it was level funded.
        Mr. Moore. Yes. And keep in mind too, if you would, you
    know, we're trying to have more of a balanced look at things.
        And so, while we could use more, when we balance all of the
    needs across the spectrum, that's about what we thought was
    appropriate. Not saying that it was enough, but looking at it
    from a balanced approach, that's as good as we could do in the
    request.
        Senator Fischer. And can you outline for me other areas of
    your budget request that do support our volunteer firefighters'
    role in combating fire?
        Mr. Moore. Yes. You know, when you look at all the
    different agreements that we have across the board, we started
    with the assumption, and it's more than just an assumption, is
    that, you know, fires don't respect boundaries, and that it's
    in all of our best interest to work together so that we can
    work across boundaries.
        And so, we do work with many volunteer fire departments.
    And in fact, when you have wildfires even on Federal managed
    lands, a lot of those fire departments come and suppress fires
    there as well.
        Senator Fischer. Are there specific requests in the budget
    though that would benefit these rural fire departments where
    they are crossing those boundaries to work with Forest Service.
    So, I am talking funding here to be able to help these rural
    departments.
        Mr. Moore. Yes. The Community Wildfire Defense Grants would
    be one area where we are very helpful.
        Senator Fischer. And do you know offhand what the funding
    level for that program is?
        Mr. Moore. No, but I can certainly provide that to you.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you. That would be great. The
    majority, vast majority, 88 percent of the Nebraska forest land
    is privately owned. And I know that there are partnerships
    between the Forest Service with our state foresters and local
    landowners out there, and they're extremely vital to be able to
    provide for proper management and productivity.
        The Nebraska Forest Service has been able to reduce
    wildfire risks across 40,000 acres through that Forest
    Stewardship Program and plant 650,000 pines by efficient
    reforestation plans. Can you speak to the benefits of utilizing
    the Forest Stewardship Program to defuel privately owned
    forests, especially with wildfires being a large risk in my
    home state, and with the program being crucial to preventing
    wildfires on private forest land, can you explain why that
    program was level funded in the fiscal year 2025 budget?
        Mr. Moore. Yes. I'll start with your first question. When I
    look at how we should be working together on fires, the
    grassland fires are what we consider to be flashy fuels and a
    lot of times they can be wind driven.
        And so, our firefighters are trained not only to look at
    forest fires, but also grassland fires--all fires really. Now,
    in terms of how we work together, I think we have a pretty good
    track record when you look at all of our wildfire grants and
    how we are working with many of the fire department.
        We generally work through the states, to work with the
    counties and the rural fire departments. So, that's where we
    currently are working together on those types of issues,
    Senator.
        Senator Fischer. As you're likely aware, we had a big fire
    in 2022 at Nebraska's National Forest, at Halsey, Nebraska. It
    was severely impacted in 2022.
        And I've heard concerns from some people in the area about
    the delay in contracting to remove dead standing trees,
    specifically the ponderosa pine, for example, because some of
    the wood stayed out of the forest too long after the fire
    because contracting remove--because of the contracting removal
    delays, some of the wood is now unusable.
        And it's also my understanding that because of funding
    constraints, wood is being piled in decks along forest woods,
    and currently there isn't any buyer for it. Can you speak to
    the difficulties with contracting, the removal of the dead
    standing trees, and the funding constraints with a stewardship
    contract?
        Mr. Moore. Sure. So, the for timber restoration effort,
    that contract was awarded back in October of last year. And it
    was awarded to, I think, Miller Timber Services of Oregon. And
    so, they began the work on I think it is 850 acres of pine
    stands and another 250 acres of cedar stands.
        And so, that work is ongoing. And most of that was from
    beetle kills, fire kills and that type of material. So, there's
    another contract that was let in August of this past year, and
    we had three proposals on that with a September deadline.
        So, the contractor was selected, and what we'e looking at
    now is what do we do with those decks that we have piled up out
    there? And so, the contractor began work in January of this
    year, and right now they are expecting to complete all the
    cutting and all the decking and the massification on the pieces
    that they are not going to be decking.
        That should be completed by the end of May. And so, we are
    currently looking for other options to really remove the deck
    materials on the other 250 acres of the cedar stands. So, the
    fence contract which is part of that. It was selected through a
    competitive bidding process as well, and that will begin on
    April 15th--next week, sometime.
        Senator Fischer. Okay. But would you be open to having a
    dialog on that? If we receive more questions from our state on
    that, can we reach out to you and be able to get information to
    those folks?
        Mr. Moore. Yes, absolutely. And in fact, this contract
    that's going to start on April 15th, is really for the removal
    and reconstruction of approximately about 24 miles of fencing.
        Senator Fischer. Great. Thank you.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator Fischer.
    Senator Tester.
        Senator Tester. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
    Member. Thank you, Chief Moore, for being here today. You and I
    have talked extensively over the last year about the Forest
    Service's decision to fine a small electric co-op in Montana
    for wildfire service suppression stemming from a 2021 fire in
    Montana. And in fact, we just talked about this yesterday.
        I didn't intend to bring this up, but what I am hoping for
    is, that if you can't help me on this, then somebody who might
    be watching this video can help me on this. This a serious
    situation. The Forest Service fine a small electric cooperative
    in the state of Montana a little over $5 million bucks for a
    fire in 2021.
        To put this in perspective, the annual operating revenue
    for this small cooperative is $15 million bucks. If this isn't
    crazy enough, I recently learned that this is not a process--
    there is not a process in place for the cooperative to be able
    to appeal this case directly to the Forest Service, which in my
    opinion, and I don't think this is false, this is absolute
    fact, would be the agency that's most readily equipped to hear
    an appeal on a forest fire in Forest Service land, that knows
    about things like dead trees and ten foot right of ways on each
    side of the pole and those kind of things.
        Instead, the only recourse for this small cooperative may
    be to enter into a settlement. And I say may, because hopefully
    we can find a different way to have some assurance for this
    small cooperative, but may be to enter into a with settlement
    process with lawyers at the Department of Justice.
        Now, while I appreciate the importance of holding folks
    accountable, and I believe in it strongly, on taking
    preventative measures to avoid costly wildfires, I can tell you
    the jury is still out on whether the cooperative was negligent
    at all. And put that together, this process seems extremely
    broken.
        So, let's put this in perspective for some issues that we
    deal about in Congress. Let's say the Federal Government had
    the authority to fine a social media company one-third of their
    operating revenue or an airline. What do you guys think would
    be the process there? It would be chaos--with no appeal rights.
        Now, I understand that there're some statutes that the
    agency needs to follow, but there are some questions. And Chief
    Moore, you know very well, at least you should, and I think you
    do, know very well the fining of a cooperative with a $15
    million budget, one-third of its revenue--a cooperative that's
    been around, by the way, for 87 years--would have two outcomes.
        The cooperative either goes out of business and folks lose
    electricity, which is pretty darn critical in the 21st century.
    Or the cooperative has to jack up energy costs on its entire
    members, because cooperatives are owned by the customer, to
    cover the bill. Given that the blame for the 2021 fire is
    disputable, my question to you, Chief Moore, is how the hell
    did we end up here?
        Mr. Moore. Well, first of all, Senator, you accurately
    described the process. And anything over $100,000 dollars move
    into DOJ for settlement or resolution.
        How we got there, I think that, you know, it is the same in
    many parts of the country and especially out in the Western
    part of the country, where you have overstocked forests, and
    the fact that climate change has exacerbated the conditions out
    on the ground. We have similar traditions in many parts of the
    country.
        So, this is not unusual, and we've tried to work with the
    utility--not tried, but we've actually worked with the utility
    sector by removing a lot of the redundancies of requiring them
    to come in every year to get so-called permission to do
    clearance around their power lines.
        So, I don't know all the specifics directly with that, but
    I know that where we are right now, we haven't done anything
    different with them as what we would normally do when there is
    a fire, and we look at the cause.
        And after the investigation, you know, it was determined
    that a tree had fallen on their power line, which started the
    fire.
        Senator Tester. So, can I ask you, how often does this kind
    of a fee be put on cooperatives or investor owned utilities,
    this kind of a fine?
        Mr. Moore. Well, I mean, it's always different. I mean, you
    know, a large, public utility it's gonna different than a small
    co-op utility. PG&E in California for one. They have been
    litigated as well on fires that have started under their power
    lines. And so, this is not an unusual process.
        Senator Tester. I would just say this, you know how big the
    trees are in the forest. You know that a 10 foot right of way
    on each side of the pole is required.
        And I believe we tried to adjust that right of way a few
    times and have been unsuccessful in being able to do that. I
    would just tell you that I think we've put this cooperative in
    a position where if we continue down this road, we're doomed.
        And I will say, you know, we had the conversation yesterday
    and you had mentioned to me that maybe I should call up the
    Department of Justice. I have found one thing in my 17.5 years
    in this job, when I start telling lawyers what to do, it
    usually ends up with a bad outcome, and that is a fact. That's
    not a joke at all.
        Because the truth the matter is, is that something about
    it, they take incredible offense to it. And I would just say
    this, if we cannot find some way in this equation to add common
    sense to what's going on here, because this doesn't make any
    sense.
        In fact, when they first told me that this had happened, I
    looked at them and scratch--you're not telling me the truth.
    You're kidding me. You're, this--no, it's the truth, and it was
    the truth.
        But if we don't figure out a way to do this, and if we need
    a legislative fix, I got notion we can do it in a bipartisan
    way, but putting a small company, a small cooperative, or a
    company, it doesn't matter, out of business because we got a
    forest that is half dead or more, because we got a right of way
    that is inadequate, because they didn't do anything wrong--and
    there is lots of things we do in this world that are wrong.
        But this outfit didn't do anything wrong, and they get
    slapped with a $5 million dollars they're done. They're done--
    87 years of service by this company is done. And so, we need to
    figure out a solution here.
        And it can't be dependent on some attorney at the
    Department of Justice that doesn't know what the hell is going
    on in rural America to make a decision. I am just going to tell
    you, I don't like the looks of that outcome but that is me as a
    farmer talking, okay, and as a Senator.
        Mr. Moore. Yes. No, I don't disagree with you, Senator.
    This is something that needs to be addressed. I have--by
    statute, I just have no authority in any of this, but I agree,
    it's a concern. And there's a lot of conditions like that all
    across the West that are being put in a similar situation.
        Senator Tester. Hindsight is 2020, but I would love to meet
    the person who levied this fine in the Forest Service. I would
    love to meet that person because common sense was slim or none,
    and slim left town.
        Mr. Moore. Yes.
        Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Senator Tester. Senator Hoeven.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Senator
    Tester, that's the kind of thing I'd be happy to work with you
    on, if a legislative solution is needed cause we need common
    sense. And listening to you, I understand you'd be pleased to
    meet the person that levied the fine.
        I'm guessing wouldn't be so--he might not share the same
    enthusiasm, but yes, right on. We need common sense in these
    solutions. Chief, thanks for being here today. Good to see you
    again. When are you coming to North Dakota?
        Mr. Moore. Well, I'd certainly work on that with you. I
    know I couldn't go the last time. Chris French went would love
    to accompany you there.
        Senator Hoeven. Yes. Well, we worked on it before, and so I
    would like to extend the invitation again. We would love to
    have you come out and see us. So, we can work on that.
        Mr. Moore. Great Yes.
        Senator Hoeven. And I must tell you and commend you. Deputy
    Chief Chris French came out last year in your stead, and I
    don't know, he set a pretty high bar. I think maybe that's why
    you are avoiding us.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Hoeven. Because he came out, we took him out West,
    and he helped us with the spraying on these noxious weeds. We
    got about $1.7 million out of a commitment of $4.5, which we
    really appreciate.
        And that's what I mean, he came out and was good. And I
    want to compliment him and also want to ask for your commitment
    that we follow up and we get the full $4.5 for those noxious
    weeds. Do we have your commitment?
        Mr. Moore. Yes. And in fact, I believe he may have
    committed to doing that as soon as we got a budget. So, we just
    got a budget, so we are committed to providing that. And of
    course, that would be provided over multiple years.
        Senator Hoeven. Yes. Yes. Great. And would you recommend to
    him that he come back out? I mean, if he is going to do that
    well, we might find something else for him.
        Mr. Moore. Yes. If he did that well, maybe he can just take
    my place.
        Senator Hoeven. Well, that is what I am saying. You don't
    want him outshining you, so you have to come out----
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Hoeven. But we do appreciate it. We'd like him come
    back to. So, if you encourage him, that would be great. I also
    want to follow up--we've had this conversation before, but
    would you please express for the record that you are committed
    to multiple uses of the land?
        Mr. Moore. I am.
        Senator Hoeven. Okay. And do you believe that, you know,
    timber harvesting and those kind of things can actually benefit
    fire risk management?
        Mr. Moore. It can and does.
        Senator Hoeven. Okay. And how do you proactively engage in
    that process?
        Mr. Moore. In timber management?
        Senator Hoeven. Yes. How do you make sure that folks out on
    the ground are able to accomplish that and not held up?
        Mr. Moore. Well, I mean, first of all, they need to have a
    budget in order to----
        Senator Hoeven. It kind of goes back to what Senator Tester
    was just talking about. You know, the ability for folks on the
    ground to be able to take commonsense action and not, you know,
    face sanctions for it for some reason, right. Go ahead, sir.
        Mr. Moore. I think you've just said it. You know, it starts
    with the budget. And I think that as we get our budget in the
    different program areas, then provide those types of activities
    on the forest.
        Senator Hoeven. Along those lines, in the Great American
    Outdoors Act, we secured funding that actually helps in the
    grasslands as well, get water out there to livestock and that
    kind of thing. And there is a number of things that are
    involved. In some cases, it's, you know, digging wells. In some
    cases, it's developing stock ponds. In other cases, it's is
    just actually moving the water across the grasslands.
        And they have to get permits to do that. So, we have got
    this program between the Great American Outdoor Act and our
    state where we help the grazers get access to water. But one of
    the challenges they hit is permitting, permitting, and that is
    you all.
        Can you help us there, or do you have some ideas on how we
    can help with the permitting process? Cause it's, you know,
    they go through a lot of work to do it. It's very burdensome,
    costly, and takes a lot of time.
        Mr. Moore. So, I don't know the specifics that you may be
    referring to, Senator, but I'd be more than happy to look into
    any specific permitting issues or concerns that you may have.
        Senator Hoeven. Yes, that would be great. That'd be a great
    reason to have you out there, because it involves a lot of
    things. In some cases, it's the historical society. There is
    just a lot of things--steps they have to go through. And to get
    you out there with some of our cowboys and let them kind of
    show you and talk to you.
        Mr. Moore. Yes.
        Senator Hoeven. I think back to that commonsense aspect. I
    think you applying some common sense would find ways to improve
    it--streamline it.
        And then the last thing I'll bring up is I have--Senator
    Bennett of Colorado and I have legislation we call the Joint
    Chiefs Program, which I think you're familiar with. Would you,
    you know, talk a little bit about how you think that program
    can help with things like improve fire resilience, soil health,
    water quality, those kind of things?
        Mr. Moore. Yes. So that's within USDA, the Joint Chiefs
    Project as an example, is myself and my counterpart within RCS,
    Chief Crosby.
        We've been looking at a number of those Joint Chiefs
    projects across the country, and I think that they're very,
    very valuable, particularly when you look at private lands
    versus Federal lands and how we can come together to address
    some of those critical issues on private lands.
        But also, particularly if what's happening on highlands,
    usually Federal lands, is it causing impacts on the private
    land down beneath. And in many cases the Joint Chiefs projects
    have been a godsend in many ways to address a lot of those
    issues.
        Senator Hoeven. Good. Thanks for being here, and thanks for
    the help that we have been able to receive from you and your
    staff. And again, look forward to have you come to our State as
    well. Thank you. Okay.
        Mr. Moore. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Senator Hoeven. Now, we turn to
    Senator Van Hollen.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And look
    forward to working with you and Ranking Member Murkowski as we
    kick off this new appropriation season.
        Chief, welcome. It's good to see you. And I was pleased to
    see in the budget request you submitted, a grant for
    Stillmeadow Peace Park, for the Stillmeadow Community
    Fellowship, environmental education program. Stillmeadow Peace
    Park is in West Baltimore, and it's been a place of innovative
    partnership with the Forest Service's Baltimore Urban Field
    Office.
        The community has worked to plant over 2,500 trees as it
    works to restore the woods, and the Urban Field Office has been
    able to use the land as a laboratory to understand urban green
    spaces.
        A partnership with the local workforce training, nonprofit
    Turnaround Tuesday's, graduated a class of new foresters just
    last summer. Can you speak to how the Forest Service can use
    this kind of innovative collaboration to maximize the benefits
    of renewing the urban tree canopy?
        Mr. Moore. Yes. So, as you know, between the IRA funding,
    we had about $1.5 billion dollars to invest in these types of
    projects and similar projects, and we have been all across the
    country.
        Now, what is exciting about this is that $1.5 billion
    dollars is a lot of money, but we actually have seven times the
    request for those dollars, which says there's a huge need in
    many of our urban areas for these types of dollars.
        This particular project that you mentioned was awarded $2
    million dollars, and many projects across urban areas have been
    awarded these types of projects. And so, I think when you look
    at, and our science is telling us this, when you look at a tree
    canopy neighborhood versus one that does not have trees,
    there's about 17 to 18 percent difference in the temperature.
        And so, when you look at the value of this type of work in
    these type of settings, it's very valuable and is particularly
    in many of our disadvantaged communities.
        Senator Van Hollen. Well, thank you, Chief. And I'd just
    like to ask unanimous consent to put in the record an article
    entitled, Stillmeadow Peace Park is Baltimore's Latest Tale of
    Urban Reinvention.
        Senator Merkley. Without objection.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. I do think it's a great
    model and example of what we can be doing. So, I want to turn
    now to a little wider lens, which is the Chesapeake Bay. And
    the Chesapeake Bay Program released a report last fall tracking
    an overall loss of tree canopy in the Chesapeake Bay watershed
    as development and impermeable surfaces like driveways and
    parking lots have increased.
        The Forest Service has been a partner in the Chesapeake
    Forest Restoration Strategy, largely providing technical
    assistance to the states as they work to increase the tree
    canopy and riparian buffers.
        Could you just speak to the importance of trees and forest
    to the overall Chesapeake Bay restoration effort?
        Mr. Moore. Sure. So, as you know, riparian buffers, you
    know, they act as filters, is one of the uses of it. And it
    also removes a lot of air pollution from the area. It also
    reduces storm runoff. It also looks at the carbon
    sequestration.
        And when you look at stormwater runoff its--our team looked
    at the value of the work in the Chesapeake Bay and what it came
    up with, the trees are providing over $6 billion dollars of
    benefits annually, from air pollution, removal of stormwater
    runoff, and carbon sequestration, in the Chesapeake Bay.
        And so, I think what it tells you is that trees provide a
    really good buffer to filter out some of the things that's
    having negative impacts on the Bay, as well as many other
    areas.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. And, you know, my colleagues
    on this committee have heard and will continue to hear me talk
    a lot about the importance of protecting the Chesapeake Bay.
    It's a national and natural treasure--international treasure.
        And it also supports the livelihood of tens of thousands,
    if not millions of people in the entire watershed, from the
    watermen and others who get their living from the bounty of the
    Bay to the tourism industry, to the boating industry.
        So, a healthy Bay is not only important for ecological and
    preservation reasons, it's essential to our economy, and we
    need all pieces of this strategy to work, including the Forest
    Service. And I'm gonna to continue to reach out to you to see
    if there additional ways we can engage the Forest Service as
    part of our overall strategy to protect the Bay.
        I think I' right in saying that if you look at the land
    mass area to the water body size, it is the largest sort of
    ratio of land mass draining into a water body than any other
    water body in the country. From parts of New York, down the
    Mid-Atlantic coast, to Virginia, including the District of
    Columbia.
        So, when I talk about more driveways and impermeable
    surfaces, we're talking about a large land area where this is
    happening. And so, just to try to keep ahead of the game, we've
    got to be taking these measures.
        And to actually get the Bay clean up to where we want it,
    we're gonna to have to accelerate these efforts. So, this is
    one piece, an important piece of that overall strategy. So,
    thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator Van Hollen.
    And I'm gonna have to compare the Columbia River drainage with
    the Chesapeake Bay. Thank you. Chief Moore, the Rogue River--
    Siskiyou National Forest covers 2,700mi\2\, some seven
    counties, and two states, because some of it extends into
    California.
        The wildfire crisis strategy has identified the Rogue Basin
    as a high risk fire shed. And your team and my team and BLM are
    looking at investments in the landscape. With its
    identification as a high risk fire shed, can we make sure that
    it gets attention in terms of the funding for high risk fire
    sheds?
        Mr. Moore. Yes, Senator, it is considered a high risk fire
    shed.
        Senator Merkley. And can we make sure that it gets funding
    associated with being a high risk fire shed?
        Mr. Moore. Can I take a look to see where we are with
    funding, Senator, and get back with you on that? But this would
    be an important area for us, as it is with you.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. And despite the size of it, the
    2,700mi\2\, a big section in the middle, not included in that
    2,700mi\2\, is BLM land. If we include that, it's an even
    larger, and so we need cooperation between your team and the
    BLM team.
        Mr. Moore. Yes.
        Senator Merkley. Also, the Forest Service has a management
    plan direction for old growth across the National Forest
    System. In Oregon, we pretty much took out most of our old
    growth. I've been in many, many parts of the state where I look
    at some really big trees, 2 ft. to 3 ft. across, and very, very
    tall.
        And then I'll see the 6 ft. to 8 ft. across, stumps from
    the original harvest and realize that they're still kind of
    young. But we have that limited amount of old growth we have
    left is still critical habitat for a variety of species, and
    it's why the harvesting has really gone to second growth and
    protecting what remaining old growth there is.
        Not to mention that they're much more fire resistant to the
    fires that sweep through. Any insights on how the management
    plan direction for old growth is changing our perspectives or
    habits of the Forest Service harvesting?
        Mr. Moore. So, let's take a look at the wildfire crisis
    strategy, which I think this old growth amendment is going to
    be complementary to that because one of the biggest threats to
    old growth is--that has been identified is wildfires. Disease
    and insects is another one of the biggest threats.
        In order to manage old growth, then we have to go in and we
    will have timber sales. I mean, it's legitimate, in this old
    growth amendment. And so, you'll see a management within these
    old growth areas simply because they're being threatened by
    fire, disease, and insects.
        Senator Merkley. Well, I do want you to take a look at
    that. I want to make sure that what little of the true old
    growth we have left is not part of a harvest plan. Our mills
    have retooled for smaller trees.
        Our forest products have retooled for smaller trees. And so
    the few sections of old growth we have left shouldn't be in a
    harvesting plan.
        Mr. Moore. Yes. And it's not the same everywhere, Senator.
    I mean, there is geographic differences all across the country,
    and that's why it is really difficult to have, you know, just a
    standard that's going to apply across the country because it
    simply won't.
        There are some areas where you have larger stands of old
    growth, so you will be managing within those. There are some
    areas where you have a smaller growth, where you may not be
    doing much management.
        Senator Merkley. Do you have timing on when the land
    management plan directions for old growth will be available?
        Mr. Moore. So, the plan right now for the amendment is to
    have a draft sometime in June or so and to look at a final
    Rogue--regulative decision sometime toward the end of the year.
    That is the plan as of now.
        Senator Merkley. Okay. If your team could keep my team
    briefed on that, that would be helpful.
        Mr. Moore. Absolutely.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. Last year, you released an
    action plan to advance nation to nation relationships with
    Tribal governments. We also worked with you to rename the State
    and private forestry account to include state, Tribal, and
    Private Forestry to acknowledge that Tribes are a critical
    partner. What are you and your staff doing to engage with the
    Tribes to ensure they have a role in agency decisionmaking?
        Mr. Moore. So, we started--and you just mentioned it
    yourself, Senator. We did a name change within the agency. It
    used to be State and Private Forestry, now State, Private, and
    Tribal Forestry. Tribal was always in there, but it was silent
    because it wasn't named.
        We changed that this year. We've also developed a Tribal
    action plan to really get at that. And we're requiring our
    employees to become familiar with Tribal issues, as well as
    some of the treaties that we have had through the years.
        And I think education is the first place to start about how
    those treaties have been honored or not honored in many cases.
    And so, we wanted to make an attempt to educate our workforce
    first about Tribal action plans and the treaty rights and all
    of those things as relates to Tribes.
        So, we are in the middle of that now. We are having a lot
    of dividends. I know myself and the Under Secretary has gone
    out and visited many of the Tribes and spent a week out there
    and just riding and getting familiar with their perspective,
    their side of the issues. And looking at Northwest Forest Plan,
    you know, we have five Tribes. That is going to be a part of
    the Federal advisory committee on that.
        So, we've been making a lot of efforts to reach more into
    the Tribal communities. We've also learned too, and this whole
    process this past year, I don't know if you have ever heard the
    term of two eyes seeing, but typically the Forest Service and
    others have looked at Western science as a way and as a
    foundation for us.
        And while that has provided a lot of valuable knowledge and
    insight, the indigenous traditional ecological knowledge is
    also providing a lot of insights into how we should be managing
    the ecosystems.
        And so, they refer to that is two eyes seeing. Rather than
    looking out of one eye of the Western science, use both eyes to
    also include the indigenous ecological knowledge. And so, we
    are learning how to be more inclusive, and our intent is to
    continue to find ways to engage with our Tribal partners.
        Senator Merkley. One specific opportunity that you and I
    have talked about previously is related to the Klamath Tribes.
    Their reservation was turned into the Fremont Winema National
    Forest when they were terminated, so they have a deep
    connection to these lands. And they have been working to
    establish a co-stewardship and management agreement with the
    National Forest Service. Any update on the progress in
    establishing that partnership?
        Mr. Moore. Yes. I mean, I think we are right in the middle
    of establishing the partnerships. The other things that we're
    doing with that partnership and in addition to that partnership
    is applying prescribed fire and restoring habitat for fisheries
    that are culturally significant for the Klamath Tribe.
        We are also, in addition to that is look--working to stand
    up Klamath Tribe's owned and operated equipment and fire crews,
    which is really increasing firefighting capacity for the entire
    basin that you talked about.
        So, we are moving to help establish that whole fire
    mechanism within the Tribes, but also working to restore those
    things that are very important for the Klamath Tribe.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. I want to turn to Senator
    Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Kind of keeping
    with the focus on our Tribes, as you know well, under the farm
    bill in 2018, the Forest Service was provided 638 Authority to
    enter into agreements with Tribal Governments to conduct
    various projects on Forest Service lands.
        Our challenge in Alaska is that the 638 authority is
    limited both as to the scope of activity and to the area in
    which the activity occurs. It has to be on forest lands that
    are contiguous with Tribal trust lands. So, our challenge in
    Alaska is that we don't have much in the way of trust lands.
    And instead, you know, we've got the model under ANCSA, that
    includes Alaska native corporations that hold and manage the
    lands for the benefits.
        So, we're looking at this and suggesting that we need to
    expand this 638 Authority for the Tribal Forest Protection Act
    projects so that we can add on additional activities across
    forest lands, whether it's contiguous or adjacent to the Tribal
    trust lands.
        So, we look at this as a real opportunity for partnering,
    and in partnering particularly in areas where you have exactly
    what you have just acknowledged, the indigenous traditional
    cultural knowledge is there on the ground. Let's utilize our
    indigenous peoples and all that they bring to the table, and we
    think that 638 Authority can help us do just that.
        There's a little bit of resistance within USDA and the
    Forest Service. And so, what I'm asking for from you today,
    Chief, is your commitment to work with me and my staff as we
    look to expand this 638 Authority in Alaska and also for
    opportunities outside of the Tribal Forest Protection Act.
        Mr. Moore. Yes, Senator. I've enjoyed working with you on
    this issue.
        Senator Murkowski. And I know that there are others in my
    capacity as the ranking member on the Indian Affairs committee.
    I've had conversations with others about this who again think
    that there're real opportunities there.
        You know, we have an example in Alaska already where the
    Forest Service and Tlingit, Haida have signed this memorandum
    of understanding in October last year. I think it's a good
    first step, this collaboration, our commitment to collaborating
    on resource management, and the planning there at Mendenhall
    Glacier.
        I think that that's a positive, but I hope that the Forest
    Service doesn't stop there and consider 638 compacting on this.
    I think it is a great opportunity. Southeast Alaska sustainable
    strategy. This is something where, again, you and I have had
    conversation.
        USGA's initial commitment, and I underscore initial
    commitment, was $25 million dollars to focus on the local
    priorities for the short term investment there. We've seen good
    awards coming for those projects. That's great. I'm hearing
    good, good things from folks in Southeast about that.
        But there's a recognition that while $25 million is not
    something to walk away from, it is significant. But we also
    recognize that this was a commitment that was made by the
    Federal Government when you basically shut the door on any real
    timber opportunities coming out of the Tongass, and as a
    consequence of the decision on the Roadless Rule.
        So, we've got a lot of folks that are looking at the long
    term economic health in the region and asking me, well, what
    does it mean as a follow on? And this is a conversation that I
    have had with Secretary Vilsack. It was not a very satisfying
    conversation. I think I have shared with you.
        But it was made clear not just to me, but to the people of
    the Tongass, that that $25 million dollars was going to be an
    initial investment. So, I will ask you the question this
    morning about what we can expect in terms of additional
    investments and their focus towards long term economic
    sustainability.
        Mr. Moore. Okay. So, the data that I have is that in
    addition to that $25 million dollars that has been leveraged by
    tens of millions of building IRA dollars--so let me look into
    this, Senator, and get back with you to see if there is a
    disconnect. And if so, where? But my information, my data is
    telling me that we have leveraged that through BIL and IRA
    dollars.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I would appreciate if you would
    look to that and confirm, because when the commitment was made
    for the Southeast Sustainable Strategy and that initial $25
    million dollars, we had not yet dreamed of IIJA.
        And I know that for a fact, because I was one of the
    architects of that. And so, there was a commitment made. You're
    correct, we have seen some pretty extraordinary resources come
    into the region because of IIJA and the IRA. I grant you that.
    But I also know that that is additive. It does not reference
    the initial agreement that we had with the Southeast
    sustainable strategy, so I look forward to your follow on.
        Let me continue on Alaska specific issues. I know that you
    are familiar with my legislation, that we are working through
    the process to address the landless Native Alaskans in
    Southeast Alaska. I appreciate that Forest Service
    understanding on this issue has evolved. I think that that has
    been very important to us as we've moved through the process.
        I think Forest Service has gone from a position of
    opposition to realizing that what we are attempting to do is to
    make good on the commitment to these five communities and are
    working cooperatively with us on that.
        Mr. Moore. Yes. You know, so we are committed to working
    with you on this, Senator. This is something that needs to be
    addressed, and we agree with you on this. So, we are committed
    to working with you.
        Senator Murkowski. Good. Thank you I appreciate that. And
    another area where again we need to recognize not kind of, but
    an injustice, that many of our Alaska Native veterans who were
    serving in Vietnam at the time that they were allowed to, to
    select their land entitlements, they were not able to do so
    because of their service, and they were left out.
        So, we're trying to make good on the commitment to the
    remaining. There's not that many of them that are left. One of
    the challenges that we have is that we have--you know, and
    we're very proud of the fact that we had so many Alaska Natives
    serving who were from the Southeastern region, but the
    challenge that we have is that the legislation that we were
    able to pass to allow for opening up for additional selection,
    excluded any selections in the Tongass.
        So, I hear from veterans all the time that it is like
    giving me a promise for a bus that will never come. I get a
    ticket, but this bus will never even be in my community, in my
    region. I will never be able to access it.
        So, we're trying to be helpful and creative. We are working
    through legislation that would open up areas in refuge land.
    I'm moving legislation that would open up areas in Forest
    Service.
        I just had a meeting with Alaska BLM last week in
    Anchorage, and I'm told that we have got about 500 veterans in
    Southeast who have not filed any application because they feel
    it would be meaningless to have to select in an area that is
    1,200 miles from their home, with no connection to that.
        And so, I'm encouraging those veterans to apply, even
    knowing that the Tongass is not available right now. But I am
    hoping that Forest Service is looking at this issue and is
    considering helping us address this 50 year inequity to our
    Vietnam veterans.
        And we've got more work to do on this, I understand that,
    but I would hope that Forest Service would be helping us as we
    try to seek areas for these veterans.
        Mr. Moore. Senator, we do want to do the right thing. And
    so, we're interested in working with you to see if there is
    some kind of solution to this.
        Senator Murkowski. Good. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Co-Chair Murkowski.
    And I want to turn to an issue related to the National Ambient
    Air Quality Standard. A new standard was rolled out by the EPA,
    in which they looking at the small particles that do the most
    damage to lungs, and they reduced basically by 25 percent the
    objective. That is, lowering the particulate matter 2.5
    standard from 12 micrograms per meter cube to 9.
        And if you don't meet that standard, then an area has to--
    they're labeled as non-attainment center. They have to produce
    a plan on how they are going to achieve it. There has been a
    lot of questions raised about the impacts of this, and one of
    those questions is how it might affect prescribed burns.
        Senator Daines and I raised this question to the EPA, and
    they responded and said, essentially, there is a pathway called
    the Exceptional Events Program. I want to see if you understand
    this to mean that prescribed burns will be exempted from
    essentially triggering non-attainment, or whether that still is
    a little uncertain.
        Mr. Moore. Well, Senator, for me it's still a little
    uncertain. But I think it's something that we have to have some
    really honest discussions around because it is an either, or.
    We can either look at using prescribed fires or we can deal
    with the aftermath of wildfires.
        And there's a difference in the smoke, even though it's
    smoke from a fire. We have to really have an honest discussion
    about weighing the risk for either one and taking the, you
    know, the least damaging option.
        Because in this case, if we do not make a decision on this,
    we are going to continue to experience what we experiencing on
    our landscapes. So, this is something that we really need to
    have some discussions around. I understand, you know, the clean
    air attainment and what we're after, but we are at a point, I
    think, in this country where we ought to have some really hard
    discussion, even if it's temporary relief, on some of the
    requirements.
        Senator Merkley. All right, so I am disturbed by your
    answer. There was a November MOU between the EPA and a whole
    bunch of other agencies.
        I think it's really important to nail this down, because if
    we don't get clarity on prescribed burns not triggering non-
    attainment, it will be a reason many communities will say
    absolutely don't do that two day prescribed burn because it's
    going to affect everything in our local economy because we will
    be labeled non-attainment.
        So, this is something that has to be figured out. The
    communities in Oregon that used to really resist prescribed
    burns because they didn't want those couple days of potential
    smoke now are asking at my town halls about making sure that we
    reduce the risk of a fire sweeping through their town after
    witnessing our 2020 Labor Day fires. I mean, people across the
    nation think of Paradise, California.
        But our 2020 fires, I traveled from the Northern border of
    our State to California and back, and never got out of the
    smoke. Six towns wiped out. Another six partially wiped out. It
    was extraordinary. People understand the risk with the
    changing, longer, hotter, drier summers.
        But this is a potential obstacle to using a significant
    tool to reduce risk. So, can I get your commitment to work on
    this, to try to get clarity that prescribed fires are the--
    particulates that come from prescribed fires will not be
    utilized in triggering non-attainment?
        Mr. Moore. Yes. Perhaps I wasn't really clear in my
    response, but I am actually agreeing with you, Senator, that we
    need to be looking at prescribed fire in a much larger way than
    what we currently are. That's got to be part of the solution to
    this wildfire situation that we have going.
        Senator Merkley. And that will include working to make sure
    that smoke from prescribed fires does not trigger or count
    towards non-attainment?
        Mr. Moore. I don't know where we--I have no control over
    that. But I do think--that is a discussion I think we have to
    have, because I'm in support of prescribed burning. In fact,
    I'm in support of more prescribed burning in what we are
    currently doing. We're organizing to do more prescribed
    burning. And so, I think that's our position on the issue.
        Senator Merkley. Okay. Well, I'm hoping you would say yes,
    I will work to make sure that prescribed fire smoke does not
    count towards non-attainment. I think you're kind of saying
    that, but I'm not hearing it that clearly.
        Mr. Moore. I'm kind of saying it, but I don't know the
    unknown.
        Senator Merkley. Okay. Well, I want to try to get from a
    less clear statement to a clearer action, because this is
    really important piece of the puzzle that there's a lot of
    concern over.
        Mr. Moore. Yes.
        Senator Merkley. Did you have any last question?
        Senator Murkowski. Just very quickly, Mr. Chairman. And
    thank you, Chief, for giving us so much time here this morning.
    I mentioned in my comments that Alaska is no stranger to
    wildfire. Most of our fires are typically up North, out on the
    tundra.
        But we're seeing wildfires in different places. In areas
    that have typically been viewed as almost wetlands. In areas
    that have a great deal of permafrost. The question for you this
    morning is, as we're seeing fires in areas that typically
    didn't burn, we're seeing some concerns, particularly when
    you've a burned area and then exposure to areas that have been
    basically frozen through the permafrost, and now you've got
    releases, to the concerns that the chairman has--when that area
    is now kind of opened up, you have releases of carbon into the
    atmosphere that are notable.
        I'm wondering if the Forest Service has done any research
    into increased fires in areas with permafrost.
        Mr. Moore. No, we haven't to my knowledge, but that's a
    very interesting aspect. I'll talk with our scientists.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. The other thing I would like you
    to explore with them is whether or not there's been any
    research with regards to impacts on watershed quality.
        As you probably know, we are experiencing some salmon
    declines, catastrophic impacts to salmon, and I'm wondering if
    there is any relationship between the catastrophic fires that
    we see and the dwindling populations that we are seeing on the
    Kuskokwim and on the Yukon.
        So, I don't know if you can ask your research folks if
    there's been any consideration given to that?
        Mr. Moore. I would certainly do that. I know typically you
    would have some impacts, because of the sedimentation that's
    going to be draining into the rivers, which would have a
    negative impact on----
        Senator Murkowski. Which all makes sense. We have always
    had fires, though. And so, what we are trying to understand is,
    this has been an unprecedented decline in our fisheries.
    Something else is going on. Is it because we are having fires
    in parts of the state that we haven't seen before.
        So, if there's no research out there, I get it. But if
    there is something, we would certainly be interested in that.
    And then my last question to you this morning is, I know you
    were up in the Chugach, and I hope you had an opportunity to
    discuss with the region the demand for increased access to the
    recreational areas. I think we have made some good progress on
    special use permits over the years.
        And so, know that we continue to hear from that the
    outfitters and the guides and the other providers, they want to
    share these areas with so many other people. So, I'm hoping
    that you heard firsthand that that increased demand is there.
        We want to do it right. We get all that. But hopefully you
    can work with us on accessing these recreation areas.
        Mr. Moore. I will, and I did hear about that when I was
    there on my visit.
        Senator Murkowski. Good, good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. And Chief Moore, thank you for
    addressing these many issues. And do you have a little bit of
    follow up?
        Mr. Moore. Just, if you don't mind, Senator, just a
    clarification because I am not sure if it came across, but the
    old growth amendment process, I had shared with you that is
    going have a draft June or July, but maybe what wasn't clear is
    that the draft will be completed in early 2025, but between the
    draft and the final, we'll have another public comment.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        Senator Merkley. Okay. Great. Thank you. I appreciate that
    clarification. The record for the hearing will remain open
    until the close of business on April 17th.
        So, if members have any additional questions they would
    like to submit, homework for Chief Moore's team, or articles,
    that is the deadline. And so, with that, this hearing is
    adjourned.
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Kyrsten Sinema
        Question. What steps can Congress take to assist the Forest Service
    with expediting the availability of NEPA approved acres for forest
    health, restoration and thinning efforts in western regions of the
    United States--and specifically the Southwest Region--prone to
    catastrophic wildland fire?
        Answer. The Forest Service appreciates congressional support in the
    line items that funded NEPA efficiencies including those in the
    Inflation Reduction Act. These funds allowed the Forest Service to
    invest in additional resources for NEPA and pre-implementation surveys
    leading to more accomplishments. The funds also provided an opportunity
    for the Forest Service to find more efficient ways to meet requirements
    in both NEPA and pre-implementation.
        Generally speaking, in the Southwestern Region, we experience more
    process delays related to cultural heritage and archeological survey
    work when protecting cultural resources on National Forest System
    lands. The availability of NEPA-approved acres is not a primary factor
    in preventing the agency from treating more acres. Continuing to invest
    with budgets dedicated toward meeting the pace and scale of wildfire
    treatments and healthy forest lands would allow the Forest Service to
    meet the regulatory requirements, and plan for the best treatments on
    the land in a manner that meets the pace and scale needed for
    restoration and resiliency.
        Question. A substantial part of the challenge with 4FRI, now that
    we are in the implementation phase, is the staff capacity to execute.
    None of the 4 forests are fully staffed and the Apache-Sitgreaves is
    around half-staffed. What is the agency doing to fill jobs and what
    jobs are being prioritized?
        Answer. The four national forests associated with 4FRI exhausted
    all hiring opportunities and strategies available to the Agency over
    the past few years, including direct hiring authorities (Veterans'
    Preferences, Schedule A, and the Resource Assistant Program), national
    hiring efforts, and priority reassignments for existing employees, to
    meet the needs of the 4FRI landscape. In addition, 4FRI utilized
    innovative approaches to accomplish the fuels reduction goals in the
    Wildfire Crisis Strategy. Examples include expansion of existing
    partnerships, use of streamlined contracting mechanisms to hire crews
    outside the Federal Government, use of more efficient types of
    contracts, larger acreage in contract offerings, and stewardship
    contracts for work supervised by the Forest Service but completed,
    after competition, by industry (e.g., surveying, layout, and
    silvicultural prescriptions). 4FRI continues to prioritize positions
    directly associated with fuels reduction on the ground and has
    experienced increased interest in these positions.
        Even with these innovative hiring strategies, there are locations
    like the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest that have a hard time
    recruiting and retaining candidates because of their comparative
    remoteness There is still ample opportunity for improvement in
    addressing agency quarters for entry-level employees in remote areas
    and we look forward to opportunities to discuss these and broader
    housing needs of the wildfire crisis strategy workforce with the
    committee.
        Question. Forest restoration treatments typically generate
    approximately 26 green tons of logs and 23 green tons of slash, or
    ``biomass'' per acre. Biomass cannot be left on the ground after
    treatments as an accumulation of dry fuel would actually increase the
    fire risks, and it cannot be piled and burned in the field as the
    number of acres treated would generate unacceptable smoke and air
    quality issues. Even if only 75% of the slash is removed, and if only
    30,000 acres are treated per year, over 500,000 green tons of slash
    must be removed and disposed of each year.
        The only solution to dispose of this scale of biomass is to burn it
    under controlled-emissions conditions to generate electricity. This is
    not viable economically without the Forest Service providing for slash
    removal through a Service Contract. The current Service Contract with
    Novo Biopower in Northern Arizona was structured prior COVID and does
    not reflect post-COVID economic realities. What actions is the Agency
    taking to increase the funding of the Service Contract so that it meets
    the post-COVID increased slash removal costs, and that it remains
    funded for a full 10-year duration?
        Answer. Optimizing the pace and scale of our hazardous fuels
    reduction with increased costs will require use of all available tools
    , including prescribed fire and use of biomass for electricity
    generation. The Southwestern Region currently holds a Master
    Stewardship Agreement with NovoPower to help address the biomass
    concerns from restoration treatments. This agreement was signed in 2022
    to improve access to slash removal across the 4FRI landscape, beyond
    the historical operational footprint of NovoPower. The agreement
    includes a total of $20 million dollars. As of the spring of 2024, only
    $1.7 million had been spent due to accounting challenges associated
    with the unique nature of the agreement. The Regional Office met with
    NovoPower in March of 2024 to discuss ways to improve the distribution
    of funds to meet both the Agency's goals of increased fuels treatments
    and greater financial access for NovoPower. By April of 2024, the
    agreement was modified and we are optimistic it will immediately
    improve the economic viability of biomass removal across 4FRI.
        In addition to these direct actions, the Regional Office has
    engaged the utility companies that work with NovoPower to stress the
    importance NovoPower plays for fuels reduction work and watershed
    protection in Northern Arizona. The Agency appreciates the ongoing
    congressional support for opportunities like Wood Innovation Grants to
    continue to incentivize the research and development of solutions to
    remove biomass while reducing wildfire risk and supporting market
    opportunities.
        Question. During the April 10th hearing you stated that 4FRI has
    not been as successful as we need it to be'. Can you elaborate on this?
    What could USFS have done better to ensure the program was successful?
    What lessons were learned and are there examples of how those lessons
    learned have been utilized to turn things around?
        Answer. Specifically, the Agency recognizes that the first 10-year
    stewardship contract did not result in the on-the-ground wildfire risk
    reductions that both Arizonians and the Forest Service desired. In
    response, the Agency conducted a rigorous examination of the current
    and desired industry market conditions needed for 4FRI to be
    successful. We gained a deeper, more comprehensive understanding of
    those needs and are now better positioned to balance the needs of
    larger and smaller operators partnering with us on 4FRI. 4FRI
    collaborative efforts include strategically located treatments that
    have a direct nexus to 58 at-risk communities, safeguarding 572 miles
    of transmission lines, and protecting 124 watersheds. This aligns with
    the Agency's consistent approach to addressing the wildfire crisis.

      --For FY 2024, working collaboratively with our partners on the 4FRI
            WCS Landscape, we've accomplished treatment of over 100,000
            acres of hazardous fuels and commercially thinned acres.

      --In FY 2024, 4FRI's record 44,422-acre commercial timber offering
            includes 16,354 acres from partner commitments through the Good
            Neighbor Authority and other agreements, contributing 37% of
            our program of work leveraged with BIL and IRA investments from
            FY 2022 and FY 2023

      --The Forest Service is in regular (weekly) communications with
            various industry partners and groups. In addition, the Region
            meets regularly with non-industry and congressional partners on
            4FRI.
        Question. In January 2021, USFS committed to high priority projects
    in the 4FRI landscape over the next 10 years. USFS commitment has been
    successful in attracting additional partner funding. What is USFS's
    budget strategy to ensure USFS completion of the 2021 4FRI funding
    commitments?
        Answer. The bottom line is that we have made great strides towards
    making American communities safer under the Wildfire Crisis Strategy
    (WCS) using a range of historic investments, including those provided
    by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act.
    We have shown that with investments from Congress, we can deliver on
    meaningful work to reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfires. We expect
    to see outcomes for multiple years from investments we are making now,
    and we continue to take new and innovative steps to achieve our goals
    under the strategy.
        Question. USFS announced several Keystone Agreements with various
    non-profit partners. Can you detail for me how the funding for these
    agreements will be used, what the expected outcomes are, the timeline
    for each agreement, and which Wildfire Crisis Strategy Priority
    Landscapes will benefit from these Keystone Agreements?
        Answer. Keystone agreements are partnership agreements and support
    the WCS, landscape restoration, and other pressing agency challenges.
    Any landscape or forest across the National Forest System can explore
    the option to tier to a keystone agreement. Current scope, timelines,
    and priority landscapes include:
        The Nature Conservancy partnership is active through March 2031 and
    focuses on wildfire risk reduction and ecosystem restoration through
    convening, workforce development, site prep, thinning, revegetation,
    roads, trails, and activities related to supporting work and certain
    on-the- ground, active management. Additional work includes supporting
    prescribed fire training, implementation, capacity building, science,
    and traditional ecological knowledge. WCS landscapes include: Colorado
    Front Range; Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI).
        The National Forest Foundation partnership is active through March
    2043 and focuses on supporting Wildfire Crisis Strategy implementation
    and project needs; including resource surveys, watershed health
    improvement projects, road and trail maintenance, decommissioning, and
    reforestation. WCS landscapes include: Colorado Front Range; 4FRI;
    Kootenai; North Yuba; Plumas; San Carlos Apache; Southwest Idaho.
        The Trout Unlimited partnership is active through March 2027 and
    provides capacity for watershed restoration and climate resiliency
    projects, aquatic organism passage improvements, abandoned mine land
    reclamation, and related stream habitat projects across NFS lands and
    lands adjacent to partnering national forests and grasslands, where
    projects directly benefit aquatic resources on NFS lands.
        The Mule Deer Foundation partnership is active through March 2043
    (stewardship agreement) and active through February 2028 (participating
    agreement) and focuses on conserving migration corridors and seasonal
    habitats for big game and other species, vegetation management,
    hazardous fuels reduction, road and trail maintenance or
    decommissioning and more. WCS landscapes include: Colorado Front Range;
    Plumas; San Carlos Apache; Wasatch.
        The National Wild Turkey Federation partnership is active through
    September 2042 and works in alignment with the seven items under
    stewardship law; emphasis on fuels reduction activities in priority
    firesheds and forest products generated through restoration work that
    support industry infrastructure. WCS landscapes include: Colorado Front
    Range; 4FRI; Klamath River Basin.
        The Student Conservation Association partnership is active through
    June 2028 and focuses on workforce development including engaging crews
    and interns to support the Wildfire Crisis Strategy and Inflation
    Reduction Act priorities and developing a diverse and qualified future
    fire and fuels workforce culminating in Public Land Corps hiring
    authority eligibility. The WCS landscape includes North Yuba.
        The National Fish and Wildlife Foundation is active through August
    2028 and supports the America the Beautiful Challenge, which focuses on
    conserving, connecting, and restoring the Nation's lands, waters, and
    wildlife and consolidates funding from multiple Federal agencies and
    the private sector in helping locally led projects to address shared
    priorities across landscapes.

                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Katie Britt
        Question. Please provide an overview of U.S. Forest Service
    spending in each State, broken out with spending from FY23
    appropriations in total, FY23 appropriations spent on wildfire
    prevention, FY23 appropriations spend on firefighting, Infrastructure
    Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) spend through December 2023 in total,
    IIJA spend through December 2023 on wildfire prevention, IIJA spend
    through December 2023 on firefighting, Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)
    spend through December 2023 in total, IRA spend through December 2023
    on wildfire prevention, and IRA spend through December 2023 on
    firefighting.
        Answer. Attachment 1 to this QFR is the breakout of spending by
    Forest Service unit (Region, Station, Washington Office Unit) as well
    as wildfire suppression and Wildfire Crisis Strategy Landscape (WCSL)
    spending by State. The Forest Service's geographic spending breakout in
    its financial system is by organizational unit (e.g., region or
    station) and not by State. Some priority projects and programs such as
    our WCSL projects and wildfire suppression can be broken out by State
    so those are also included in the attachment as well.
        Question. Many finished wood products require a combination of
    domestically grown species with international species, the latter of
    which cannot be grown in the U.S. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
    Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS), and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
    are jointly responsible for overseeing processes with respect to
    clearing imported wood products at U.S. ports of entry. In recent
    years, coordination across the three agencies on allowing or declining
    imports has frustrated importers, leading to delays for U.S. importers
    and additional storage costs.
        To what extent does the U.S. Forest Service provide assistance in
    the current import process? From the Forest Service perspective, what
    could be done to provide a more efficient, clear process for clearing
    imported wood products through ports of entry?
        Please describe any wood testing, screening, or analyzing
    capabilities the Forest Service International Programs Office possesses
    that could be used to clear delays for importers. Please include
    details on costs or cost estimates, testing speed for samples, and any
    impediments to utilization of Forest Service capabilities by importers
    for quickly clearing imported wood products through ports of entry.
        Answer. US Forest Service International Programs' Wood
    Identification and Screening Center (USFS/IP WISC) provides wood
    species identification services to APHIS, CBP, and other agencies
    within Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice
    related to import inspections or enforcement matters. This service is
    also available to FWS, but this agency instead requests services from
    its National Fish and Wildlife Forensic Laboratory (which is co-located
    with USFS/IP WISC).
        The processing time for sample test results can vary, but initial
    confirmation of declared species can normally be completed within two
    business days.
        Regarding current impediments to utilizing USFS/IP WISC
    capabilities, many CBP and APHIS personnel are unfamiliar with these
    services or the process to access them. Currently, USFS/IP WISC
    receives samples at the discretion of CBP field office personnel.
    Starting in 2024, USFS/IP began directly outreaching to CBP Field
    Offices to provide information, training, and direct sampling support
    for wood products. As far as USFS/IP is aware, CBP and APHIS has not
    issued standard national guidance to submit samples for analysis at
    USFS/IP WISC.
        USFS/IP's support to the wood import screening and processes is
    also impeded by the inaccessibility of CBP and APHIS data resources,
    including the Lacey Act Declaration Information System. If these data
    were available to USFS/IP, the office's trade economists and wood
    specialists could provide more advice to partner agencies on targeting
    and risk assessment of imported cargo, to focus inspections and
    sampling on high-risk containers.
        Regarding cost, USFS/IP WISC has collaborated with CBP and APHIS
    without requesting reimbursement from the partner agencies, as these
    operations are supported by the Forest Service's International Programs
    and Trade Compliance budget line item. Due to the previously described
    impediments, USFS/IP WISC's capacity has exceeded the volume of
    requests from CBP, APHIS, and interagency partners. However, if these
    impediments were resolved, the full demand of these services would
    likely exceed current USFS/IP WISC's capacity.
        USFS/IP does not have access to the necessary data to assess the
    total potential demand from interagency partners. However, USFS/IP
    estimates that one WISC laboratory center can test 10,000 samples per
    year and that one center would cost approximately $3,000,000 per year,
    inclusive of personnel, equipment, facilities, and other costs.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Merkley. [Whereupon, at 11:56 a.m., Wednesday,
    April 10, the subcommittee adjourned subject to the call of the
    Chair.]

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025

                                  ----------

                             WEDNESDAY, MAY 1, 2024

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:03 p.m. in
    Room 192, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Merkley,
    (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Merkley, Murray, Tester, Van-Hollen,
    Heinrich, Peters, Sinema, Murkowski, Capito, Hoeven, Fischer,
    and Britt.

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL S. REGAN, ADMINISTRATOR

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY

        Senator Merkley. Today, we convene to review the
    Environmental Protection Agency proposed budget for fiscal year
    2025, as well as the agency's ongoing role in critical issues
    affecting our environment and our health.
        As stewards of this planet, it is our duty to protect it
    not only from pollution, but from the ravages of
    shortsightedness and neglect. Yet, as we gather here today, we
    are confronted with a stark reality, a reality that our
    commitment to environmental protection has been undermined by
    the decisions of fossil, gas, and oil industry that are
    prioritizing profit over the well-being of our planet and the
    well-being of our people.
        Administrator Regan, I commend you for your dedication to
    public service. The challenges we face demand bold action and
    unwavering resolve. Let me start with the topic of methane. The
    alarming rise in methane emissions poses a significant threat
    to our climate and to our public health.
        Methane is a potent greenhouse gas, sometimes referred to
    as natural gas, but there is nothing natural about it once it
    is taken out of the ground. It is pouring fuel on a fire of
    climate chaos and making extreme weather more frequent and more
    devastating.
        We know that EPA estimates of methane emissions are far
    lower than what are being observed with the latest monitoring
    tools. So, we need better modeling, better modeling using
    better technology.
        We can't use old estimates to justify projects that
    shouldn't be justified. Thankfully, EPA has finalized the Super
    Emitter Program, well done, and created the Methane Emission
    Reduction Program through the Inflation Reduction Act.
        Together, the Super Emitter Program and the Methane
    Emissions Reduction Program have the potential to significantly
    reduce methane emissions from oil and gas wells, but only if we
    use modern technologies.
        I am deeply concerned that EPA, given its deep expertise
    regarding human health impacts, has deferred its role in
    obtaining and securing the technology that has been funded
    through the work of Congress. It is important to ensure we
    maximize the Super Emitters Program in taking on this
    challenge, and we are also learning more about methane from
    landfills.
        Landfills provide an important, cost effective opportunity
    for us to reduce emissions now, and EPA needs to take a look at
    and update its regulations regarding landfills. Now, next,
    wildfires. In Oregon, we see wildfires becoming more powerful,
    more ferocious, and the wildfire season being longer, and that
    is a challenge.
        In that challenge, citizens are much more willing to use
    prescribed fire as a tool in our arsenal to protect our towns
    and our cities. It mitigates the risk of catastrophic blazes,
    and we need both strong science based standards for clean air
    and regulatory clarity for events like prescribed fire.
        If the particles that are in the air from prescribed fire
    are then used to force communities to adopt stronger standards
    on other things, as if that was the same particles from a
    natural fire, then there is an incentive for these communities
    not to use prescribed fire, which makes the whole situation
    worse.
        So that is a piece that I hope we will take on. Plastic
    pollution and toxic chemicals pose another formidable
    challenge. We know we are failing in our vulnerable
    communities, especially on the Gulf Coast, which are being
    overburdened by toxic chemicals from plastic production. We
    need to do more to protect those communities.
        On this committee, I will do all I can to increase EPA
    funding so we can implement and enforce our existing laws
    better, but then EPA must act. One place where it can start,
    EPA can start by reexamining significant impact levels for air
    quality standards for permitting petrochemical facilities.
        The evidence is clear that the substances that are
    carcinogenic to humans and States have abused the permitting
    process, to the detriment of frontline communities. Let's not
    impose even more pollutants on those frontline communities.
        This is a key issue of environmental justice. I was in
    Ottawa last week for the inter-governmental negotiating
    committee meeting where countries from around the world are
    gathered to reach agreement to address the plastic crisis.
        Plastics, which are choking our oceans, our rivers, our
    landfills. Plastics, which are being digested by marine life
    and land life, infect our ecosystems. Plastic, which in its
    micro form and nano form are providing even more dangerous
    pollution and it is infiltrating our food and water, even
    breast milk; meanwhile, leaching dangerous chemicals into the
    organizations--organisms that digest it, including us.
        It is estimated that each of us consumes about a credit
    card of plastic a week. Plastic is an endocrine disruptor and
    has strong associations with a series of health issues. So, we
    are encouraging our Government to take the ambitious track in
    having a vision for an international treaty on plastics that
    will result in measurable goals, with accountability for
    reaching those goals.
        Right now, our State Department is saying they want a Paris
    structure where everyone says we will go and do our best. Going
    and doing our best hasn't worked on climate and it won't work
    on plastics, so we need to have a more concrete, detailed
    approach, and there is a whole group of nations that are
    seeking to have concrete goals and measurable results and
    accountability, and we should join them and encourage EPA to
    help us pivot to be part of the solution in that area.
        I want to turn to EPA's new method of testing for 6PPD-
    quinone. This is a chemical in tires, and it was found to be a
    chemical that has a huge impact on salmon. And there was a
    whole mystery as to why after rainstorms, there was a die off,
    and finally it was traced to the runoff from parking lots with
    tire dust.
        This is a big deal for us, and it is not an easy thing to
    address, but identifying and understanding it is a great first
    step in that direction. So, I encourage EPA to continue down
    that road, not just to understand the chemical and what
    alternatives there might be, what the impact of those
    alternatives might be, how we can cure this problem, because it
    is a big environmental impact that few of us were aware of
    until the last couple of years.
        So, as we go forward, let's continue to have an ambitious
    approach or a more ambitious approach to taking on these
    multiple challenges. We need an international treaty that
    decreases plastics, plastics that are produced, plastics that
    get into our waterways, plastics that get into our ecosystems
    and into our bodies.
        We need to continue our work on toxic chemicals through
    TSCA, and not have it take a decade to address a single toxic
    chemical and an overly complicated system. I am concerned that
    EPA's staffing levels have dropped 20 percent over the last 13
    years. It makes it a lot harder to do all this work on very
    complicated issues when you are understaffed.
        So, thank you for being a strong advocate for having the
    team that you need, and certainly that resonates with me and
    with many of us. In 2010, you had 17,300 FTEs at EPA. Since
    then, we are down to 14,000--3,300 people with a lot more
    complicated work to do now than then.
        I am pleased that the fiscal year 2025 request would
    increase permanent positions by more than 2,000 FTEs, which
    would start to rebuild the permanent capacity EPA needs. Those
    Americans with the least resources who have chronically
    suffered from injustice are often most affected by pollution,
    toxic chemicals, and climate chaos.
        So, I say, well done to having $100 million for
    environmental justice in the fiscal year 2024 bill. You all
    advocated, and we delivered. But I know that on environmental
    justice front, a lot more remains to be done. I will now turn
    to my colleague, Ranking Member Murkowski, for her comments.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator
    Regan, thank you, and I appreciate the opportunity to discuss
    EPA's fiscal year 2025 budget request with you. I know that we
    had hoped to have a little bit of a conversation ahead of this,
    and travel interrupts just about everything around here.
        So, thank you for the time that you are going to spend with
    the committee here today. I want to appreciate and thank you
    publicly for the good working relationship that my office has
    enjoyed with you and your office. You know, there are, not
    surprising, going to be policy disagreements on many matters.
        That is just the nature of it. Some of the rulemakings that
    the agency has undertaken, I will mention some of those that I
    have concerns with, but I really do honestly appreciate the
    work that we have done together. I think you and your team have
    been forthright with us.
        You have been helpful in bringing historic levels of
    infrastructure investment to Alaska and really trying to solve
    some long term problems that we have faced with. And I just
    appreciate the efforts there.
        I will share though, the concerns, some of the concerns
    that I have about some of the--what I consider to be regulatory
    overreach that we have seen out of the agency on some of these
    national rulemakings, including the updated final WOTUS rule,
    the vehicle emissions rules, the final power plant rules.
        I have shared before the final WOTUS rule fails to reflect
    the uniqueness of Alaska and unfortunately will have
    disproportionate harm within my State. Congress has recent--has
    directly expressed its disapproval on many of the agency's
    recent broad rulemakings.
        I think the court is going to decide the outcome of many of
    these rules, but I have been disappointed that the agency did
    not reach consensus on these issues and instead moved ahead
    with a heavier handed action in a unilateral fashion.
        In addition to concerns over these national rulemakings, I
    would like to speak to several regulatory actions that are more
    specific to Alaska. First, as you know, we have had many
    conversations about this, but this is the potential enforcement
    actions that the agency may take against the State of Alaska
    and the Fairbanks North Star Borough regarding PM2.5
    emissions.
        Again, one of these longstanding issues that has been out
    there. But you have heard me say many times before that I think
    that the agency's mishandling of the residential woodstove
    testing, and certification program has played a role in what we
    are seeing in elevated emissions in the region. I have worked
    pretty hard to get additional support.
        We have secured tens of millions of dollars through the
    Targeted Air Shed Grant for woodstove change outs, so the
    agency's failures on this issue continue to be frustrating. So
    as this matter continues, I would fully expect the EPA to work
    closely with the State and the Borough and to incorporate their
    feedback.
        And then finally, I would just ask that your team sit down
    with my staff to discuss the reforms of the woodstove heater
    program and perhaps identify some creative funding solutions
    that we can undertake. We want to work to reduce the air
    emissions in that region.
        And it is important. I think we recognize that. But how we
    get there in a place where you have so few options and
    alternatives has been a real challenge. I have been concerned
    about potential regulations the agency may propose on small
    aircraft that we see used very commonly around Alaska.
        In so many parts of the State, as you know, we don't have
    the roads, so we rely on aviation, and so much of it is very
    small aviation. In October of last year, EPA announced an
    endangerment finding for leaded aviation gas, which is used to
    operate the piston engine aircraft.
        These are the small planes that carry roughly, you know, 2
    to 10 passengers. But we rely so heavily on these types of
    aircraft for travel around the State, moving people, moving
    basic necessities.
        And so, if EPA promulgates what would be unnecessarily
    strict standards for these lead emissions from these particular
    aircraft without considering the unique needs and the
    challenges that are specific within this State, Alaska could
    really, really be crippled by supply chain issues, travel
    disruptions as air carriers are literally forced out of
    existence because they don't have any other place to go, and
    that is a real concern.
        So, how the agency considers these unique needs in a State
    like Alaska before undertaking any issue is more that I would
    like to discuss with you. And then finally, to briefly talk
    about the 301(h) waivers for certain communities in Southeast
    Alaska.
        As these communities face meeting new State and Federal
    standards, I would hope that the agency will work closely with
    us to provide a pathway for these smaller communities to make
    economically feasible upgrades to their wastewater systems.
    Again, they want to make sure that they have good water
    systems.
        But it takes their breath away when they look at what they
    may be facing from a cost perspective. So, turning to
    investments in Alaska. Again, I want to thank you and those in
    the agency for your leadership on Alaska Native Claims
    Settlement Act (ANCSA) contaminated lands. It has been decades
    of Federal inaction on this true environmental injustice to
    Alaskan Native communities.
        And the Federal Government, with EPA's leadership, is
    finally providing resources to assess and clean up these
    contaminated lands. In the 2 years since we started working
    together on this issue, $190 million is now available to Alaska
    Native communities and organizations for contaminated lands
    remediations.
        So, it has been $40 million through the new annual grant
    and $150 million in one-time funding through EPA's Community
    Change Grant Program. But I know that securing these resources
    took some creative thinking and real commitment to the issues.
        You made that commitment to me, you carried through with
    that, and again, I thank you and your efforts, as well as those
    of your team members both here in Washington and in Region 10.
    It is deeply appreciated.
        Last year, in my opening statement, I spoke at length to
    the agency's poor performance in handling and processing
    congressionally directed spending projects. I wish that I could
    say a year later we are in a better place on that, but I can't
    see that significant progress has been made.
        I think it is unacceptable that the vast majority of fiscal
    year 2022 and 2023 projects remain unrewarded. And what we see
    with the delay in awarding these projects is substantial impact
    on the communities, the Congressional intent, and the cost of
    the projects.
        So, with the recent passing of the fiscal year 2024
    Interior Approps Act, the agency's workload on these projects,
    I think, is extensive. You know that. But the backlog in
    processing these projects just simply has to be reduced.
        So, we are going to keep urging you on this, but I would
    ask that you do everything that you can to again reduce this
    backlog and do so quickly. I am absolutely ready to be a
    constructive partner in getting these projects out the door
    into the designated communities, so let me know how I can help.
        One of the ways is I hear from people back in my home
    State, I am sure that other colleagues do as well, and when we
    call you up, we get attention to the matter, but it shouldn't
    have to be that way.
        So, let's work together on that. I will close by just
    telling you I appreciate that you have come to Alaska. You have
    worked with me on a number of important issues to my State and
    to my constituents.
        And I know we will continue to work together, but I hope
    that you and the agency will respond to and address some of the
    concerns that I have raised in my statement today, and we will
    have opportunity in the following questions.
        But Alaska is a great time to come and visit. And you are
    welcomed back anytime. With that, Mr. Chairman, I thank you.
        Senator Merkley. I thank you very much. Now we turn to your
    testimony.

                    SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL REGAN

        Mr. Regan. Well, Chair Merkley and Ranking Member
    Murkowski, and Chair Murray and Vice Chair Collins, and members
    of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear
    before you today to discuss the bold vision laid out in the
    United States EPA's proposed fiscal year 2025 budget request.
        Our partnership and open dialog with Congress is invaluable
    for EPA to carry out its mission and to protect public health
    and the environment. Over the last 3 years, we have been hard
    at work at EPA, and under President Biden's leadership, my
    agency has finalized protections that will bring 100 million
    people cleaner and safer drinking water, free from PFAS, and we
    have worked hard to right many of the historic wrongs
    communities have faced for generations.
        Through our critical rulemaking, we banned the last
    remaining kind of asbestos used in the country and issued final
    technology-based standards that will eliminate more than 6,000
    tons of toxic air pollution from chemical plants each year,
    slashing cancer causing pollution from covered processes and
    equipment by nearly 80 percent and reducing elevated cancer
    risk for those living near these facilities by 96 percent.
        EPA is committed to protecting public health and the
    environment for all of the American people. But more than just
    the powerful health impacts EPA is undertaking, my agency is
    working hard to implement the historic laws you passed and
    President Biden's Investing in America agenda.
        President Biden's Investing in America agenda has not only
    directed investments and communities nationwide, but it has
    generated nearly $700 billion in funding for private sector
    manufacturing and clean energy projects, creating good paying
    jobs and enhancing our global competitiveness.
        Together, President Biden's Investing in America agenda and
    EPA's 2025 budget request will continue to invest in
    environmental actions that will promote cleaner communities and
    produce economic benefits for years to come.
        Last August, during my Journey to Justice tour, I joined
    Senator Murkowski in Alaska to spotlight the environmental
    justice challenges of Alaska Native tribes. We met with tribal
    leaders and heard firsthand about the challenges facing the
    community, including climate impacts and adaptation, food
    security, and water infrastructure.
        And the President's Investing in America agenda is helping
    to fund projects that address these concerns while benefiting
    federally recognized tribes all across the State. President
    Biden's proposed fiscal year 2025 budget request for EPA
    provides nearly $11 billion to advance key priorities for the
    American people, including protecting air quality, cleaning up
    pollution, upgrading the nation's aging water infrastructure,
    urgently fighting the climate crisis, and advancing
    environmental justice.
        Millions of people across the country are still grappling
    with the effects of poor air quality, perpetuating harmful
    health and economic impacts. In fiscal year 2025, EPA will
    improve air quality for communities by reducing emissions of
    ozone forming pollutants, particulate matter, and air toxics.
        The President's budget includes $1.3 billion to improve air
    quality for communities all across the country, to reduce
    exposure to dangerous levels of radiation, and to leverage
    regulatory tools and public and private sector partnerships
    that promote environmental stewardship and encourage the
    adoption of cost-effective technologies and practices.
        EPA's work to set these standards provides certainty to
    industry, builds on the advancements in technology, and
    reinforces market movement that reduces power plant emissions
    without sacrificing reliability and affordable energy. Clean
    and safe water is the foundation for healthy communities and a
    thriving economy.
        Although substantial progress has been made, many areas
    across our nation still face significant barriers and
    challenges to achieving this collective goal. Aging water
    infrastructure, the effects of lead pipes, cybersecurity
    threats to water systems, climate change, and emerging
    contaminants such as PFAS all pose dangerous health risks to
    our nation's water supply and the American people.
        EPA's budget request includes a total of $101 million for
    two EPA grants dedicated to remediating lead contaminated
    drinking water. From investing in clean air to cleaning up
    contaminated land and water, there is no shortage of important
    work to be done. 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. The fiscal year 2025
    President's budget continues the historic progress and
    investments made by the Biden-Harris Administration and
    positions EPA to advance our vital mission of protecting public
    health and the environment, championing environmental justice,
    and tackling the climate crisis.
        Thank you all for the opportunity to be here today to
    submit 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 all.
        [The statement follows:]
                  Prepared Statement of Hon. Michael S. Regan
        Thank you, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member Capito, and members of
    the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today
    to discuss the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed
    Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 Budget request. In our FY 2025 Budget request, we
    provide the resources needed to advance a cleaner, healthier, and more
    equitable Nation where all people have equal access to safe and clean
    water, air, land, chemicals, and communities.
                     the fy 2025 president's budget request
        The President's FY 2025 Budget for EPA requests nearly $11 billion
    to advance the key priorities outlined in the FY 2022-FY 2026 EPA
    Strategic Plan, including urgently tackling the climate crisis,
    advancing environmental justice, protecting air quality, cleaning up
    pollution, upgrading the Nation's aging water infrastructure, and
    building the Agency's core capacity to carry out its vital mission. The
    President's FY 2025 Budget adheres to the discretionary spending levels
    set by the Fiscal Responsibility Act and continues to build on the
    historic progress and investments made by this Administration. EPA is
    committed to providing robust support to our Tribal, State, and local
    partners, with more than $4.5 billion in grants that directly reach
    these communities. The Budget adds more than 2,000 Full Time
    Equivalents (FTE) across program and regional offices, bringing EPA
    back to more than 17,000 FTE, to ensure that the agency has the
    workforce to protect human health and the environment across the
    Nation.
                      urgently tackling the climate crisis
        In FY 2025 EPA will continue to prioritize tackling climate change
    with the urgency that science demands by investing nearly $3 billion in
    climate-related programs. EPA requests an additional $19.3 million and
    14.5 FTE for climate adaptation efforts to strengthen the adaptive
    capacity of Tribes, States, territories, local governments,
    communities, and businesses. In addition, the Budget requests an
    increase in State and local air quality management grants to help
    expand the efforts of air pollution control agencies to implement the
    Clean Air Act (CAA). We will leverage an additional $65 million to
    implement the American Innovation in Manufacturing (AIM) Act to
    continue phasing out hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs).
        EPA also requests an additional $5 million to provide
    administrative support to implement the historic $27 billion Greenhouse
    Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF), enacted through the IRA. EPA recently
    released funding opportunities for three grant competitions through the
    GGRF: the $14 billion National Clean Investment Fund, the $6 billion
    Clean Communities Investment Accelerator, and the $7 billion Solar for
    All competition. With the requested enhanced administrative support,
    EPA will be able to more effectively and efficiently administer
    competitive grants to mobilize financing and leverage private capital
    for clean energy and climate projects that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG)
    emissions with an emphasis on projects that benefit low-income and
    disadvantaged communities.
                        elevating environmental justice
        The Budget bolsters the Agency's efforts to achieve environmental
    justice in communities across the Nation by investing nearly $1.5
    billion in environmental justice-related programs. This investment
    supports the implementation of the President's Justice40 commitment,
    which ensures at least 40 percent of the benefits of Federal
    investments in climate and clean energy as well as infrastructure work
    reach disadvantaged communities, including rural and Tribal
    communities.
        In FY 2025, EPA requests more than $324 million and 265 FTE for the
    Environmental Justice Program, an increase of $216 M and 41 FTE above
    the current levels, to expand support for community-based
    organizations, indigenous organizations, Tribes, States, local
    governments, and territorial governments to identify and develop
    solutions to environmental justice issues through multi-partner
    collaborations. Included in this increase is $36.5 million to scale up
    capacity- building grants to more communities, governmental partners,
    and academic institutions; and nearly $70 million and 39.3 FTE to
    continue building out the community-centered technical assistance hubs
    established in FY 2023, ensuring that the network provides robust
    coverage across the United States. In partnership with the U.S.
    Department of Energy, EPA has opened 17 Thriving Communities Technical
    Assistance Centers (TCTACs), three of which are dedicated to assist
    Tribes, with the goal of strengthening EPA's partnership with Tribal
    Nations to deliver much- needed infrastructure investments to Tribal
    communities.
        EPA's goal is to ensure that environmental programs inside Indian
    Country are as robust and protective as those same programs outside of
    Indian Country. The Budget requests $25 million to establish a new
    Direct Implementation Tribal Cooperative Agreements Program, with $13
    million of this funding dedicated to making Tribes more resilient to
    climate impacts. This unique funding vehicle will allow EPA to fund
    Tribes to implement Federal environmental programs in Indian Country.
    Since its creation by Congress in 2001, DITCAs have been proven
    successful as a tried- and-true method of providing Federal support
    directly to Tribes however at a limited scale due to a lack of
    dedicated funding. Once established, this program will be able to
    maximize the use of DITCAs and expand its access to reach more
    underserved communities in Indian Country. This program is expected to
    at least double the number of Tribes receiving EPA assistance for
    direct implementation activities while providing needed multi-media
    environmental protections.
                          enforcing environmental laws
        Enforcing and ensuring compliance of our Nation's environmental
    laws is foundational to achieving EPA's mission. EPA holds, and will
    continue to hold, bad actors accountable for their violations, with a
    particular focus on communities with multiple pollution sources. In FY
    2025, the Budget invests $260 million for civil enforcement efforts,
    such as increasing enforcement efforts in communities with high
    pollution exposure and preventing the illegal importation and use of
    hydrofluorocarbons in the United States. The Budget also requests $172
    million for compliance monitoring efforts, including funds to conduct
    inspections in underserved and overburdened communities and rebuilding
    the inspector corps. Additionally, the Budget directs $77 million for
    criminal enforcement efforts to pursue investigations of the most
    egregious environmental cases and to support a specialized Criminal
    Enforcement Initiative focused on addressing environmental justice
    issues in partnership with the Department of Justice (DOJ). In FY 2025,
    EPA will implement the National Enforcement and Compliance Initiatives
    to target these investments at the most serious environmental
    violations.
               ensuring clean and healthy air for all communities
        Poor air quality still affects millions of people across the
    country, perpetuating harmful short- and long-term health and quality
    of life impacts. In FY 2025, EPA will improve air quality for
    communities by reducing emissions of ozone-forming pollutants,
    particulate matter, and air toxics. The President's Budget includes
    $1.3 billion to improve air quality for communities across the country,
    to reduce exposure to radiation, and to leverage regulatory tools and
    public and private sector partnerships that promote environmental
    stewardship and encourage adoption of cost- effective technologies and
    practices. In FY 2025, EPA will make critical resource investments in
    air regulatory development and implementation work, including $269
    million to develop and implement programs such as the National Ambient
    Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) to reduce air pollution from vehicles,
    engines, and fuels. EPA's work to set these standards provides
    certainty to industry, builds on advances in technology, and reinforces
    market movement towards a cleaner energy system that provides reliable
    and affordable energy. Additionally, the Budget provides $100 million
    to expand the availability of Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA)
    grants and rebates to include funds to replace existing school buses
    with low- and zero-emission buses.
        Recognizing the need to further support Tribal, State, and local
    partners, the Agency is requesting $423 million in grants to expand
    efforts in implementing air quality management programs that support
    on-the-ground efforts to address GHG emissions while building on core
    work such as air quality training and air toxics monitoring. EPA will
    continue to build on its historic progress in protecting human health
    and the environment from the harmful effects of air pollution and work
    to assure clean air for all Americans, with a particular focus on those
    in underserved and overburdened communities.
               achieving clean and safe water for all communities
        Clean and safe water is a foundation for healthy communities and a
    thriving economy, and EPA is committed to ensuring clean and safe water
    for all. While progress is being made, it is clear that the Nation
    still faces significant barriers and challenges achieving this goal,
    including access to safe and clean water, aging infrastructure,
    replacement of lead pipes, cybersecurity threats to water systems,
    climate change, and management of public health risks of emerging
    contaminants of concern, such as PFAS.
        In FY 2025, EPA will continue our work with federal, Tribal, State,
    and nongovernmental partners to advance water quality science, provide
    clean and safe water for all communities, and protect our Nation's
    waterbodies from degradation. The Budget provides $2.4 billion for
    EPA's Drinking Water and Clean Water State Revolving Funds (SRF) and
    $334 million for a range of grant programs authorized or modified in
    the America's Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA), the Water Infrastructure
    Improvement for the Nation (WIIN) Act, and the Drinking Water and
    Wastewater Infrastructure Act (DWWIA). These resources complement funds
    provided for water infrastructure programs in the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law (BIL). To further the President's goal of
    replacingall lead pipes within the next decade, the Budget proposes
    nearly $101 million for two grants dedicated to Reducing Lead in
    Drinking Water and Lead Testing in Schools.
        Also included is $80 million to support the Water Infrastructure
    Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan program. As of December 2023,
    EPA has issued 120 WIFIA loans to communities across the country
    totaling over $19 billion in credit assistance to help finance more
    than $43 billion for water infrastructure projects. WIFIA loans for
    these projects have saved communities nearly $7 billion, which can be
    used for additional infrastructure investment and to keep rates
    affordable for water system users. These WIFIA-financed projects have
    created over 140,000 jobs and benefited more than 63 million people,
    demonstrating that WIFIA credit assistance is an effective tool to help
    address a variety of water infrastructure needs to support communities
    nationwide.
        The Budget also requests $30 million for a new program that
    addresses gaps in resources to help improve Federal response to water-
    related emergencies where water quality poses a risk to public health.
    This new program will expand EPA's capabilities both at the
    headquarters and in the regional offices and establish a water
    emergency fund that provides direct assistance to affected communities
    which could be in the form of bottled water, filters, and trained
    personnel to operate or manage drinking water and wastewater services,
    among other essential tasks. The agency also requests new authority
    under the Safe Drinking Water Act 1442(b) to provide technical
    assistance and grants to any appropriate recipient that is not a State
    or a publicly owned water system.
        To help deliver on President Biden's commitment to tackling PFAS
    pollution and to accelerate EPA's PFAS Strategic Roadmap, the FY 2025
    Budget requests an additional $60 million to increase our understanding
    of PFAS and their human health and ecological effects; restrict PFAS
    use to prevent new PFAS pollutants from entering the air, land, water;
    and remediate PFAS that have been released into the environment, the
    agency is taking a comprehensive approach to tackling PFAS pollution
    across the country. For example, the agency has finalized its PFAS
    drinking water regulation and is monitoring for PFAS in public water
    systems. EPA plans to propose an effluent limitation guideline rule for
    organic chemical manufacturing, metal finishing/electroplating, and
    landfills industrial point source categories. EPA has also finalized a
    rule to designate PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under Superfund
    and proposed to add multiple PFAS compounds as hazardous constituents
    under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). These rules
    will strengthen protections for communities and better enable cleanup
    of lands contaminated with PFAS across the Nation. Additionally, the FY
    2025 Budget provides $289 million for the Section 106 Grants Program,
    which funds Tribal, State, and interstate water pollution control
    programs, and is critical funding for actions to identify, assess, and
    mitigate emerging contaminants in the environment like PFAS.
        From the Great Lakes to the Chesapeake Bay, from Lake Pontchartrain
    to the Puget Sound, the United States is home to water bodies of
    ecological, cultural, and economic significance. Through EPA's
    Geographic Water Programs, the Agency assists Tribes, state, and multi-
    State partners to accelerate and manage the restoration of the
    ecological health of these water bodies. The Budget invests $682
    million to continue strong support for EPA's Geographic Water Programs
    to protect and restore these water bodies of special ecological and
    economic importance to the Nation. In FY 2025, EPA's Geographic
    Programs will deliver technical and financial assistance to solve
    problems and support healthy resilient ecosystems that address water
    quality, water infrastructure, nutrient pollution, habitat loss, treaty
    rights, equity, and environmental justice.
                   safeguarding and revitalizing communities
        Preventing and cleaning up environmental pollution that harms
    communities and poses a risk to public health and safety continue to be
    a top priority for the Administration. Cleaning up America's most
    contaminated land and reducing exposure to toxic substances are
    critical components of the Agency's strategy to address human health
    impacts, particularly in underserved communities where many of these
    sites are located. The FY 2025 Budget enables EPA to continue to
    collaborate with Tribal, State, and local partners to improve the
    livelihood of all residents of the United States by addressing
    contaminated sites, including Superfund, brownfields, leaking
    underground storage tanks, and other waste sites and restoring them to
    productive use.
        The Department of the Treasury currently estimates that $2.2
    billion will be available to the EPA in Superfund tax receipts in FY
    2025. This funding, combined with annual appropriations, will enable
    the Superfund program to advance clean-up of the Nation's most
    contaminated land and respond to environmental emergencies and natural
    disasters. The Budget includes $300 million in the Superfund Remedial
    program to make more progress in communities across the Nation. This
    historic level of funding will allow EPA to advance critical Superfund
    pre-construction work such as site characterization, construction
    design, and community outreach/engagement. Additionally, this funding
    will allow EPA to continue to effectively and efficiently address
    situations that require emergency response and removal actions such as
    chemical releases, fires or explosions, natural disasters, and other
    threats to people from exposure to hazardous substances, including from
    abandoned and uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. The Budget also
    includes $208 million for EPA's Brownfields programs to provide grants
    and technical assistance to communities so they can plan, inventory,
    assess, safely clean up and reuse contaminated properties, as well as
    $20 million for the Alaska Contaminated Lands program. Taken together,
    these investments will ensure EPA is cleaning up sites and fully
    engaging the communities we serve in the process.
        ensuring the safety of chemicals for people and the environment
        Chemicals and toxic substances are ubiquitous in our everyday lives
    and are often released into the environment from their manufacture,
    processing use, or disposal. EPA has significant responsibilities under
    amendments to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) to ensure the
    safety of chemicals in or entering commerce and addressing unreasonable
    risks to human health or the environment. EPA's work in managing
    chemical safety and toxic substances is particularly important to
    vulnerable populations, including low-income, minority, and indigenous
    populations, as well as children, who may be disproportionately
    affected by, and particularly at risk from, exposure to chemicals. The
    FY 2025 Budget requests $132 million for the TSCA Program, an increase
    of $49 million above current levels so the agency has the resources
    needed for the Program. These resources will support EPA-initiated
    chemical risk evaluations, protective regulations in accordance with
    statutory timelines, and establish a pipeline of priority chemicals for
    risk evaluation.
        The agency has significant responsibility under the Federal
    Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to screen new
    pesticides before they reach the market and ensure pesticides already
    in commerce are safe. In addition, EPA is responsible for complying
    with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and ensuring that federally
    endangered and threatened species are not harmed when the agency
    registers pesticides. To continue making progress toward meeting ESA
    mandates in FY 2025, the Budget includes an additional $29 million for
    a total of $80 million in our environmental pesticides program. The
    Budget also includes $29 million for the Pollution Prevention Program
    to support businesses, Tribes, States, and other partners to promote
    and facilitate the adoption of approaches to improve multimedia
    environmental conditions and address climate impacts through reductions
    in pollutants and other hazardous materials, including an additional
    $7.8 million for a new grant program to help small businesses
    transitioning to TSCA compliant practices to mitigate economic impacts.
     continuing to build back critical capacity to carry out epa's mission
        Ensuring the Agency has the workforce it needs to carry out its
    mission is essential. The Budget adds more than 2,000 FTE relative to
    the current level, for a total of more than 17,000 FTE, to help rebuild
    EPA's core capacity. The Budget also will dedicate resources to
    continue strengthening the agency's ability to recruit, hire, develop,
    promote, and retain top talent and remove barriers to equal opportunity
    at management and staff levels to strengthen and advance diversity,
    equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
        In FY 2025, the Agency requests an additional $3.8 million to
    expand an existing paid internship program across the Agency to
    strengthen talent and workforce acquisition. A commitment to follow the
    science underpins EPA's work, and the Budget includes approximately $1
    billion for the Science and Technology account, an increase of more
    than $200 million above current levels, that will ensure programs have
    the best available data to inform decisions.
                                   conclusion
        All people deserve clean air, clean water, and safe land on which
    to live. This is the core of EPA's mission and is a worthy investment
    of Federal resources. The FY 2025 President's Budget continues the
    historic progress and investments made by this Administration and
    positions the EPA to advance our vital mission of protecting human
    health and the environment, championing environmental justice, and
    tackling the climate crisis. With these investments we lay the
    groundwork to ensure the benefits of a cleaner environment for future
    generations.
        Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I look forward to
    our continued partnership and welcome any questions you may have.

        Senator Merkley. Great. Thank you very much. And I think we
    are going to have five minute sessions, which I will stop and
    not ask any more questions after my five minutes have expired
    and I will ask everyone else to do the same. I want to start
    with this issue of measuring methane.
        Back in fiscal year 2023 and fiscal year 2024, we provided
    funding to the EPA to be able to address what they said was
    their challenge. What was their challenge? Their challenge was
    they said, we need to be able to digest information more
    effectively and validate it. And then the Inflation Reduction
    Act provided $850 million for methane detection and monitoring,
    yet nothing has been done.
        Not one bit of satellite data has been acquired by the EPA,
    and yet methane is a massive global warming gas. So, this is
    unacceptable. When is the EPA going to start taking methane
    seriously and develop a real program with the funds we have
    already provided?
        Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for the question, Senator. We
    are absolutely taking methane very seriously. I think the oil
    and gas rule specifically establishes, for the first time ever,
    emission control standards for methane for this sector. And so,
    our enforcement will make sure that facilities are meeting
    these standards.
        We have received approximately $15 million to support
    methane enforcement. With those resources, we are developing a
    data system to collect and publish information about methane
    super emitters. We are purchased in advance monitoring
    equipment for those inspections.
        And, you know, as far as the Methane Emissions Reduction
    Program, you know, February 2023, we issued a notice of intent
    for a second solicitation for competitive opportunities, and
    eligible opportunities are satellites to help characterize and
    quantify methane emissions, retrofits for existing wells and
    infrastructure, and focusing on smaller operators, and
    accelerating deployment of innovative and near commercial
    technologies.
        We are also laser focused on landfill methane.
        Senator Merkley. Yes, we will turn to landfills in a
    moment, but here's the thing, when we pursued this with EPA and
    said, what is going on? EPA said, what we want to do is provide
    data using private funding, which is more resilient and
    efficient as a basis for this program. So, we provide you with
    $850 million.
        We say multi-level monitoring is incredibly important.
    Satellites are a key piece of that. And we get back, we want
    folks to go out and make donations to someone and then provide
    us with free data. That is a stalling tactic on this important
    issue, and it is just not acceptable asking, let's go out and,
    you know, put out our cap and say, someday, can somebody help
    us acquire methane information? This is a big deal.
        We have raised it repeatedly, and we need you all to get
    the process together and really start tracking--it is fine to
    say you are going to go and do a penalty program for super
    emitters, but you don't know what they are if you don't have
    the data. We have to understand this program across America.
        Meanwhile, the basic estimates that EPA continues to put
    out, which say that methane leakage is around 1.4 percent, are
    completely rejected by the scientific community as wholly
    understating the challenge.
        So, this inaction is sustaining bad information, resulting
    in bad decisions, and this needs to change. Can you commit to
    really focusing on this challenge in this coming year?
        Mr. Regan. I can absolutely commit to continuing the laser
    focus that we have. I am not quite sure I agree with inaction.
    I think that when you look at the regulations we have produced,
    when you look at the enforcement actions we have taken, and
    quite fairly in the Inflation Reduction Act, they gave us a
    timeline, you guys gave us a timeline to develop programs.
        One side focused on State grants, the other more so open to
    non-state entities, which require a certain level of
    development, implementation, and oversight. So, I believe that
    with the time we have been given and the resources we have been
    given, we are moving incredibly fast to match these resources
    with our enforcement and our regulatory.
        Senator Merkley. All right. I am just going to repeat once
    more, telling us that you are waiting for private charities to
    provide money to allow you to acquire information is totally
    unacceptable.
        Mr. Regan. Yes, I am not quite sure who is suggesting that
    we are soliciting private resources.
        Senator Merkley. This was the EPA's response to our
    previous questions about inaction in this area.
        Mr. Regan. I will circle with my team.
        Senator Merkley. Okay.
        Mr. Regan. I can assure you that,
        Senator Merkley. I am giving you a hard time on it because
    methane is such a huge factor in climate change. Thank you.
    That is my time.
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator
    Regan, as I mentioned in the statement, in my opening
    statement, I am concerned about the potential for these new
    standards for lead emissions for this smaller aircraft and the
    implications that it will have on a State like Alaska.
        As you know, the Alaska delegation is working to address
    this legislatively. We are hoping that we may be able to
    address this in the FAA bill that we will be moving to
    hopefully this afternoon. You have stated, or EPA has stated
    that it is committed to working together with a wide range of
    stakeholders on this.
        Know that I want to add my name to that list of
    stakeholders, but can you share with me exactly who in the
    State your teams have been reaching out to, who the
    stakeholders are? Because what I want to know and what I want
    to commitment on is that the agency is going to consider the
    fundamental needs of the State of Alaska at issue here before
    finalizing any potential rulemaking.
        So, it is important who you are talking to. And so, if you
    have available right now some of the stakeholders that you have
    been reaching out to, I would love to hear them. Otherwise, we
    will take that back.
        But where I am trying to get is we have to address this
    because I am going to have whole portions of the entire State
    will have no way in and no way out of their communities because
    there will be nobody to fly them.
        Mr. Regan. Yes. Well, Senator, first of all, let me say
    thank you for inviting me to Alaska to see first-hand for
    myself. I completely recognize the unique transportation needs
    for the State of Alaska.
        I just want to state that we have, by law and by
    requirement, looked at the endangerment finding of lead. Now
    that we have done that, we are beginning to start the process
    to evaluate what kinds of actions we need to take.
        And I can assure you that we will wholeheartedly engage
    you, your staff, and also the State of Alaska as we begin to
    move down the road of promulgating any rules that pertain to
    aviation and lead.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, and I look forward to that
    engagement. But again, when we talk about what environmental
    justice looks like, think about what it means to some of our
    very remote, very rural, primarily Alaska Native communities
    that will again be completely locked in, shut down. No way to
    gain access to health care. No way to gain access to public
    safety.
        So please know how significant this is. We are just in a
    different place than anybody else on this. And it kind of ties
    into what we have been trying to do with the situation with
    PM2.5 in Fairbanks. We all want to work to reduce the emissions
    issues, improve that air quality. I know the agency is working
    with the State of Alaska and the Borough on a path forward, but
    we are just very concerned about this threat out there of
    enforcement actions.
        And so, knowing what we have in front of us, the history,
    and again, the actions that have been taken, I am hoping that
    the agency is going to be responsive to the feedback from the
    State and the Borough in working through a State implementation
    program. But one of the areas where you do have full control,
    this is the residential wood heater program.
        Last year, the agency's Inspector General found the flaws
    and the problems within the program. So, can you share with me
    and others on the committee what steps you have taken to
    improve the wood heater testing and the certification program
    so that we can kind of at least clean up this part of it?
        Mr. Regan. Yes. Well, I will say that we take all reviews
    by the IG very seriously. We took a look at the things that we
    can improve in terms of testing procedures, processes, the ways
    that we are communicating with the State of Alaska and those
    who rely on these technologies.
        I believe that we have found a way through, a process
    improvement but also relationship improvement. I have to say
    thank you. You have done a great job helping to reestablish
    some very strong relationships on the ground that quite frankly
    we need.
        We are listening directly to the communities, and we
    understand the role that we play in solving this problem. So, I
    can tell you that through procedural improvements and
    relationship improvements, I believe that we are well on our
    way to solving the problem.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I know that you have given me that
    commitment, but we are going to have to get--we are going to
    have to be creative in some funding solutions for working to
    reduce these PM2.5 emissions going forward. My time has
    expired. I have got a lot more. I am going to look forward to
    those. Thank you.
        Senator Merkley. Senator Tester.
        Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member for
    holding this hearing. And Administrator Regan, thank you for
    being here. I appreciate you coming forward to the committee
    today.
        Look, as a farmer, somebody whose family has been on this
    land since we broke--for over 114 years, I know the value of
    clean air and clean water. There is just no doubt about that.
    But I will tell you that the rules that come out of Washington,
    D.C. have to be rooted in reality. If you can't meet them, it
    really is a huge problem.
        And that is why I want to talk a little bit today about the
    MATS rule. Now, in this rule, you acknowledge that the only
    power plant this is really affecting is one in Colstrip,
    Montana, okay. That is the only one.
        You also acknowledge it will take hundreds of millions of
    dollars to meet the standards, and this is a power plant with
    the public depreciation date of 2042. You and I both know there
    is no way they make hundreds of millions of dollars in
    investment in a power plant that has that depreciation date.
        I would just tell you that when it comes to jobs, when it
    comes to this community, when it comes to power, this is all
    really important as we try to meet that happy medium between
    clean energy and clean air and clean water, okay. But in your
    role, you also provide additional flexibilities and I want to
    flesh that out a little bit.
        These are additional flexibilities to bring sources into
    compliance. It does go into detail on what these are. So, my
    question to you is what are--and don't filibuster me. I know
    you won't. But what are these additional flexibilities?
        Mr. Regan. Well, and I won't filibuster. I will say that
    the flexibilities that are in there are number one, different
    types of control technology options and combinations----
        Senator Tester. Yes.
        Mr. Regan [continuing]. timing and looking at some of the
    unique aspects of the State of Montana. We have had direct
    conversations with this facility.
        Senator Tester. Yes.
        Mr. Regan. And what I would say is, I am not quite sure if
    my team would agree that it would take $100 million of
    investment. I think if our teams, your team are talking with
    this facility, and we look at these combinations of control
    technologies that we have helped other States do, like Kentucky
    and Oklahoma, I believe that we can get there.
        Senator Tester. Okay. And then the question becomes, can we
    get there and still have it so that when it turns 40 below
    zero, we got power. You know, unfortunately, because of climate
    change, we don't have those times very often anymore, but we
    had one last winter.
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Senator Tester. And you know what happens with peak power
    prices and things like that when it--and if you don't have the
    juice, I am telling you, it is over with. You got big costs.
        So, my question, is there any thought since this only
    impacts one power plant in the United States, the whole damn
    country, just one power plant, of potentially moving the day
    forward and giving some flexibility to maybe 2032?
        Mr. Regan. Well, let me say I think it does impact more
    than one, but let's----
        Senator Tester. No, the rule actually points out it impacts
    one.
        Mr. Regan. Yes, 93 percent of coal plants in this country
    we believe will be able to meet.
        Senator Tester. Yes, and this is the one that won't.
        Mr. Regan. Let me say this, I would love for our staff to
    talk.
        Senator Tester. Okay.
        Mr. Regan. They have been having some very technical
    conversations.
        Senator Tester. Good.
        Mr. Regan. And I do believe there is a path.
        Senator Tester. We need to visit. Now, I want to make
    something really clear. I talked to a lot of people about this.
    There is nobody who said, let's just throw the rule out.
        We think this rule is a bunch of garbage and we should
    throw it out. All of them said, I see what they are trying to
    do. They just need to understand that a one size fits all rule
    doesn't necessarily work all the time.
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Senator Tester. Okay. And so, if you are willing to work
    with my staff, and we are willing to move this thing forward in
    a way that really ensures both climate--find that sweet spot,
    ensures both climate stability and energy stability without
    totally torching this community, it would be a big win for
    everybody, okay.
        Mr. Regan. Sounds good to me.
        Senator Tester. We thank you for that. It is--this is
    really, really important. And I get it. I mean, I get it. I
    understand climate. I mean, I have been through two of the
    worst droughts I have ever had on our farm, and that is in 114
    years, okay, and we are still ain't out of it by the way. It
    could be another one this year, and I hope not but it looks
    like it might be.
        So, making sure that this stuff works for everybody is
    really, really, really important. Appreciate you. My time has
    run out. I want to talk about Superfund sites too, but we will
    do that when we come in and talk about MATS, okay.
        Mr. Regan. That sounds great, Senator. Thank you.
        Senator Tester. All right.
        Senator Merkley. Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Chairman. First, I want to
    thank you for the work the EPA has done to finalize the
    national drinking water standard with respect to PFAS. This is
    something that all of our colleagues are struggling with in
    their States.
        Can you kind of walk through this budget request and all
    the pieces and parts of where you are going to be able to make
    progress with respect to PFAS contamination as a result of this
    budget? And do you think it is adequate to meet the incredible
    challenges that we face with PFAS?
        Mr. Regan. Well, thank you, and it has been a combination
    of all of us and our staffs working together. This is an issue
    that doesn't know boundaries, political or State. In the final
    rule that we designed, we had input from over 120,000, serious
    people in the water sector.
        And what I will say is, as I said in my opening, we are
    going to, you know, reduce PFAS exposure to over 100 million
    people. And then we also announced at that same time, a $1
    billion grant, thanks to the bipartisan infrastructure law, to
    help some of our smaller communities comply with this rule.
        The reality is, is that we are focused on a number of PFAS
    in this first drinking water standard, and we have thousands
    more to focus on. So, we really need the resources and the
    staff to have a comprehensive approach of protecting our water
    quality from these forever chemicals.
        So, we would use that money to continue to collect the
    scientific evidence, look at how to design technology and
    health based standards to protect as many people as possible
    from different forms of this pervasive chemical.
        Senator Heinrich. I want to ask you an IRA related
    question. And those of us who have worked with Department of
    Energy for years and the loan program office, we know it took a
    long time to sort of build the muscles in that organization to
    be able to do the things that they are doing at scale now.
        The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, the National Clean
    Investment Fund, these were things that were sort of created
    out of whole cloth in the IRA. Can you talk about
    implementation progress there and where are you going with
    that?
        Mr. Regan. We feel really good about the $27 billion
    Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, that $20 billion that is focused
    on those investments for clean technology and the $7 billion
    that is focused on Solar for All. Thankfully, you all had the
    wisdom in the law to give us the flexibility to add to the
    expertise that we already had.
        And so, we were able to use some of those resources to hire
    some of the expertise that helped us to design this program.
    But the program is also designed in a way where we are
    leveraging those in the private sector, those in the investment
    space who understand how to leverage capital.
        This is $27 billion that we think is going to pour hundreds
    of billions off the sideline. So, with those time limited
    positions, coupled with the EPA expertise, we believe that we
    created a really strong grant competition, and we are going to
    see the fruits of that labor.
        Feel really good about the metrics. Feel really good about
    the types of transparency that we built in. And, you know, we
    have invited our Inspector General and others to ensure that we
    have the transparency, and we are keeping an open book on that.
        So, I feel really good about where we are headed.
        Senator Heinrich. I look forward to more news on that front
    as you continue implementation. You know, the Supreme Court's
    Sackett decision last year had an impact on New Mexico that is
    outsized to most of the rest of the country.
        Over 90 percent of New Mexico's waterways were left without
    any protection from pollution or infill. And New Mexicans have
    worked really hard over the years to improve water quality and
    now are grappling with this new situation that is really
    untenable. How can the EPA work together with States like New
    Mexico to fill that gap?
        Mr. Regan. Well, it was a disappointing decision for a
    number of us, but I committed as Administrator to follow the
    science and follow the law. And the Sackett rule is very
    prescriptive.
        And so, for those who are feeling left out, you know,
    whether it is North Carolina, New Mexico, whomever, we are
    encouraging our States, tribes, and municipalities to use
    available resources that we have, such as our wetland program
    development grants.
        There are some other grants in BIL and IRA that we believe
    we can couple to fill some of those gaps. Listen, I will say I
    have pledged, and my staff is pledging that we will not leave
    any communities behind.
        And we know that there are some serious water quality
    issues. I don't believe that the decision from the Supreme
    Court helps. I think it complicates. But that being said, EPA,
    and the Army Corps, will follow the law.
        And with help that you all have given us through grants and
    resources, we believe we can plug those gaps with resources and
    technical expertise.
        Senator Heinrich. Great. I am out of time. I have got
    another question on rodenticides that I am going to give you
    for the record. If you could get back to us on that, that would
    be appreciate it.
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. And now we will turn to Senator
    Van Hollen.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Administrator Regan, it is good to see you again. And I want to
    start by thanking you and the team at EPA for your help in the
    response to the Key Bridge collapse in Baltimore.
        EPA was on the scene with coordinators who worked with the
    unified command to assess potentially hazardous cargo aboard
    the Dali, and provide recommendations as needed on removal or
    recovery plan. So, thank you for lending that technical
    expertise needed to protect the public health.
        And I understand that Senator Heinrich raised the issue of
    the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. I just want to thank you and
    the EPA for the rollout on that fund. And thank you for
    consulting with us during that process, your entire team, Jahi
    Wise. Please give him my best and others on the team who worked
    on that.
        It was a long journey since I first introduced the National
    Green Bank legislation I think in 2009 back in the House of
    Representatives, along with my friends and colleagues. And
    originally that provision was included on what was known as the
    Waxman Markey bill that we actually passed out of the House,
    but it died in the United States Senate. It does show what
    collective persistence will bring.
        So, the IRA has many good provisions. This is one of them.
    Thank you and your team for helping roll it out. I see in the
    budget you have got $5 million for sort of administrative
    oversight right now.
        If you could just talk very briefly about how you are going
    to use it. It seems to me we have to make sure we are on target
    to achieve our goals. One goal is the amount of greenhouse gas
    reduction that is going to be associated with this $27 billion
    fund total.
        The other is the equity lens and the share of that that
    needs to be invested in lower income communities that have been
    too often overlooked. And third, and very important, it has got
    to be self-sustaining. The idea was this is not just a pool of
    funds for grant monies. These are investments to be made that
    will get a return to go back in the fund and be self-
    sustaining.
        So, number one, do you agree with those goals, and are you
    committed to providing the oversight to make sure that we are
    on track to achieve them?
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely. I think you have helped me answer
    your question, which is we did receive some, what we consider
    to be time limited resources, to help design and stand up this
    program. But you are absolutely right, the execution and
    implementation in a transparent way, with the appropriate level
    of oversight, is an absolute necessity.
        So, to do justice to this brilliant idea that you and
    others had, that you have been working on for over 15 years, we
    want to be sure that we actually pool those hundreds of
    billions of dollars of private capital off the sideline.
        And it is just amazing that just with the solar program, we
    may reach over 900 thousand, close to 1 million homes, and so
    many people through the other $20 billion, low income, moderate
    income, who will actually see these resources as investments
    into the quality of their lives, their homes, and the like.
        We want to use the budget to ensure that we continue
    operating this program in the utmost transparent way that has
    the proper oversight and also the proper engagement with those
    we need to be engaging with.
        Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that. And I am now going
    to turn to the Chesapeake Bay. I am sure you are not surprised
    that we would raise Chesapeake Bay clean up with you. And as
    you know, the Bay sort of watershed includes six States plus
    the District of Columbia.
        The most recent Bay cleanup agreement was signed in 2014
    and set a series of goals to improve the health of the Bay by
    the year 2025. It includes measurable objectives that have
    helped us track progress and take course corrections as
    necessary.
        And together with the 2010 total maximum daily load (TMDL),
    I gave the EPA the ability to serve as the backstop and step
    in, as you have in some respects, with Pennsylvania, to ensure
    compliance. So, Mr. Administrator, we are coming up fast in
    2025.
        We know as of today that we are not on track to hit those
    targets. So, my question is, will you and the EPA commit to
    start working with the States right now to set ambitious goals
    and targets to move the Bay clean up beyond the year 2025?
        Mr. Regan. You have my commitment on that.
        Senator Van Hollen. I appreciate that because we do need to
    get started. I am concerned that we are not on track to hit
    those targets, and I do not want this to drift any longer. So,
    I think the sooner we get to work, the better. And thank you
    for the commitment for EPA to be right there at the table from
    the start, helping pool people together.
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
        Senator Merkley. Great. Senator Fischer.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
    Administrator, for being here today. Biofuels are a great
    market for Nebraska's farmers, and it provides clean burning
    and cheaper fuel for American families.
        Sustainable aviation fuel is another important potential
    market for Nebraska's biofuels. Secretary Vilsack has
    encouraged the biofuels industry to lean into that SAF market,
    saying to a group last year, ``I want you all to understand
    this is a critical moment, a make or break moment.
        And if it is not seized and not taken full advantage of,
    you may have a different conversation years from now.'' Well,
    yesterday, an interagency task force, which included your
    agency, released an updated Greenhouse gases, Regulated
    Emissions, and Energy use in Technologies (GREET) model to
    determine the carbon intensity of fuels for the credit.
        And I am still reviewing the updated model that you sent
    out, but it seems to mandate a set of conservation practices
    that corn, and soybean farmers must do in order for the SAF to
    qualify for the tax credit.
        Additionally, with this updated modeling, corn and soy
    based biofuels, even if they complete the additional
    conservation practices, would still be deemed more carbon
    intensive than Brazilian sugarcane ethanol. My concern is that
    this is going to lead to taxpayer dollars incentivizing imports
    of foreign fuel.
        So, Administrator, I would hope that the Biden
    Administration would not have knowingly released an updated
    model that favors foreign feedstocks by imposing barriers for
    U.S. biofuels to qualify for that SAF tax credits.
        Is it your belief that the U.S. produced biofuels are less
    sustainable than foreign feedstocks like Brazilian ethanol, as
    the updated model seems to indicate?
        Mr. Regan. Well, what I would say is that number one, I
    agree wholeheartedly with Secretary Vilsack that this is a
    great moment in time, and I believe that SAFs have a great
    opportunity here.
        Our role in the interagency focused on updating the GREET
    model was to ensure that we gave all farmers options to comply
    with the Clean Air Act. So, what I think you will see with this
    updated model, and what I have heard farmers say is that there
    is more flexibility in how this model is going to determine the
    outputs to ensure compliance with the Clean Air Act.
        I think the design of conservation programs and tax policy,
    well those questions are probably better steered to USDA or
    Treasury. I am not an architect of how those programs work, and
    I tell you that my focus was to ensure that we put a product
    across the finish line that gave farmers maximum flexibility
    and options for Clean Air Act compliance.
        Senator Fischer. Oh, gosh, I think you are going to be
    hearing from corn producers all across the country and
    especially Nebraska. The requirements we see on this updated
    model that came out from you folks--it really has rather
    stringent requirements that have to be met.
        And it is a number of requirements that have to be met. And
    as I said earlier, you know, the Brazilian sugarcane ethanol is
    going to qualify for taxpayer dollars, United States taxpayer
    dollars, where what I am hearing from my producers is they are
    not going to be able to meet this new model that came out.
        Do you think maybe you need to relook at what that model is
    doing?
        Mr. Regan. You know, I think what we should probably do is
    have our staffs compare notes. That is not what I am hearing.
        I am hearing that we have produced a product that allows
    for our farmers to compete in a global market, as we look at
    filling this SAF gap. So, I would love for our teams to kind of
    talk a little bit about that.
        Senator Fischer. Oh, I would too. Because the air fuel that
    Secretary Vilsack was very excited about and looked at as
    another avenue to really help farmers, Ag producers be able to
    open up another market for them that was a very positive step.
    And we feel now that we are going backwards, we are going the
    other way. So, I look forward to having a continued
    conversation with you on that.
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Senator Fischer. I have also heard from numerous public
    power districts and electric co-ops about the regulations you
    released last week on power plants. In Nebraska, we are a total
    public power State.
        And we are seeing a dramatic increase in electric demand
    because of increased economic development, which is a good
    thing. We like to see that. And the public power districts and
    our electric co-ops, they have expressed concern that EPA's
    rule jeopardizes affordability and reliability by forcing the
    premature closure of coal powered plants.
        And you have been quoted as saying, the EPA knows the
    potential of this industry, power generators, and we have been
    talking to this industry. They provided us comments over the
    past 2 years, formally and informally.
        We believe that we have those interests baked in. Yet the
    National Rural Electric Cooperatives Association stated, the
    path outlined by the EPA is unlawful, unrealistic, and
    unachievable.
        It undermines electric reliability and poses grave
    consequences for an already stressed electric grid. So how do
    you square your comments that rural electric interests are
    baked in with the rural electric industry describing the rule
    as unlawful, unrealistic, and unachievable?
        Mr. Regan. Yes, I feel that is unfortunate that it is
    described that way. I would say that when you look at what we
    have proposed, the enormous amount of comments that we accepted
    from EEEI, and from rural electric cooperatives, I think that
    the rule gravitated towards a level of flexibility and
    expansion that took a lot of what they said very serious.
        And so, I believe that not only did we listen, but we
    produced a lawful rule. I am sure that the courts and others
    will decide. But when you look at the work that we have done
    with DOE and FERC, and those who specialize in grid
    reliability, this meets the mark. We understand that there will
    not be jeopardy in reliability based on this rule.
        And when we did the cost analysis, we looked at a potential
    increase in cost of between 0 and 1 percent. And so, I feel
    very good about the rule that we proposed, and we will look
    forward to the implementation processes, and working with the
    States to be sure that the flexibilities that we believe are
    there are actually built in.
        Senator Fischer. Well, with all due respect.
        Senator Merkley. Senator Fischer.
        Senator Fischer. I would say our Nebraska public power
    districts and co-ops, again, public power, they are opposed to
    the regulations because they do believe it is going to really
    hurt our affordable electric generation. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. Senator Peters.
        Senator Peters. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator
    Regan, as you know very well, the Great Lakes Restoration
    Initiative was established back in 2009 to accelerate efforts
    to protect and to restore one of the largest systems of
    freshwater in the entire world, the Great Lakes.
        And as Michiganders, I can say that the Great Lakes are not
    only in our DNA, they are a critical resource for drinking
    water, for economic growth, and for job creation. And since
    2010, GLI resources have been used to fund thousands of
    projects to improve water quality, to protect and restore
    native habitat and species, to prevent and control invasive
    species, and to address other Great Lakes environmental
    problems.
        However, challenges to the Great Lakes, unfortunately, from
    fluctuating lake levels to increased harmful algal blooms, to
    climate change, aren't going away and are increasing. And so,
    we need to make sure we have full funding for at least the
    authorized $450 million in the fiscal year 2025 budget.
        So, my question for you, Administrator, is can you speak to
    how EPA would be able to leverage a fully funded GLRI of $450
    million, with the historic level of funding received in the
    IIJA to continue this incredibly vital work to protect our
    Great Lakes?
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely. I want to say thank you for your
    leadership on this topic, Senator Peters. And, you know, as you
    mentioned, GLRI has funded more than 7,500 projects and
    leveraging over $3.7 billion in partnership with Federal
    agencies, States, tribes, and local Governments.
        We just announced, four applicants will receive more than
    $35 million to fund projects across the Great Lakes. And the
    Southeast Michigan Council of Governments is one of the four
    that is set to receive $4.2 million. EPA will also invest
    another billion, under the bipartisan infrastructure law,
    largely targeted for accelerated cleanups of areas of concern,
    including the Detroit and Rouge River areas of concern.
        So, I feel really good that the vision of this program is
    working. The economic aspects of it, the leveraged dollars are
    making a lot of sense. And we have got $1 billion in additional
    resources that we are going to leverage against that to
    continue to see the progress that you and others have led.
        Senator Peters. Well, I appreciate that. And it I think I
    would ask you, as a follow up a little bit on your response for
    the benefit of the committee, to just describe how the Great
    Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI)--because I think it is in a
    lot of ways used as a model Federal program.
        It enjoys one strong bipartisan support, which is always
    great to see, but it is also Federal, State, and local levels
    all have embraced these kinds of investments.
        So, I think it, for the benefit of the committee to hear,
    talk a little bit about both the significant environmental and
    economic benefits when we are able to bring all of these
    entities together and focus on this problem.
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely. You know, because of your leadership
    and the leadership of many on this committee, the interest has
    created a catalyst for unprecedented Federal agency
    coordination, a whole of Government approach, that really is
    yielding unprecedented results.
        You know, the economic benefits, a 2018 University of
    Michigan study shows that for every $1 spent in GLRI projects
    between 2010 and 2016, we are seeing the additional economic
    activity of about $3.35.
        So that is $1 to $3.35. So, you know, there has obviously
    been a great initiative to unify the Federal Government to
    focus on these resources, but also, again, it is making a lot
    of economic sense as well.
        Senator Peters. Yes, definitely. That is a good return on
    investment, so I appreciate you bringing that up.
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Senator Peters. Administrator, after long pushing for a
    national standard to limit PFAS in drinking water, I want to
    say I certainly applaud last month's very historic announcement
    by the EPA for the finalization of the nation's first ever
    national standard to address toxic PFAS chemicals in drinking
    water.
        Communities in Michigan, quite frankly, have waited far too
    long for this new standard to help our State and nation make
    the kind of progress necessary to rid our communities of these
    toxic chemicals.
        Researchers and scientists have underscored the serious
    risk of PFAS contamination in both human health and our
    environment, and that is why it is important to establish, I
    believe, additional national drinking standards as soon as
    possible to help communities.
        My question for you, Administrator Regan, is that when you
    were before this committee last year, you told me that the EPA
    had an additional 29 PFAS on its radar for potential
    consideration under a similar standard.
        Could you please provide me and this committee with an
    update on your work to designate these other dangerous chemical
    compounds, and how we need to regulate them accordingly.
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely. We are very proud of the focus on
    the six that you alluded to, and we all know that there are
    many more.
        And so, we are monitoring drinking water in communities all
    across the country for those 29 that we discussed at the last
    hearing through our unregulated contaminant monitoring rules.
        We have a formal process there where we are doing a lot of
    testing at significantly more water systems than ever before,
    using advanced methods to detect these pervasive chemicals, and
    we are regularly releasing that data that we collect under this
    rule for full transparency.
        So, again, we are beginning to uncover, monitor, detect,
    and determine some of the health disbenefits of those 29, with
    an angle or an idea that we will pursue regulation for those in
    the near future as well.
        Senator Peters. Well, good to hear that. Thank you. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator. And Senator
    Hoeven.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Administrator, do
    you support developing carbon capture for coal fired electric
    plants, so that they can capture CO2 and continue to provide
    dependable, low cost baseload energy to the power grid?
        Mr. Regan. I do and thank you for the invitation to North
    Dakota to actually see some of those technologies operate up
    close and personal.
        Senator Hoeven. So right now, we have the largest carbon or
    CO capture project in the world with the DGC Dakota
    Gasification Company, which captures about 50 percent of the CO
    stream for EOR, for tertiary oil recovery.
        And now they are adding another 35 percent, which they will
    capture for geologic storage. They are continuing to work their
    way forward. We have got Project Tundra, which is an effort to
    put CO2 capture on a traditional coal fired facility that is
    owned by a cooperative. And then also Coal Creek, which is an
    investor owned coal fired electric plant who is also working on
    carbon capture.
        But they have got to have an environment that enables them
    to deploy these new technologies. They are investing hundreds
    of millions, billions of dollars in doing this, and the
    Department of Energy is their partner.
        Matter of fact Project Tundra, Minnkota was recently
    awarded, I think, $350 million under a DOE grant to continue
    forward with CO2 reduction or capture and sequester, okay. Now,
    you have just brought forward or finalized the MATS rule, which
    makes further reductions, but it particularly hits lignite
    coal, which is a type of coal that we have.
        And my question is, why are you now requiring another round
    of new MATS reduction, which is mercury standards, when your
    own regulatory analysis acknowledges that studied emissions
    from lignite fired sources, ``are below levels of concern from
    a public health standpoint,'' when that makes it very difficult
    for us to do the very things that you just said you support,
    which is capture and sequester CO?
        Mr. Regan. Yes, I think that----
        Senator Hoeven. And you recognize the differences between
    the lignite and other types of coal, and that these are mined
    mouth operations, right?
        Mr. Regan. I do, and I recognize that irrespective of the
    source, the exposure to mercury is same on children. And what
    we have said and what we have looked at in this rule is 93
    percent of the coal units in this country will qualify or meet
    this rule. And this is about 7 percent that we want to work
    with and focus on.
        That rule has some flexibilities in there, some technology
    combinations that we would like to consider. And so, when I
    spoke at CERAWeek about 2 years ago, what the utilities said to
    me was, hopefully we can align these rules that come out.
        If you are going to do something on mercury, on carbon, on
    water effluents, maybe you could do them in a close proximity
    so we could understand how to make our investments. And so,
    that is what we have attempted to do here.
        And so, I don't necessarily see a conflict in how we
    capture or eliminate these pollutants. I actually see an
    opportunity.
        Senator Hoeven. Well, then you are going to need to work
    with our industry, because lignite coal does have differences
    that you need to take into account. Are you willing to do that?
        Mr. Regan. We are willing to--that is part of the
    flexibility that is built into the rule. I think that we
    recognize that there is no one size fits all. We recognize that
    93 percent of the coal plants say they can do it.
        But we want to work with those 7 percent, like we have done
    in Oklahoma and Kentucky and other States, where we can prove
    that the rule is flexible enough that a combination of rules
    can get at that dangerous mercury toxic emission.
        Senator Hoeven. All right. If you want to have these
    technologies deployed, which our companies are making huge
    investments in, as is Department of Energy, then you are going
    to have to work with them so that they can, in fact, do it.
        Another example is your new CO rule as far as total
    emissions, now saying that emissions have to be reduced by 90
    percent by 2032. Okay, I just cited a project. It is now the
    largest carbon capture project in the world in the Coal
    Gasification Company, okay.
        They actually turned lignite coal in the natural gas. Now,
    with the new deployments, they will be up to maybe 85 percent.
    They are just getting up and running.
        But you are talking about these companies capturing 90
    percent by 2032 when we are just out--I mean, we are the
    first--you know, we are advanced, I think, ahead of anybody in
    this technology and deploying it.
        And if successful, it is not only going to have an impact
    here in this country, but globally, because they will be other
    adapters of these new technologies for carbon capture, which is
    what I think you want.
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
        Senator Hoeven. But how do you expect them to hit a 90
    percent standard when we are just getting these things up and
    going now? In other words, you are putting regulations in place
    that are so stringent that you prevent anybody from actually
    achieving the very kind of reductions that, you know, that are
    possible from a scientific and a commercially viable
    standpoint.
        And if you--and if those regulations prevent it from
    happening in this country, there is nobody else around the
    globe that is going to do it. They are going to just keep
    emitting more CO.
        So, aren't you a lot better off to work with our industry
    to accomplish these new standards that continue to keep this
    baseload in operation? And just like we have done with SOx,
    NOx, mercury, and all these other things, addressed the CO. But
    if you keep setting standards that can't be achieved, you are
    just going to put them out of business.
        Mr. Regan. I think that we can get to that world that you
    just laid out with SOx, NOx, and others. What I would say is we
    are working very closely with DOE.
        We have got billions of dollars from the bipartisan
    infrastructure law. President Biden has said that he supports
    and wants to see carbon capture and storage in place.
        And so, when we look at what DOE is doing, what BIL is
    investing, and the timing of this rule, and what you were doing
    in North Dakota, what is happening with Governor Gordon in
    Wyoming and other places, I believe that we can get there.
        Senator Hoeven. Well, you understand that these regulations
    that you promulgate have to give the industry room to achieve,
    you know, these reductions by deploying these new technologies,
    and they are hundreds of millions and billions of dollars.
        Look at the impact on our ratepayers and look at the impact
    on the stability of the grid if we lose this baseload. So,
    don't those regulations have to empower our ability to do these
    things?
        Mr. Regan. I think they will, and I think they will work
    together. And I do believe that once we look at this rule and
    look at the State Implementation plans, and look at the process
    that individual States and these utilities will go through,
    taking into consideration the billions of dollars that we have
    gotten from BIL and IRA, and looking at, again, the resources
    that DOE is pumping into this technology, I believe that all of
    these things can and will converge if we approach the planning
    process the appropriate way and continue to have these
    conversations.
        Senator Murkowski. We are going to move on to Chairman
    Murray.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much and thank you,
    Administrator Regan. Good to see you today. You know, these
    hearings really offers a really critical look at the needs that
    are facing our nation in fiscal year 2025.
        And as I have said before, and as we have seen many times,
    keeping our nation strong and our families safe is about a lot
    more than just how much we invest in our military. It is also
    about the absolutely essential investments we make at agencies
    like EPA, which ensures that we have clean air and clean water
    for our families and protects our communities from toxic
    pollutants and cancer causing chemicals, and a lot more.
        So as long as I am Appropriations Chair, I am going to make
    sure that we never lose sight of that reality or leave
    essential domestic needs behind. Now, I have been very clear
    from the start, I don't like the bipartisan spending caps we
    have to work with. They seriously limit our investments in our
    country's future, and they forced a lot of tough funding and
    decisions in the bill we just completed.
        There is no question that our fiscal year 2025 is going to
    be even tougher than last year, but I am absolutely committed
    to working again in a bipartisan way to make sure we address
    the challenges we face for defense and non-defense alike.
        For me, the order of the day, every day as we work on our
    new funding bills now is to make sure our families are always
    treated as an equal priority in our funding bills and are as
    important as our military spending. They are both critical to
    our nation's success.
        So, Administrator Regan, thank you again for being here. I
    wanted to ask you about the President's budget request for
    fiscal year 2025. You include key funding increases for some of
    EPA's core programs.
        This is the funding that ensures that EPA can enforce our
    bedrock environmental laws, like the Clean Air and Clean Water
    Acts, protect our ecosystems, our waterways, our communities.
    The request for clean air programs would boost funding by $393
    million. Would you talk to us about why that need is there and
    how it would be used?
        Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that. And the increases in
    the President's budget, I believe, do respect those spending
    caps.
        And it is really important that we look at those requests
    that were made so that we can keep up with some of the progress
    we are making. We are--just proposed a really good strong
    drinking water rule on PFAS. But that is six.
        We have got 29 in the wings, and we have got thousands
    more. So, we need to keep the pace there. We want to ensure the
    safety of chemicals before they hit the markets. And that is
    one of the places on our team where we have a deficit in terms
    of staffing.
        Yet we are getting more and more requests from our Ag
    communities about herbicides and pesticides. We have to
    maintain the progress that we are making on cleaning up our
    Superfund sites and our Brownfield sites.
        And quite frankly, I wish it weren't the case, but we need
    the capability to respond to a lot of these emergencies that we
    are seeing, whether they are train derailments or bridge
    collapses or wildfires.
        And so, all of the requests that you see in that budget are
    really focused on some core, key core areas that are pertaining
    to the EPA's mission.
        Senator Murray. Okay. And I also want to ask you about the
    Puget Sound Geographic Program, which provides really important
    supports to protect and restore the Puget Sound and the larger
    Salish Sea.
        I am pleased to see that the budget continues to include
    robust funding for those efforts, protects our local ecosystems
    from climate change and habitat loss and pollution, and also
    protects tribal treaty rights and tribal sovereignty, including
    by supporting recovery efforts for salmon and southern resident
    killer whales, all really important priorities to me.
        Can you talk about how your budget investment supports the
    Puget Sound Geographic Program?
        Mr. Regan. Well, it does. It is very important that it
    does. All of--it keeps pace and maintains all the progress that
    you just laid out, in addition to the threat and danger that we
    are seeing from 6PPD. This underscores the need for the science
    and the ecological protection there.
        And so, I want to thank you and Congress for the resources
    and the focus there. But specifically for the Puget Sound, we
    have successfully followed through with our new statutory
    requirements to stand up the Puget Sound Recovery National
    Program Office and a Puget Sound Federal Leadership Task Force.
        As a matter of fact, I believe our task force leadership is
    completing our first report to Congress under the statute, and
    we will get you a copy of that. But I want to say that I am
    very proud of the work that we are doing on the Puget Sound and
    protecting that ecosystem and those waters.
        And through your leadership and through these task force
    and program offices, I think we are well on our way. We just
    need the budget resources to continue to progress.
        Senator Murray. Okay. And finally, let me just say that I
    really want to commend the EPA, along with the Department of
    Energy and the Washington State Department of Ecology, for
    reaching a holistic agreement on the treatment of tank waste at
    Hanford Site earlier this week.
        I take the Federal Government's moral and legal
    responsibility, and I just support the Hanford cleanup very
    seriously and make sure this committee does as well. So, we
    will be talking to you in the future about how you can make
    sure that that is on top of the agenda, and we are putting
    clean up first. So, thank you very much.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you.
        Senator Merkley. All done. Okay, Senator Britt.
        Senator Britt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Administrator,
    thank you for being here today and taking time before the
    subcommittee. Alabama farmers are greatly concerned with the
    EPA's recent Endangered Species Act pesticide proposal like the
    herbicide strategy.
        These proposals could impose hundreds of millions of
    dollars in new restrictions on farmers who need these tools to
    protect crops and maintain conservation practices like reduce
    tillage and cover crops.
        Some farmers are finding that they may lack options to
    comply with the EPA proposal, which means that they have to
    entirely stop using tools that are vital to their farms. And I
    hope that you and I both share the thought that food security
    is national security, and making sure that we continue to
    support our farmers and continue to support the job they do,
    knowing that they protect their land.
        The fruitfulness of it is what allows them to continue to
    do their job. And support the work they do, not only for their
    community, but truly for the entire nation. In that vein,
    bipartisan instructions were provided to EPA in the final
    fiscal year 2024 Interior Appropriations Report to ensure the
    use of ``best scientific and commercial data about available''
    to assess species risk as the law requires.
        These instructions include using real world data on
    pesticide usage, existing conservation practices farmers are
    using to protect wildlife, real world data on spray drift and
    water concentrations, to supplemental models, among other
    sources.
        My question for you, Mr. Administrator, is how does the EPA
    plan on implementing Congress's bipartisan instructions?
        Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for that. And we do share that
    goal. And I can say that I agree that no farmers should wake up
    in the middle of a growing season and have to face some of the
    decisions that they are having to face.
        Senator Britt. Thank you.
        Mr. Regan. You know, I think previous decisions that
    spanned decades and court rulings have put us all in a
    precarious position. I do feel really good that we are speaking
    with our farming community, our agriculture community, on how
    we approach to Pesticides and Endangered Species Act, and we
    have come up with some strategies that, quite frankly, a number
    of farm groups have spoken very positively about.
        Senator Britt. Okay.
        Mr. Regan. The American Soybean Association and the AG
    Retailers Association. So, I think we are digging our way out
    of this hole. We are having a lot of conversations using--
    similar conversations around using the same science so that we
    can achieve some of these goals that will provide certainty for
    our agriculture.
        Senator Britt. The two things I have heard, and so these
    are my concerns, is that we are not using kind of the directive
    that was in the bipartisan report language. And so, it has been
    brought to my attention that in some ways the EPA seems to be
    intentionally using conservation models that are designed to
    overestimate risk and which is explicitly not, you know, the
    best scientific and commercial data available.
        And so that type of risk assessment is something that I am
    worried about because I believe it will necessitate farmers
    adopting additional restrictions and, you know, to just
    mitigate what may be a phantom risk.
        And so, I just want to make sure if that comes across, if
    you will make sure to just kind of drill down and ensure that
    is not happening, because I just want to caution EPA, after
    last year, you know, we saw the D.C. circuit court rule against
    the National Marine Fisheries Services for taking that similar
    approach of over overstating the risks to different species.
        And so, I just, I strongly advise EPA to implement the
    bipartisan data instructions, as Congress has directed. And the
    other feedback that I have gotten is that there may be a
    potential of you having some type of significant volume of
    things and maybe not having, you know, staffing in order to be
    able to implement this.
        And so, my question on that front is, would the EPA
    consider appointing designated non-Federal representatives to
    help you meet the ESA responsibilities and Congress's
    bipartisan data instructions?
        Mr. Regan. I think you will see in the budget, we attempted
    to be responsible and provide a request for the necessary
    bodies to do so. That particular office of the office that we
    are talking about is down to levels that early 2000s and more.
        So, I think what--there is a common agreement is, is that
    we need more staff, and more resources to keep pace with what
    the courts are pushing our way. And I am not certain that we
    are comfortable with the overreliance of a Federal
    responsibility to volunteers or folks who have expertise that
    are not contractually acquired. So, we would really need to
    talk through----
        Senator Britt. Yes, would you mind--I know I am about out
    of time. Would you commit that our staffs could get together
    and actually talk about this, because I don't think the EPA
    needs to do this alone.
        You know, if you look at the Endangered Species Act, it
    actually allows the agency to designate non-Federal
    representatives to help do this work. And so, would you commit
    to me that we can sit down and have that conversation and see
    if there is a path forward?
        Mr. Regan. I would, and I would love for us to prioritize
    doing it in a way that we haven't done in the past. The court
    decisions and the use of that program contributes to why we are
    here today.
        Senator Britt. Well, let's work together to see if we could
    find a path forward. Thank you.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you so much.
        Senator Merkley. Senator Sinema.
        Senator Sinema. Thank you, Chairman Merkley and Ranking
    Member Murkowski. And thank you to our Administrator for being
    here today. As you know, a slate of recent rulemaking from your
    agency stands to have enormous impacts on the prosperity of
    Arizona.
        We are committed to a clean and healthy environment, and
    the manufacturing boom in my State is helping to lead the way.
    From advanced semiconductors to batteries and the critical
    minerals they are made of, Arizona is at the forefront of the
    clean energy economy. But it doesn't feel like this progress
    and responsible growth is always supported by the Federal
    Government.
        So, I have a few important questions for you, and I look
    forward to discussing these matters. My office recently had the
    opportunity to host one of your assistant Administrators, Joe
    Goffman, in Arizona.
        As you no doubt are aware, the issue of ozone non-
    attainment in Maricopa County is significant and could hamper
    the kinds of clean energy advanced manufacturing investments
    this Administration and Congress have sought to support and
    restore over the past years.
        I share your goal of providing clean air to the American
    people, but the simple fact is that my State does not have the
    industrial history on which to base a robust bank of emissions
    reduction credits that manufacturers like the semiconductor
    industry can use to support expansion.
        Maricopa County's proposed with 204 and 205 would provide
    the mechanisms to create a bank of these credits, though the
    process to get these rules has been extremely arduous. Now that
    the EPA is taking the first step towards conditional approval
    of 205, will you commit to working with Maricopa County
    throughout this process to ensure a timely, final approval by
    the end of this summer?
        And can you also provide an exact timeline of how the
    agency plans to work with the county to get rule 204 to
    conditional approval this calendar year?
        Mr. Regan. Well, thank you for the question. And what I
    will say is, I can commit that we will continue to work on this
    process. I think that Maricopa County has pioneered some very
    novel approaches that have gotten us this far.
        Administrator Goffman was there a meeting with stakeholders
    to try to learn from the success of 204 and 205, excuse me, so
    we can apply it to 204. So, I will circle my staff and have our
    teams converse about what timeframe we actually think we are
    on. I would hate to promise something that we can't meet.
        And I would like to give you some level of specificity on
    what that timeline is and what needs to occur to ensure success
    for that timeline.
        Senator Sinema. Well, thank you, Administrator. I like that
    specificity, though it would have been nice to have an open
    hearing. I will take it in a later time, if you are able to
    follow up. My second question, Western States face significant
    regional challenges in maintaining the eight hour ozone
    standard.
        This cannot be solved by States at the individual or
    regional levels. These challenges include high natural
    background ozone levels, increasing ozone impacts from
    wildfires, and significant ozone impacts from international
    transport.
        But the penalties for not attaining the eight hour ozone
    standard, including sanctions on major industries and highway
    funding, are directly imposed at the regional level. Now, the
    current EPA policies and guidance effectively bar Western
    States from pursuing Clean Air Act relief from locally
    uncontrollable ozone that is generated by wildfires and
    transport.
        So, what are you doing to revise those policy and guidance
    related to exceptional events and international transport,
    places like Arizona can't control that, so that Western States
    can access these limited Clean Air Act relief mechanisms and
    avoid sanctions that are associated with failing to obtain an
    ozone standard that we have no control over?
        Mr. Regan. Yes. Well, thank you for that question. And I
    will say that, when we look at all of the work that we have
    done as of late with our National Ambient Air Quality Standards
    (NAAQS) program, we recognize that wildfires or unnatural
    events or prescribed burns need to be differentiated in terms
    of the air monitoring data that we are acquiring.
        So, we do have a process to diverge that data that comes
    from exceptional events, prescribed burns, so that States,
    counties, regions are not penalized for that. I think that when
    you look at----
        Senator Sinema. Administrator, just to interrupt, does that
    also include to account for international transport? As you
    know, we share a border with Mexico and have no ability to
    manage how they regulate their usage of ozone or pollutants in
    their air.
        Mr. Regan. Yes. What I would say there is I think that our
    program is designed to understand what transport is coming from
    out of State. That is part of what we have perfected in our
    Good Neighbor Rule, even though it is constantly challenged in
    court and other places.
        So again, that is another place where I think our teams can
    have a conversation about exactly when we look at ozone
    attainment, and in terms of meeting that goal, what percentage
    is coming from international airspace or what is coming from
    prescribed burns or exceptional events? I think that there is a
    way that we can focus more on that to assure the attainment
    that we are all looking for.
        Senator Sinema. Thanks. My last question is, when I
    expressed to you in the past, I have serious concerns with how
    the agency's rulemaking around ethylene oxide was handled.
        The potential impacts of this rule on the safety and
    availability of sterilized medical devices is one that I still
    don't believe the EPA has taken on with all seriousness,
    including comments that the FDA submitted about the massive
    risks to medical device supply chains.
        Can you explain how you have worked with Commissioner
    Califf at the FDA to address concerns that they have indicated
    around medical device supply chains that require ethylene
    oxide?
        Mr. Regan. I can. I can say that I have talked to Dr.
    Califf a number of times. Our teams at FDA and EPA have talked
    a number of times. I think that we were able to resolve those
    issues that the FDA had during the proposal and final phase. I
    will say that we are assured, based on our process, that we
    will not have any impact on sterilization of medical equipment
    that is used obviously to save lives.
        But we also feel really good that this rule can be complied
    with at less than 1 percent of the annual revenue of these
    companies. And we are reducing cancer causing risk, elevated
    risk, by surrounding communities by 96 percent.
        So, I think that we have done a really good job balancing
    those health obligations, the cost effectiveness of it, and
    some of the very serious questions that we took serious that
    were raised by the FDA.
        Senator Sinema. And I know I am over my time, Mr. Chairman,
    but just one last question. Do you feel confident in saying
    that the FDA shares your assessment, that through this process,
    you have addressed all of their concerns, and that the industry
    will be able to move forward without harm to patients or to the
    medical device supply chain?
        Mr. Regan. I believe that, and I believe we have the
    documentation that says so.
        [The information follows:]

        Senator Sinema. I would like to see that. Thank you. Thank
    you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Merkley. You are most welcome. Senator Capito.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr.
    Administrator. Good to see you again. I am sure that you will
    not be surprised that I am going to start by saying I am
    extremely disappointed by the EPA's Clean Power Plan 2.0 and
    other rules in the so-called EGU strategy that were announced
    last Thursday.
        I will discuss these more in detail because you are coming
    in front of our EPW committee, and we can dig deeper into that
    and discuss those rules. So, turning to another issue, would
    you agree that the EPA's offer--excuse me, Office of Inspector
    General plays an important role in conducting independent,
    third party auditing and oversight of the agency's programs?
        Mr. Regan. Yes, I would agree.
        Senator Capito. And would you also agree that the IG's work
    helps to ensure that the agency's programs are responsibly and
    effectively implemented, and waste, fraud, and abuse is
    minimized?
        Mr. Regan. Yes.
        Senator Capito. Well, we agree on the important role of the
    EPA's Inspector General. I think it is especially important
    when it comes to the oversight of the IRA, which was passed
    with Democrats only voting for it.
        The IRA appropriated more than $41 billion to the EPA, and
    established many new programs that require the agency staff to
    conduct activities that are outside their traditional roles.
        One example is the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, commonly
    referred to as the Green Bank provision, which I understand is
    $20 billion that you have just announced is going to eight
    entities. It is $20 billion going to eight entities.
        Democrats provided $27 billion for the entire program. The
    Inspector General has testified before the House, the EPA
    Inspector General, that the Green Bank and other new IRA
    programs carry a heightened risk of waste, fraud, and abuse.
        So, of note, however, the IRA provided not $1 of additional
    funding for an EPA Inspector General to independently oversee
    this $27 billion. By contrast, the Inspector Generals of other
    agencies did get IRA funding.
        For example, the DOE got $20 million to help oversee their
    funding. It is deeply concerning to me that we are now entering
    the second year since the IRA became law and the EPA Inspector
    General still has not received any additional dedicated funding
    to audit more than $40 billion in your EPA programs.
        So, do you support the EPA Inspector General being provided
    with additional funding to perform audits and reviews of the
    IRA programs?
        Mr. Regan. Actually, I do, and in our budget, we are
    requesting those resources.
        Senator Capito. Why was that not included in the IRA?
        Mr. Regan. I am not a member of Congress. It is a law that
    passed that I am responsible for implementing. And so, what I
    would say is, I would like to operate in a very transparent
    way. I have had a number of conversations--I meet with my IG
    routinely.
        We have a good partnership. He has indicated that it would
    be in both interest to have more oversight. And so, in that
    spirit of partnership at EPA, we have requested to Congress,
    through the budget, through the President's budget, that the
    Inspector General's Office receive adequate funding so that we
    could continue that strong partnership----
        Senator Capito. How much did you ask for in that?
        Mr. Regan. We have requested $79.2 million in total. I
    think the current is $54.6 million.
        Senator Capito. Okay, so that is additional like $25 or
    something like that. Am I hearing that correctly?
        Mr. Regan. Yes. It is 45 percent, yes.
        Senator Capito. So how do you say that you are going to
    finalize these agreements of $20 billion to eight different
    entities, and when are you finalizing those agreements, in
    September?
        Mr. Regan. Well, we had a very competitive process. We have
    selected those eight recipients, which I think--I don't want to
    speak for the IG or anyone else, but we chose eight applicants
    that have demonstrated expertise.
        From an oversight standpoint, that is much better than
    choosing 30 or 40 applicants that don't have quite the same
    level of expertise. And by the way, these eight recipients are
    distributing the resources. So, this is not $20 billion going
    to eight entities for their usage.
        Senator Capito. Which that makes it even harder to oversee,
    I think. I am not advocating that they are the ones that spend
    it.
        But it seems to me if you are going to have 300 different
    entities, you know, being the recipients of this with eight
    major entities putting this money out, I don't see how you are
    going to keep track of this.
        I mean, I just think it is so ripe for waste, fraud, and
    abuse, subjective kinds of deploying of the dollars, and that
    it very much concerns me.
        Mr. Regan. I think the design of the program--and I am very
    proud of the way we have designed this program.
        We have the metrics. We have the guardrails. We have
    carefully selected these eight entities. They are accountable
    to us. I think we have a ton of oversight mechanisms built in.
    But listen, some might consider me not as objective, which is
    why we are asking for the resources in the President's budget
    to ensure that our Inspector General feels comfortable with the
    actions that we are taking.
        Senator Capito. Well, I will end there on that. I would say
    it is just amazing to me that the authors of the IRA wouldn't
    want to be more accountable to the dollars that were being
    spent, billions of dollars being spent in a whole new program
    and wouldn't have included that in their initial proposal.
    Thank you.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator. And I think
    we are going to have additional five minute rounds, if you want
    to stay and ask any more questions. So, I am going to attempt
    to get through three or four questions in five minutes.
        First, just to restate what I think I heard you say, under
    the exceptional events criteria, any error contaminants that
    occur from a prescribed fire will not be counted against
    achieving attainment.
        Mr. Regan. That is correct.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. Terrific. That was fast. All
    right. Second, in my home State is Coffin Butte landfill. In
    June of 2022, the EPA sent out a team to measure the methane
    coming out of it because of local concerns.
        The inspection resulted in recording 61 leaks, including
    three measurements that maxed out the instrumentation that was
    being used at 70,000 parts per million. So, can you give me a
    short version of what action the EPA is taking?
        This is now 23 months ago that the field inspection
    occurred. And if we need a longer discussion, I would like to
    follow up with you to make sure that there is going to be
    action regarding landfills like this that are out of
    compliance.
        Mr. Regan. Well, I will say that our enforcement arm has
    been very aggressive in looking at these methane leaks and
    opportunities here. This is one, as you said, that was
    discovered in 2022.
        Unfortunately, it is an active enforcement situation, so I
    can't speak to that without betraying the confidence or the
    legal obligations that I have. But I can tell you that we are
    coordinating with the State of Oregon. It is an active case,
    and we are laser focused on this case.
        Senator Merkley. Great. Because if you have a landfill that
    maxes out the instrumentation, which is, I think, quite rare,
    it probably should rise to the top of the list of places to act
    on.
        And I will convey to the folks in Corvallis and nearby that
    you are on the case. Great. Thank you. I want to turn to 6PPD.
    This is an ingredient in tires that makes them wear longer.
        But there is a fascinating study that was conducted in 2020
    because scientists in Washington noticed that the Coho salmon
    that were returning to spawn were dying, and they tried to
    figure out why, and they ended up testing 2,000 chemicals in
    the stream and discovered they finally had a smoking gun, 6PPD.
        Every time it would rain, it would flush the dust from
    tires into the stream and the Coho would die. We have lots of
    challenges on both coasts of this country for the survival of
    our salmon.
        Last thing we needed was a chemical that wipes them out as
    they are spawning each time it rains. And yet, this chemical,
    apparently no substitute has been found to make tires wear
    longer. And if they wear out too fast, that can create safety
    issues. So, this merits a high level of attention.
        And I applaud EPA for granting the TSCA application that
    came from the Yurok and two other tribes, because it is rare to
    have such a petition granted to examine a chemical. But we know
    how slow TSCA can be.
        Given this lethal impact on salmon that are spawning, and
    not to mention that it has a huge impact on rainbow trout and
    brook trout as well, what can we do to acceleate a solution to
    replace 6PPD with something that works a lot better? Or works
    equally well for the tires but doesn't kill our salmon, brook
    trout, and rainbow trout.
        Mr. Regan. Yes, I am very thankful for the EPA's storm
    water research has helped us connect these dots. I am very
    excited that we were able to approve that petition as quickly
    as possible, and our team is moving very quickly.
        We intend to publish an advance notice of proposed
    rulemaking under Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) by this
    fall. And so, from a regulatory standpoint, we are moving as
    quickly as possible. There are some, you know, mitigation
    efforts that we are researching to see if we can plug some of
    those gaps until we can take regulatory action.
        But the reality is, is that this is another one of these
    pervasive chemicals that has been ignored for far too long.
    Thankfully, we have been receiving the budget resources to
    tackle these pervasive chemicals, and we are going to do that
    with this budget request as well.
        Senator Merkley. Great. And my understanding was that that
    rule, that advanced rule or notice advanced rulemaking, leads
    to requiring the manufacturers to provide you with a lot of
    research data.
        That is great. I hope that some of the new hires you have
    on will become a team to tackle this challenge, because I am
    afraid that the process of considering the chemical could take
    so many years, our salmon could be gone. They have faced so
    many threats. So, if there is a way to--and I know the
    manufacturers already have a 16 company coalition that is
    working to test other products.
        They just haven't found one. We need a lot of understanding
    of this. And even if it comes close to matching, helping with
    the tire wear so it doesn't kill salmon, we need to figure that
    out and make a transition. And I am out of my time, so I don't
    get to ask another question until my co-chair here steps in.
        Senator Murkowski. Just keep moving through them. Good
    questions though. And, Administrator, know that the chairman
    and I, we are talking about this issue and how we are seeing
    the potential impact in our streams and the impact to our
    fisheries. Obviously, an issue that we are looking at with
    great attention in Alaska as well.
        I wanted to ask you about Superfund program next year and
    how you plan to ensure the long term viability of this program.
    I think we all agree that this is a critical program and
    certainly a big one within our budget request.
        But in the fiscal year 2024 request, the agency proposed to
    heavily reduce the annual discretionary funding because of the
    new revenues that are coming into it. And then what we just
    passed partially acts on that proposal, but not to the full
    reduction requested. So compared to the previous budget
    request, the agency's request this year includes additional
    funding to the program.
        And so, I am looking at that and thinking that this change
    in request level perhaps showcases a reversal in how the agency
    views the funding for the Superfund program over the long run.
    We know that the tax is bringing in, this new revenue are
    eventually going to expire. So, I guess this is a pretty broad
    question to you, but how do you view the long term funding
    outlook for the Superfund program?
        I feel pretty strongly last year that we needed to maintain
    a good level of discretionary funding for the program in case
    the expectations on the taxes weren't achieved. So, can you
    share with me where you think we are with that?
        Mr. Regan. Well, thank you. And unfortunately, your
    predictions were right. The tax collections have been much
    lower the first 2 years than forecasted by the Treasury
    Department. And so, we saw a big gap there. In this budget, I
    think we are requesting $300 million to fill that gap.
        Our Superfund program, our Brownfields programs are some of
    our most important programs, most productive programs. And so,
    we have that $300 million request in the budget this year, and
    we are going through a thought process of what do we need to do
    to ensure that the Department of Treasury and EPA are having
    the right conversations to understand what these projections
    are so that we can better prepare our budgets for the future.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, I appreciate that. And I was
    really worried last year because, you know, we were all looking
    for different ways that we could meet our budget. And, you
    know, we were really constrained.
        And there were a lot that were looking at the Superfund as
    well now we are going to have all this new revenue coming in,
    so we don't need to fund it on the discretionary side. So, I
    think we were--we are in a good place, but I agree with you,
    these programs are far too important across the country, so we
    want to make sure that we get this right.
        I raised the issue of Congressionally directed spending
    projects and getting them out the door to the intended
    communities. I don't think I mentioned any numbers in my
    statement, but looking just at Alaska as an example, of the 48
    fiscal year 2022 and 2023 projects that we secured for Alaska,
    only 15 of those have been awarded.
        And so, when you think about just the process that we are
    dealing with, we have communities that are coming to us and
    saying this is absolutely highest and most significant need. We
    work to achieve that.
        We get it. It is in law. And then, 1 year goes by and they
    don't see it. And the second year goes by. So, can you give me
    any updates on what the agency is doing to improve the
    processing?
        And I guess what I want, Administrator, is your assurance
    that you are really going to make this a priority and including
    talking with the new acting Administrator for water to kind of
    sit down and figure out, all right, how do we get these funds
    out the door?
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely. And I would love to also just
    continue this conversation so that we can drill down a little
    bit more. I know that Congress awarded us $7 million last year
    to try to help us close the gap.
        With these earmarks, as you and I have discussed, these are
    going to applicants who just are first timers in the grant
    application process. So, we have tried to take that $7 million
    plus other technical assistance we can provide to the
    applicants to submit qualified applications. Of the completed
    qualified applications, we are at a 99 percent approval rate.
        So, we really have a deficit in terms of getting these
    grant in the door in a decent fashion. And so, we put our heads
    together to think about how to speed that up. We can do that
    with existing technical expertise and the $7 million.
        But I do think we need to have a more robust conversation
    about not just with Alaska, but how do we close this gap all
    across the country, given that there is a big gap in terms of
    those who have never applied for Federal grants, and there is a
    process that we have to follow to ensure that they can handle
    those resources.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, we all want to get to the same
    place, but I am sure you can understand the frustration from
    those who have been the recipients, but now they are looking at
    it and they are like, we are recipient in paper only. And it is
    not legal tender paper. It is, you win, but you don't have
    anything yet. So, let's work together on that. My time has
    expired. Thank you.
        Mr. Regan. Absolutely.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. Are you going to stay for
    another round of questions? Okay. All right, so back to
    landfill methane. One of the broader questions that doesn't
    just address Coffin Butte, the landfill that I noted in Oregon
    that we have lots of concerns about, is landfills more broadly,
    are you considering, will you consider updating the new source
    performance standards for landfills?
        Mr. Regan. That is something that I know has been discussed
    by the team. And so, what I want to do is get an update from
    them on where we are in that process, that discussion process,
    and I will be sure to circle back with you and your team on
    that.
        Senator Merkley. Okay. That would be great. I keep thinking
    about this one landfill that I visited in Oregon, where they
    would run piping throughout the whole thing, and they were
    collecting all the methane, and then they were burning it for
    energy.
        At least when you burn it, it makes it less lethal to the
    climate. Produces carbon dioxide, yes, but less toxic. But, but
    you are also producing energy for the grid and--but the
    landfills where they are just emitting massive amounts of
    methane that is not collected, not burned, whatever, is the
    worst case.
        I want to turn to follow up on the point my colleague was
    just making because we are getting a lot of feedback, not
    always so polite feedback, back home on the fiscal year 2022
    and 2023. In Oregon, we call them community initiated
    0projects. They put forward their best ideas, we fight for
    them.
        And so, we want to make it clear it is their priorities
    back home. It is not our priorities. But of the 1,225 awards
    that were made where people were told, yes, you are going to
    get your funding that you applied for the community initiative
    project, my understanding is only 486 extended applications
    have been completed.
        Because they are told about this award, but then they have
    to go out and they have to get maybe an architect to complete
    the work and a construction team, and they have got to make
    sure they are matching funds in the State or, you know, that
    that box is checked. So, out of that 1,225 from fiscal year
    2022 and 2023, I gather only 260 checks have gone out the door.
    And so, that leaves 1,000 frustrated organizations.
        And maybe that is because we don't help them understand
    what they have to do if they get the award. And part of it is
    because we are doing so much infrastructure work around the
    country, you can't get a design team, maybe you can't get an
    architect, maybe you can't get an engineering estimate, maybe
    you can't get a construction firm to build it.
        And but now we have, in addition, announcements of another
    471 projects for fiscal year 2024. And so, this is all within
    the EPA realm. This is not--it is just the community initiated
    projects that--so I know it is a much more extended
    conversation about how we educate those who apply, how they
    know what they have to do quickly, how do we solve--if there is
    any way to solve the challenges of fulfilling all the details
    of the application, the full application they have to do after
    they have been told they have the money, because we want this
    to work well.
        These were the community's top priorities. We want it--we
    get excited telling them we have gotten the money, and then
    this whole process gets frustrating for them. I had one
    community that said to me, we got $1 million grant, great, but
    in the year it took us to get all the boxes checked and
    approved by EPA, the project increased by $1 million.
        And that obviously didn't help anyone in that particular
    instance. The Greenhouse Reduction Fund--oh, EPA staffing
    normal. That is what I wanted to turn to. So, how does your
    fiscal year 2025 budget increase the permanent staffing?
        We know the staffing is increased from the Inflation
    Reduction Act and the infrastructure bill with shorter term
    contracts. But in terms of your permanent hires, which have
    decreased 20 percent over the past decade, how much repair work
    is done in this fiscal year 2025 budget?
        Mr. Regan. You know, it is a great--it is a good shot in
    the arm. I think when we look at 14,000 plus employees, and
    trying to get up to that 16,000 level, you know, 10 years ago,
    15 years ago, we were at 17,000 or more, and I would argue that
    the environment was less complex.
        Now we are focused on making up lost ground for TSCA. We
    are looking at all of these pesticides and herbicides that we
    need to respond to because of the court. We are tackling things
    like PFAS.
        And so, a significant portion of what we are asking for are
    permanent employees, folks who can focus on some of the bread-
    and-butter issues at EPA. We have been rebuilding for the last
    3 years.
        We have got a little bit more to go. And these resources
    that we have requested will help us ensure that we are doing
    our jobs adequately.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. Senator, back to you.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you. Two more questions for me.
    Both of them not very easy, one is PFAS, and one is clean
    power, so. But there has been a lot of attention focused on the
    PFAS contamination, what we need to do.
        I am pretty proud of the funding that we were able to
    include in the bipartisan infrastructure bill to start
    addressing this PFAS contamination because we recognize that we
    have got to address it. But I worry a lot about the impact of
    these national rulemakings on our very small water system
    providers.
        I mean, they are small, you know, Administrator. You have
    had an opportunity to see some of them, to hear their concerns.
    They have not only expressed real, genuine concerns about the
    cost, but also the liability under the CERCLA designations,
    even with the enforcement discretion policy that the agency has
    released.
        So, how do we address the very legitimate concerns that we
    have here? And I don't know, maybe there has been some work
    that has been done in the rulemaking or separately to address
    some of the concerns of, again, of these very small, community
    providers like we see in Alaska.
        And it is not that anybody wants to say, well, we don't
    want to have good standards here. But for some, I mean, there
    is no option. It is like, okay, if we can't meet this and there
    is enforcement, and if there is enforcement, we can't pay for
    that, and therefore we have no water. What do we do?
        Mr. Regan. Well, and I understand exactly what you are
    saying. And thank you for introducing me to some of those small
    water utilities that I saw while I was in Alaska. I think we
    are very cognizant of that in terms of the way we designed the
    rule.
        And so, I would love for our team to get together so that
    we can talk about some of the flexibilities that exist there.
    In addition to the billion dollars that we announced to help
    some of these smaller systems, you know, within that $50
    billion water infrastructure package for BIL, there is tens of
    billions of dollars that we believe can be leveraged for PFAS
    compliance as well.
        And so, I believe that there are a number of pots of money,
    in addition to leveraging some of our public, private
    partnerships that can bring some of these water systems into
    compliance, that fall on the smaller scale or in that rural
    scale.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, what I would like to do is take
    you up on your invitation to introduce you to some of these
    very specific communities, share with you and your folks just
    the enormity and also the steps that they have taken to try to
    address some of these issues, and see if we can't be a little
    more creative in identifying some sources of funding.
        And last question to me is on the Clean Power Plan and its
    effects on Alaska. You again, you have spent some time there. I
    know that you are familiar with many of the issues that are
    distinct in my State, but we are facing a situation now with
    declining natural gas production in Cook Inlet.
        Natural gas is basically that baseload that powers the
    entire, South Central region, all the way up to Fairbanks. And
    we are in a place now where our Legislature and our Governor is
    actively discussing with the utilities the need to import LNG
    from Canada in order to avoid brownouts and worse. It is a
    situation that is absolutely untenable, in my view, but this
    kind of speaks to the place that we are in right now as we are
    trying to integrate in additional renewables.
        That is good, that is positive. But it doesn't come on soon
    enough and we are seeing the decline with available gas really
    a looming, looming threat. And so, a couple questions when it
    comes to the Clean Power Plan and our energy picture in that
    context, because under the previous rule, Alaska had an
    exemption to the Clean Power Plan.
        And I guess the question to you is whether or not the EPA
    actually looked to what these rules could mean for electric
    generation and energy costs in Alaska, particularly given this
    dynamic that we are seeing.
        It is like this wall coming at us. And whether or not we
    should be in a position where if because of the pressing
    urgency that we are in right now--and again, an option that is
    untenable, which is importing LNG from our neighbor in Canada.
        If Alaska is forced into a situation like this, can EPA
    look to the Alaska exemption that was in place in the prior
    Clean Power Plan and acknowledge that it might be time again
    for an Alaska exemption?
        This is a situation where I don't think anybody thought
    that our situation was so tenuous, but we are to that point. We
    are now to the place where the Governor is saying, we are going
    back to coal because we know we have got that, but we can't get
    the natural gas that we need, and we can't bring the renewable
    energy on in a manner--our transmission grid is not able to
    accommodate.
        We have a significant grid grant that we are very thankful
    for, but all this is kind of years in going forward. And so,
    part of my question is to ask you if it is something you would
    consider, but it is also intended to make sure that you are
    aware of this very real, very looming threat that Alaska is
    facing in a matter of like 18 months. It is coming up like a
    freight train.
        Mr. Regan. No, and I appreciate you raising this. It is
    something that I am paying close attention to. I will say that,
    when you look at the rules that we just announced, that they
    are more so focused on existing coal and new natural gas.
        So, the tenuous issues that you have raised are top of
    mind, and the timing is perfect because we took a step back in
    the proposal. We originally had existing natural gas as part of
    the package.
        At the urging of the environmental justice community and
    some in the environmental community who thought we needed to
    take a stronger look at that, as well as the industry, we took
    that piece out and now that is on a separate track.
        And so, the discussion you are raising now, the timing is
    perfect. I would like for our teams to get together and
    continue to have this conversation. And I commit to you that
    this line of thinking and the exemption that you have asked me
    to investigate, I will make that a priority.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you. I look forward to having a
    visit with you and your team, and when we can make that
    schedule happen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is the last of
    my questions.
        Senator Merkley. All right. Thank you very much, Senator
    Murkowski. And I would like to follow up after this with a
    better understanding of all that we expect to be accomplished
    from the $27 billion, including the $7 billion in the Solar For
    All program.
        I keep thinking about this project that a group in New York
    had called Up Rows where they were trying to work with local
    stores to be able to do solar canopies and then benefit from
    the community solar, so on and so forth.
        I know there is a lot of innovative ideas, solar panels
    that go on to affordable housing, helping low income families
    in various ways and so forth. But I think it would be helpful
    to try to, now that those eight nonprofits have received
    funding and have sort of laid out a vision of what they are
    going to accomplish, to try to do a kind of a compiled
    understanding of what are we really going to get from this and
    would appreciate that.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        If there are no other statements, the hearing record will
    be open until the close of business on May 8th, 2024.
    Obviously, there are tremendous diversity of complex challenges
    that are on your desk, Mr. Secretary, so thank you. I know you
    are waking up every day trying to tackle them, and we just keep
    piling more issues, even as we go forward.
                Questions Submitted by Senator Chris Van Hollen
        Question. There are many Federal agencies involved in the
    Chesapeake Bay cleanup process alongside the Environmental Protection
    Agency. USDA, for example, has provided critical resources to assist
    farmers in implementing conservation practices to avoid runoff. In
    2009, President Obama issued Executive Order 13508 on Chesapeake Bay
    Protection and Restoration. That order established a Federal Leadership
    Committee, chaired by the EPA Administrator and including senior
    leadership from other relevant agencies, to ensure a coordinated
    cleanup.
        Does the authority for the Federal Leadership Committee from the
    2009 Executive Order still stand?
        Answer. The Executive Order 13508 issued by President Obama has not
    been rescinded. The Executive Branch still has the authority and
    directive to convene Cabinet Members of departments and agencies that
    coordinate on the Chesapeake Bay Program.
        Question. Whether through existing authority or by pursuing a new
    authority, would you be willing to explore re-starting that Federal
    Leadership Committee to better-coordinate Federal resources to the Bay
    and ensure that each agency's efforts and funding are put to the most
    effective use?
        Answer. Yes. EPA is currently planning a meeting of this group for
    the fall.

                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Kyrsten Sinema
        Question. Last summer saw unprecedented energy demand in Arizona--
    our largest utility needed 8,200 megawatts to meet peak demand. This
    demand is expected to grow by 40% by the end of this decade. And this
    is just for one utility. Maintaining grid stability throughout the
    year, particularly in the summer, is for me an issue of life and
    death--the consequences for vulnerable and underserved populations
    during a summer blackout in Arizona are that high. I have concerns
    about how the Agency will look to regulate existing gas-fired power
    plants in the future as well for future discussion.
        As States like Arizona continue to grow, and Federal regulations
    incentivize or even require greater levels of electrification our
    economy, what will the impacts of this new power plant rule be on grid
    stability and affordability? Is carbon capture and sequestration truly
    feasible at scale on the timeline your rule requires?
        Answer. In April, EPA finalized four separate rules that reduce
    pollution from fossil fuel-fired power plants, protect communities from
    pollution and improve public health, all while supporting the long-term
    reliable supply of the electricity needed to power America forward. EPA
    has an excellent, longstanding track record of delivering public health
    and environmental protections while supporting grid reliability. EPA
    performed a sensitivity analysis of the combined effect on the power
    sector of the carbon pollution, air toxics, and water rules, and EPA's
    recent rules for the transportation sector as well as examining a high
    demand scenario with the power sector carbon standards rule.\1\ The
    projections show that the EPA regulations will not adversely impact the
    sector's ability to meet growing demand for electricity and provide
    affordable electricity at the same time as it reduces pollution in
    accordance with these rules to protect health and the planet. After
    proposing the carbon pollution standards for new and existing fossil
    fuel-fired power plants,\2\ we engaged extensively with balancing
    authorities, power companies, reliability coordinators and other key
    reliability authorities including the Federal Energy Regulatory
    Commission (FERC), and U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to understand
    their concerns and address them in the final rule. We expect this
    engagement will continue during implementation. In this rule, we made
    several adjustments that will provide flexibility for the power sector
    and reliability authorities to continue providing reliable electricity
    for consumers, including adjusting key provisions like subcategories,
    providing additional time for certain coal-fired plants to meet their
    standards, articulating how States may take reliability considerations
    in consideration when setting standards for plants under the provision
    of the Clean Air Act permitting consideration of remaining useful life
    and other factors, and providing compliance flexibilities. Although we
    have confidence that the rule is consistent with supporting
    reliability, as an additional safeguard, we also added two reliability-
    related instruments. One is a ``short term reliability mechanism'' to
    address grid emergencies, such as weather-related emergencies and
    natural disasters. The other is a ``reliability assurance mechanism''
    that States can use for existing coal plants that can provide
    additional time to units with cease operations dates, providing an
    extension when a documented reliability need exists, and when there is
    insufficient time for a State plan revision.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ For details of EPA's sensitivity analyses, please see
    ``Technical Memo--IPM Sensitivities Final'' available at: https://
    www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0072-8917.
        \2\ Greenhouse Gas Standards and Guidelines for Fossil Fuel-Fired
    Power Plants (https://www.epa.gov/stationary- sources-air-pollution/
    greenhouse-gas-standards-and-guidelines-fossil-fuel-fired-power).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Experience with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) to date has
    demonstrated that it is technically feasible for electric power plants,
    and lower costs, alongside tax incentives from the Inflation Reduction
    Act that allow companies to offset the cost of CCS, informed EPA's
    determination of what is cost reasonable for new baseload combustion
    turbines and for existing long-lived coal plants. The Infrastructure
    Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) also known as the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law (BIL) also includes billions of dollars to advance
    and deploy CCS technology and infrastructure. EPA projects that the
    sector can comply with the standards with negligible impact on
    electricity prices, thanks to cost declines in CCS and the other
    emissions- reducing technologies that the rule relies on.
        EPA's 90% capture determination for CCS is based on the experience
    of existing large scale utility projects and projects in other
    industries. Compliance based on 90% capture would not have to be met
    until 2032. EPA's record indicates that power plants can achieve these
    standards in that timeframe because 90% capture CCS is adequately
    demonstrated at existing plants, and because vendors are currently
    offering CCS technology that captures 90% of carbon emissions.
        Question. Will the country have sufficient power generation and
    transmission capacity to reach the very ambitious targets the agency
    has set for light and medium-duty vehicles? A follow-up, is America's
    critical minerals production for batteries robust enough where we can
    say we aren't just outsourcing the emissions from our supply chain to
    adversarial nations?
        On the heavy-duty vehicle-side, can you explain how you believe
    hydrogen technology will have scaled sufficiently, including both the
    production and the mass transportation of hydrogen fuel, to make the
    new rule feasible?
        Answer. Electric utilities have historically met increases in
    electricity demand, and we anticipate they will continue to do so. We
    estimate that EV charging under the light- and medium-duty standards,
    combined with our projection of charging under the heavy-duty vehicle
    standards, will increase annual generation from the electric power
    sector by less than 1% in 2030, approximately 9% in 2040, and 12% in
    2050. The U.S. has historically met the demand from comparable
    expansions of generation and transmission capacity (e.g., residential/
    commercial air conditioning in the 1970s-1990s; and recent expansion of
    generation needed to support computer data centers, cryptocurrency
    mining and residential/commercial expansion of heat pumps).
        Regarding your question on critical minerals, there are more than
    enough minerals to make enough hybrid and plug-in electric vehicles to
    meet the standards. All cars, including internal combustion engine
    vehicles, require some amount of critical minerals and other materials
    such as structural metals, plastics, electrical conductors,
    electronics, and computer chips that are produced both domestically and
    globally. It has long been the norm that global supply chains are
    involved in manufacturing these products. In the past, other countries
    including China have invested far more than the U.S. in producing
    critical minerals, but the U.S. is making enormous investments in this
    area because these minerals are also critical to America's
    competitiveness in the global economy. The Biden-Harris Administration
    worked collaboratively with members of Congress to design policies that
    create incentives for new facilities--like the Thacker Pass \3\ lithium
    plant and the Redwood Materials \4\ recycling operation--to extract,
    process, and recycle EV battery metals and materials in the United
    States and ally nations, and for on-shoring EV battery production. The
    U.S. is also securing new mineral supply chains through free-trade
    partners and other countries that are economic allies of the U.S. As
    with almost any other product, it is not complete domestic self-
    sufficiency but rather a secure and diversified supply chain that will
    meet our needs for critical minerals.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ For additional information, please see: https://www.energy.gov/
    lpo/articles/lpo-announces-conditional- commitment-lithium-americas-
    corp-help-finance-construction.
        \4\ For additional information, please see: https://www.energy.gov/
    lpo/articles/lpo-offers-conditional-commitment- redwood-materials-
    produce-critical-electric-vehicle.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On the heavy-duty vehicle side, hydrogen technology is a part of a
    modeled potential compliance pathway to reduce greenhouse gas
    emissions. As indicated in the rule, a diverse range of heavy- duty
    (HD) vehicle technologies are feasible and may be used to comply with
    the final standards in the rule. Fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV)
    technologies powered by hydrogen are part of one potential compliance
    pathway, but the standards could also be met using internal combustion
    engines (including alternative-fueled), hybrid, and plug-in hybrid
    vehicle technologies, hydrogen- fueled internal combustion engine
    technologies, and battery electric vehicle technologies.
        We evaluated a range of FCEV technology cost projections, along
    with retail hydrogen price projections (in coordination with the
    Department of Energy), which include the costs of production,
    distribution, storage, and dispensing of hydrogen at a fueling station.
    Our assessment is that early market buildout of a hydrogen refueling
    station network to support modest HD FCEV adoption levels in the
    modeled potential compliance pathway can reduce costs sufficiently to
    make HD FCEVs cost-competitive in the 2030 to 2032 timeframe. We are
    not suggesting that a full national hydrogen infrastructure network
    needs to be in place by 2030 or even by 2032, and specifically note
    that a full national hydrogen infrastructure network is not needed to
    accommodate the demand projected in the modeled potential compliance
    pathway. Rather, a phased and targeted approach can offer sufficient
    lead time to meet the projected HD FCEV refueling needs in the rule.
        This assessment is supported by numerous provisions in the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) and Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)
    designed to accelerate the deployment of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs)
    and supportive infrastructure, including policies and incentives to
    reduce the cost of clean hydrogen production and jumpstart the hydrogen
    market in the United States. For example, the $7 billion Regional Clean
    Hydrogen Hubs \5\ (H2Hubs) program is expected to catalyze over $40
    billion in additional private investment to create networks of hydrogen
    producers, consumers and local connective infrastructure. The U.S.
    currently produces and consumes about million metric tons of hydrogen
    annually, and the H2Hubs are projected to produce at least three
    million metric tons per year, which is more than enough to accommodate
    the 130,000 metric tons of hydrogen projected as needed annually by
    2032 under the potential modeled compliance pathway.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ For additional information, please see: https://www.energy.gov/
    articles/biden-harris-administration-announces-7- billion-americas-
    first-clean-hydrogen-hubs-driving.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, whole-of-government frameworks such as the U.S.
    National Clean Hydrogen Strategy and Roadmap \6\ and the National Zero-
    Emission Freight Corridor Strategy \7\ offer hydrogen infrastructure
    deployment timelines that are aligned with the measured approach for HD
    FCEVs in the rule's modeled potential compliance pathway.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ For additional information, please see: https://
    www.hydrogen.energy.gov/docs/hydrogenprogramlibraries/pdfs/us-
    national-clean-hydrogen-strategy-roadmap.pdf?sfvrsn=c425b44f_5.
        \7\ For additional information, please see: https://www.energy.gov/
    articles/biden-harris-administration-releases-first- ever-national-
    strategy-accelerate-deployment.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Question. Those who live in Arizona, and the entire Western United
    States, have been impacted by increased wildfire activity in recent
    years.
        The Maricopa County Region submitted documentation to Region 9 that
    demonstrated 33 ozone exceedance days in 2015-2019 have been impacted
    by wildfires. Of those 33 days, to date, EPA Region 9 has evaluated 19,
    but has concluded that only three days have a high weight of evidence
    that would exclude them from attainment modeling exercises. The
    remaining 16 days have been classified as having either low or medium
    weight of evidence, and EPA Region 9 would generally not recommend
    excluding these days from attainment modeling.
        This demonstrates a fundamental difference between EPA and local
    air agencies perspectives on how and why ozone exceedances impacted by
    wildfires should be considered exceptional events and therefore
    excluded from attainment modeling.
        It will be exceedingly difficult for the Maricopa nonattainment
    area to demonstrate attainment without excluding ozone exceedances
    impacted by wildfires. Will you commit to looking at the way EPA Region
    9 considers and processes ozone exceedances impacted by wildfires and
    working on common sense solutions to this growing issue?
        Answer. The Clean Air Act has long recognized that it may not be
    appropriate to use monitoring data influenced by ``exceptional''
    events, including wildfires and prescribed fires, when making certain
    regulatory decisions. EPA is committed to ensuring that the process for
    requesting the exclusion of event-influenced data is clear and
    efficient, and has been engaging with State, local, and Tribal air
    agencies as well as developing new tools and resources to that end. In
    April 2024, EPA made three products available to improve and support an
    efficient process for demonstrating exceptional events impacting air
    concentrations of fine particles (PM2.5). Some of these new tools can
    also assist in identifying event-influenced ozone data. In addition to
    these exceptional events implementation tools, EPA has also developed a
    memorandum that clarifies approaches and analyses outside of the
    Exceptional Events Rule that air agencies may use in certain situations
    to modify air quality data. Some of these approaches may be applicable
    to modeling scenarios. EPA will continue to offer tools and information
    to help support State, local, and Tribal air agencies (and their
    delegates) to seek exclusion of air quality monitoring data influenced
    by wildland fire smoke events.
        Question. I appreciate all the work EPA has done to address PFAS
    contamination, including implementing the billions of dollars in
    cleanup funding from my bipartisan infrastructure law. PFAS
    contamination is, as you know, a major ongoing issue in my hometown of
    Tucson.
        Regarding the Agency's recent actions under CERCLA and the Safe
    Drinking Water Act, I'd like to focus on liability, costs, and
    unintended consequences.
        How exactly will EPA determine what party, or parties, are liable
    in places like Tucson? Will ratepayers of municipal water systems be
    expected to foot the bill for cleanups? Lastly, how have you worked
    with the FAA and DOT to ensure that these rulemakings do not conflict
    with Federal regulations requiring airports to have firefighting foam
    containing PFAS on-hand?
        Answer. The Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes the EPA to act to
    protect drinking water resources where there may be an imminent and
    substantial endangerment. On May 29, 2024, the EPA issued a Safe
    Drinking Water Act Section 1431 Unilateral Administrative Order to the
    U.S. Air Force and the Arizona Air National Guard, which will focus
    those organizations on meeting their responsibilities for protecting
    drinking water supplies in Tucson, including communities with
    environmental justice concerns. The Order will require the U.S. Air
    Force to submit and implement a PFAS Water Treatment Plan to ensure
    PFAS levels in water are safe for use by Tucson Water, and to move
    forward with sampling and remediation of public and private water wells
    with high PFAS concentrations.
        Additionally, in April 2024, the EPA finalized two critical
    regulatory actions under the Safe Drinking Water Act and under the
    Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
    (CERCLA) that will help address PFAS contamination and protect public
    health, welfare, and the environment. On April 19, 2024, the EPA also
    released a ``PFAS Enforcement Discretion and Settlement Policy Under
    CERCLA'' (Policy) that provides direction about how the EPA will
    exercise its enforcement discretion under CERCLA in matters involving
    perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS).
        The Policy does not change the EPA's usual approach: the Agency's
    CERCLA response and enforcement decisions are made on a case-by-case
    basis after considering the specific circumstances related to the
    CERCLA release at issue. Under the Policy, the EPA will focus on
    holding responsible entities who significantly contributed to the
    release of PFOA or PFOS into the environment. The EPA does not intend
    to pursue entities where equitable factors do not support seeking
    response actions or costs under CERCLA. Any CERCLA enforcement actions
    undertaken at a site such as the Tucson International Airport Superfund
    Site would be conducted by following the EPA's usual approach, while
    taking into consideration the terms of the Policy.
        The EPA understands challenges that users of Aqueous Film Forming
    Foam (AFFF) face in light of a growing body of scientific evidence that
    PFAS chemicals can cause adverse impacts to public health and the
    environment. The Federal family is working together to navigate these
    important
        cross-Agency issues. For example, as directed by Congress in
    documentation accompanying the December 2022 Omnibus Spending Bill, the
    Federal Aviation Administration worked jointly with the Department of
    Defense and the EPA to develop and publish the Aircraft Firefighting
    Foam Transition Plan \8\ in May 2023. The plan will support airports in
    their transition from PFAS- containing AFFF to a new fluorine-free
    foam.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ For additional information, please see: https://www.faa.gov/
    sites/faa.gov/files/FAA_Aircraft_F3_Transition_Plan_2023.pdf.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator John Hoeven
        Question. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has a request
    pending at the EPA to allow enforcement of a new California rule that
    will impose significant financial and operational burdens on rail
    transportation, not just in California, but nationally as well.
        Concerning provisions of CARB's new rule include the banning of
    certain locomotives from operating in California starting in 2030, and
    imposing a requirement that locomotives utilize zero- emissions
    technologies that are not commercially available.
        A large coalition of local, State and national agricultural
    stakeholders recently wrote to EPA stating that the CARB rule poses a
    significant danger to U.S agriculture and the broader supply chain.
        Will you fully consider each of the comments filed to ensure that
    any final decision is legally sound and mindful of impacts on the
    Nation's supply chains?
        Answer. EPA has received an authorization request from CARB for its
    ``In-Use Locomotive Regulation.'' The Clean Air Act sets forth both the
    administrative process for such authorization requests as well the
    criteria that EPA must consider in evaluating the request. EPA
    conducted a public hearing and written comment period that is now
    closed. EPA is now evaluating the comments received in order to reach
    an appropriate decision based on the Clean Air Act criteria.
        Question. Pesticides are an essential tool for many growers in
    North Dakota and across the country, protecting crops from pests and
    enabling conservation practices such as no-till and low- till.
        Unfortunately, there are misconceptions about pesticides that run
    counter to EPA's scientific findings on the safety of these crop
    protection tools.
        For one such product, glyphosate, EPA has concluded that ``there
    are no risks of concern to human health when glyphosate is used in
    accordance with its current label.''
        Given the European Commission recently approved the use of
    glyphosate for a 10-year period, through December 2033, does EPA
    continue to stand by its scientific finding that the product can be
    used safely?
        Answer. EPA's conclusion on the carcinogenic potential of
    glyphosate is consistent with the overwhelming consensus by the
    scientific community, including an external peer review by the 2016 EPA
    Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific
    Advisory Panel (SAP), as well as international regulatory authorities
    and organizations, including the
        Canadian Pest Management Regulatory Agency, the Australian
    Pesticide and Veterinary Medicines Authority, the European Food Safety
    Authority, the European Chemicals Agency, the German Federal Institute
    for Occupational Safety and Health, the Joint FAO/WHO Meeting on
    Pesticide Residues, the New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority,
    and the Food Safety Commission of Japan.
        Glyphosate is currently undergoing a reevaluation process called
    registration review. The law requires EPA to conduct registration
    review for existing pesticides, like glyphosate, at least every 15
    years, to ensure that as science evolves and new information becomes
    available, pesticides on the market continue to meet the appropriate
    safety standard.
        In December 2017, as part of glyphosate's ongoing registration
    review, EPA conducted a comprehensive human health risk assessment of
    glyphosate that considered hazard and exposure data, including any
    registrant-generated studies and any relevant information from the open
    literature (i.e., publicly available studies). EPA's risk assessment
    process combines hazard, dose- response, and exposure assessments to
    describe the overall risk from glyphosate. EPA's independent evaluation
    of the available scientific data for glyphosate found no risks of
    concern to human health when used in accordance with the current label
    instructions and concluded that glyphosate is ``not likely to be
    carcinogenic'' to humans.
        As part of the cancer evaluation for registration review, EPA
    completed a fit-for-purpose systematic review to identify relevant and
    appropriate studies with the potential to inform the human carcinogenic
    potential of glyphosate. This included an in-depth review of all
    relevant animal carcinogenicity and genotoxicity studies for the active
    ingredient glyphosate, as well as epidemiological studies that
    investigated potential cancer outcomes, including non-Hodgkin lymphoma
    (NHL), from using pesticide products containing glyphosate. Details of
    EPA's systematic review, studies identified on NHL, and EPA's
    evaluation of these studies can be found in the Revised Glyphosate
    Issue Paper: Evaluation of Carcinogenic Potential. This included
    consideration of analyses of glyphosate uses and cancer incidence in
    the Agricultural Health Study (AHS) cohort (Andreotti et al. 2018) that
    were published after the SAP. The AHS is the largest, best-designed,
    high quality epidemiological study available for glyphosate and did not
    find any association between glyphosate exposure and NHL.
        As part of the Agency's response to comments received on the
    proposed interim decision (PID) to support registration review, EPA
    evaluated two additional review articles involving NHL meta- analyses
    that were published in 2019--Zhang et al. and Leon et al.--and that
    review is available online.\9\ Meta-analysis is a statistical tool used
    to combine data from several studies. The studies summarized and used
    in the meta-analysis by Zhang et al. were all considered in EPA's
    evaluation of carcinogenic potential; however, EPA identified
    methodological deficiencies in those studies. In particular, the meta-
    analysis by Zhang et al. did not properly incorporate the more recent
    data from Andreotti et al. (2018) for the AHS cohort. The Agency
    performed its own supplemental analysis to properly incorporate the AHS
    cohort data and found a lower non-statistically significant meta-risk
    ratio than that reported by Zhang et. al. Leon et al. performed a
    pooled analysis of NHL in agricultural cohorts from France, Norway, and
    the United States (the AHS cohort) and did not find statistically
    significant associations between glyphosate exposure and overall NHL
    malignancies or any NHL subtypes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ For additional information, please see: https://www.epa.gov/
    sites/default/files/2020-01/documents/glyphosate-epidemiological-
    review-zhang-leon-proposed-interim-decision.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In February 2020, after receiving and considering public comments
    on the PID, EPA published the interim registration review decision for
    glyphosate. On March 20, 2020, this ID was challenged in the U.S. Court
    of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Petitioners challenged EPA's analysis
    of human health and ecological risk, the weighing of risks against the
    benefits of glyphosate, and the interim risk mitigation measures, and
    they alleged that EPA violated the Endangered Species Act (ESA). In a
    June 2022 decision, the Ninth Circuit vacated the human health portion
    of the glyphosate interim decision and remanded to EPA for further
    analysis and explanation, remanded without vacatur the ecological
    portion, and imposed an October 1, 2022, deadline for EPA to issue a
    new ecological portion. In September 2022, EPA withdrew the glyphosate
    interim decision, primarily because the Agency could not meet the
    October 1, 2022, deadline imposed by the court.
        EPA's underlying scientific findings regarding glyphosate,
    including its finding that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic
    to humans, remain the same. In accordance with the court's decision,
    the Agency intends to revisit and better explain and clarify the
    findings from its evaluation of the carcinogenic potential of
    glyphosate and to consider whether to do so for other aspects of its
    human health analysis. EPA intends to address the issues in the
    ecological portion of the interim decision that were identified by the
    court petition and respond to an administrative petition regarding
    glyphosate before issuing a final registration review decision.

                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Katie Britt
        Question. EPA recently employed its SAGE model. The model
    demonstrated a large uptick in investment. How does EPA generally
    understand its regulations driving large investments?
        Answer. The regulatory impact analysis (RIA) accompanying the final
    New Source Performance Standards for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from New,
    Modified, and Reconstructed Fossil Fuel- Fired Electric Generating
    Units and Emission Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Emissions from
    Existing Fossil Fuel-Fired Electric Generating Units employed the SAGE
    model to estimate the economy-wide effects of the final rules. As noted
    in the RIA, EPA found that the final rules are expected to accelerate
    investments in the electricity sector, leading to an expected economy-
    wide net increase in aggregate investment in 2026 and 2031 (0.09% and
    0.13%, respectively).
        This increased capital investment is a result of the expected
    compliance pathway for the electricity sector. This increased
    investment represents both new investment and accelerated investment
    that is now expected to occur earlier than it would have absent the
    final rules, as reflected by a small decrease in expected economy-wide
    investment in 2036 and 2041. The magnitude and pattern of expected
    shifts in economy-wide investment in response to regulatory actions is
    case-specific and depends on the expected compliance pathways and the
    expected baseline investments in the regulated sector.
        Question. The FY 2023 appropriation for PRIA-related activities
    represented an $11 million increase above the FY 2022 appropriation--an
    increase of approximately 8.5%. In addition, PRIA 5, signed into law in
    December 2022, increased industry maintenance fees and registration
    service fees by 30%.
        The FY 2024 appropriation represents a decrease of roughly $6
    million below the FY 2023 funding level. However, during FY 2023,
    despite additional resources there were not significant improvements in
    late decisions by the agency. Despite having the most resources in over
    10 years, staffing still fell during this period.
        Answer. The FY 2024 President's Budget requested $170.6 million
    dollars from Congress for the pesticides program. When PRIA 5 was
    enacted, Congress specified a $166 million-dollar minimum
    appropriations level to trigger fee collections. Congress provided
    approximately $133 million dollars or $38 million dollars less than the
    Presidential budget request, $33 million dollars below the ``minimum
    appropriations level'' set by Congress, and a reduction of over $6
    million compared to what was appropriated in FY 2023.
        FY 2024 also included a civilian pay raise, which further reduces
    available non-pay resources available compared to FY 2023. The
    reduction means that EPA may need to slow hiring in the Office of
    Pesticide Programs (OPP), cut contract support, or a combination of the
    two. Additionally, the FY 2024 PRIA fee collections are much lower than
    expected (by about $6 million dollars) leaving OPP with even fewer
    resources.
        In addition to a likely hiring freeze, OPP will likely need to slow
    their efforts to modernize our work like digital labelling, automating
    internal workflows, and implementing a streamlined platform for
    submitting and managing applications--all of which would help speed up
    pesticide reviews. These reductions in funding could delay pesticide
    actions an estimated 6-12 months.
        Question. How many net staff were added during FY 2023 with the
    additional resources available to the agency?
        Answer. The Office of Pesticides Program (OPP) added 14 (14)
    additional positions with the additional resources within the
    Environmental Programs and Management (EPM) appropriation.
        Question. What is the average time required to hire a new Office of
    Pesticide Programs staff person from the time the position is
    advertised to their first day on the job? How does this compare within
    other EPA divisions?
        Answer. In FY2023, for OPP it took an average of 78 days to hire a
    new staff person. The Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics (OPPT)
    (a separate office within EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution
    Prevention (OCSPP)) takes an average of 98 days to hire a new staff
    person. Other EPA divisions, on average, take 101 days to hire a new
    staff person. The reduction in funding to EPAs HR Office may result in
    longer overall hiring times.
        Question. It has been characterized that the $6 million funding
    decrease represents a 30 FTE loss to the agency. How many vacancies
    existed when the FY 2023 appropriations act was signed into law on
    December 29, 2022? How many exist today?
        Answer. The $6 million funding decrease does represent a 30 full-
    time equivalents (FTE) loss to the agency in that an FTE costs
    approximately $200,000 per year for full compensation and benefits.
    However, in implementing the budget reductions, EPA prioritized funding
    FTE which instead put pressure on program contract funding. In FY 2024,
    OPP had an operating plan reduction of 10 (10) FTE to help offset the
    reductions in the FY 2024 appropriation bill.
        At the end of FY 2023, OPP had 14 (14) vacancies. OPP currently has
    20 (20) vacancies.
        Question. What investments is EPA making in IT or artificial
    intelligence to make the registration process more efficient?
        Answer. EPA continues to implement a workflow IT system within
    Salesforce platform to modernize and improve registration processes.
    However, the pace of implementation will be decreased due to funding
    with some projects delayed for 6 months or more.
        Question. What progress has EPA made in issuing a competitive bid
    for an independent third-party assessment of the Agency's workforce
    processes and performance?
        Answer. An existing EPA contract has been identified and we are
    drafting the statement of work, independent government cost estimate,
    and market research to ensure the existing contract can provide the
    services we need for our workforce process and performance. We
    anticipate having the contract in place sometime in FY 2025.
        Question. PRIA requires that EPA publish an annual report in late
    January. EPA still has not issued the 2023 PRIA annual report. What is
    the status of this report?
        Answer.The report was issued May 17, 2024, and can be found at
    https://www.epa.gov/pria-fees/implementing-pesticide-registration-
    improvement-act-2022-pria-5-fiscal-year-2023.
        Question. Per EPA, scrap metal that is not excluded under 40 CFR
    section 261.4(a)(13) is not subject to Resource Conservation and
    Recovery Act (RCRA) hazardous waste regulation when recycled. Rather,
    it is a valuable product that propels our domestic circular economy.
        The State of California's Department of Toxic Substances Control
    (DTSC) has been using ad hoc enforcement to advance its own view that
    scrap metal must be managed as hazardous waste during recycling
    operations.
      --Does EPA view DTSC's actions treating scrap metal as hazardous
            waste in conflict with Federal RCRA?
      --Does EPA view permitting DTSC to regulate scrap metal as hazardous
            waste as setting a precedent that will result in scrap metal
            bypassing recycling operations?
        Answer. Under RCRA Subtitle C, EPA may authorize States to
    implement their own hazardous waste programs in lieu of the Federal
    program. California has an authorized state RCRA program. EPA recently
    responded to a petition for Corrective Action or Withdrawal of Program
    Approval for California's RCRA Hazardous Waste Program. The response
    addresses the petitioners' concerns regarding California's regulation
    of material the petitioners characterize as ``scrap metal.'' As
    described in the response, ``scrap metal'' is a defined term. Whether a
    material truly qualifies as scrap metal is a technical and fact-
    specific inquiry, and EPA has no basis to believe California is
    regulating materials in a way that is not in keeping with the Federal
    (or authorized state) regulations. But in any event, as the response
    explains, state RCRA programs may impose requirements that are more
    stringent or broader in scope than the Federal program. As a result,
    EPA has no basis to believe that DTSC's actions conflict with RCRA. The
    response (attached) addresses your first question in further detail.
        With respect to setting a precedent about scrap metal recycling,
    EPA does not view its response to the petition as precedential because
    it does not reflect any new principles. Rather, it determines that the
    petition did not demonstrate that California's actions are inconsistent
    with either its authorized program or the Federal program. Moreover,
    EPA did not ``permit'' DTSC to regulate scrap metal in any particular
    way; States are free to impose solid and hazardous waste requirements
    that are more stringent and broader in scope than the Federal program.
    The RCRA regulations do have a consistency requirement in 40 CFR 271.4.
    However, the requirement is particularly concerned with State programs
    that would prevent the movement of hazardous waste across state lines,
    and RCRA does not require uniformity among State programs. Such an
    interpretation of consistency would be inconsistent with RCRA and EPA's
    regulations.
        Question. How is EPA ensuring that Waste Emissions Charge
    calculation methods are equitable across a variety of oil and gas
    production areas with widely varying operating characteristics?
        Answer. Congress directed EPA to collect a Waste Emissions Charge
    on waste emissions of methane from applicable facilities that exceed
    statutory thresholds. Congress established separate thresholds for
    different industry segments; Congress did not establish separate
    thresholds based on operating characteristics or geographic location
    within those industry segments. EPA has engaged extensively with
    stakeholders, including producers, and will continue that engagement as
    we implement the Waste Emissions Charge. The charge incentivizes oil
    and gas companies to deploy available technologies and best practices
    to reduce harmful and wasteful oil and gas emissions. The proposed rule
    implements the specific requirements for calculating the Waste
    Emissions Charge, including flexibilities such as netting and
    exemptions, that were established by Congress in sections 136(c)-(g) of
    the Clean Air Act.
        Congress also directed EPA to revise its greenhouse gas reporting
    requirements to ensure that the Waste Emissions Charge is based on
    empirical data, and that the reporting accurately reflects total
    methane emissions from the applicable facilities.
        Question. EPA recently finalized Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
    (GHGRP) requirements for the petroleum and natural gas sector. EPA will
    reportedly solicit input on the use of advanced measurement data and
    methods included in the revised methane rule to consider future
    rulemaking for the use of these technologies beyond that already
    included in the rule, and pledged to conduct engagements to learn about
    technological advances for measurement and detection technologies, and
    their appropriateness for use in regulatory reporting programs. Did EPA
    understand the existing technologies enough to issue a rulemaking?
        EPA's final rule also does not allow for companies to use real-
    world monitoring and compliance data when calculating their emissions.
    Does EPA have a concern that companies will stop paying for costly
    monitoring since monitoring and stopping emissions except in the case
    of large events will not impact their Waste Emissions Charge?
        Answer. EPA's recent final rule updating and strengthening the
    Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program (GHGRP) requirements for the petroleum
    and natural gas sector, a key component of the IRA's Methane Emissions
    Reduction Program, will significantly improve the accuracy,
    transparency, and accountability of methane emissions reporting from
    oil and gas facilities, including by incorporating advanced measurement
    data collected by satellites and other advanced technologies for the
    first time. These final revisions to Subpart W will also inform EPA's
    congressionally directed mandate to implement a Waste Emissions Charge
    on methane emissions from large oil and gas facilities found to be
    high-emitting and wasteful. Together with over $1 billion in financial
    and technical assistance to support methane monitoring and accelerate
    the transition to technologies that reduce methane emissions, EPA's
    actions will advance the adoption of clean, cost-effective
    technologies, reduce wasteful practices, and yield significant economic
    and environmental benefits.
        The final subpart W rule allows owners and operators of oil and gas
    facilities to utilize advanced measurement technologies to quantify
    emissions from large release events not otherwise covered by EPA's
    Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program requirements. In addition, the final
    subpart W rule requires owners and operators to quantify emissions
    associated with super-emitter events that are reported to EPA through
    the Super-Emitter Program finalized as part of EPA's new Clean Air Act
    rule for new and existing oil and gas facilities. These provisions of
    subpart W reflect EPA's review of a variety of advanced measurement
    approaches that utilize information from satellite, aerial, drone,
    vehicle, and stationary platforms to detect and/or quantify methane
    emissions from petroleum and natural gas systems at different spatial
    and temporal scales. Advanced technologies have been a focus for
    research and emission monitoring strategies, and several technologies
    have progressed in recent years to provide valuable CH4 emission data.
    The spatial and temporal resolution of emission estimates varies
    widely, however, depending on the technology and platform. Given
    current detection limits and the uncertainty associated with advanced
    technologies, our analysis in the final subpart W rule is that advanced
    measurement methods based on remote sensing or continuous monitoring
    systems are currently appropriate for contributing to the
    quantification of emissions from other large release events. As the
    technologies continue to improve, we will evaluate whether and how
    remote sensing approaches could be used to estimate annual emissions
    from other sources under subpart W.
        The final rule also adds new calculation methods, including
    expanding the available options that use advanced technologies or other
    direct measurement or survey methods, to allow owners and operators to
    submit empirical emissions data. The inclusion of additional
    measurement and survey options is expected to incentivize the use of
    monitoring data.
        For example, facilities may choose to install continuous flow
    monitoring devices on natural gas supply lines dedicated to pneumatic
    devices and if installed, would use the measurement to calculate
    emissions. In the final rule, reporters also have the option to use
    advanced technologies to develop destruction and combustion
    efficiencies different than the default values when they elect to use
    an alternative test method that has been approved under 40 CFR
    60.5412b(d) of NSPS OOOOb.
        We expect that the availability of additional calculation methods
    will incentivize the use of monitoring data to calculate emissions and
    help incentivize the deployment of new technology meant to reduce
    emissions.
        Question. EPA's methane emissions proposals introduces the term
    ``substantive errors'' but the definition of such errors is overly
    vague to the point that even the smallest of errors which do not impact
    the Waste Emissions Charge would trigger a revision. Has EPA considered
    a materiality threshold?
        Answer. The EPA's proposed Waste Emissions Charge Rule was
    developed to implement the Congressional directive to impose and
    collect a charge on methane emissions from oil and gas operations that
    meet statutorily defined criteria. The EPA proposed to define a
    ``substantive error'' for the purposes of the Waste Emissions Charge
    Rule as any error in reporting that impacts the ability to accurately
    calculate the Waste Emissions Charge. This proposed definition
    parallels the established definition of ``substantive error'' in the
    Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program at 40 CFR 98.3(h)(3). The EPA is
    reviewing comments on the proposed rule, including on the proposed
    reporting requirements, and will consider them in the development of
    the final rule.
        Question. In the EPA's Proposed Rule on Effluent Limitation
    Guidelines for Meat and Poultry Products, the agency admits that some
    meat and poultry processing companies may have to close plants if the
    rule is implemented as draft. These forced closures and resulting
    reductions in production will have negative impacts not only on the
    country's food supply and food costs, but will also result in economic
    harm to farmers, growers, and producers due to overall lack of demand
    for their crops and animals. This proposed rule seems to directly
    contradict this Administration's goal to create a more resilient meat
    and poultry supply chain. How has EPA modeled and considered how
    agriculture producers, food supply, and consumer prices will be each be
    impacted by this rule?
        Answer. The EPA considered how agriculture producers, food supply,
    and consumer prices will be impacted by this rule by examining the
    effects of the proposed rule on the National markets for beef, pork,
    chicken, and turkey. The EPA modeled the impact by developing supply
    and demand equations for each meat product market based on the pre-
    regulatory conditions and then estimated how each market would change
    if the proposed rule were to go into effect. The EPA looked at the
    potential effect of regulatory compliance cost on facility cash flow.
    Based on that, the EPA estimated that 16 facilities would incur
    negative cash flows, where they might decide to close. However,
    facilities may also choose to continue operating, and change their
    production operation and model, pay less for the livestock, or charge
    more to the retailers to address the possible negative cash flow. Also,
    these facilities, because they are treating their wastewater first, may
    pay less to the wastewater treatment plant receiving the cleaner
    wastewater, and this potential cost savings was not incorporated into
    the model.
        Under the EPA's analysis for its preferred option, only 0.4% of the
    total universe of 3,897 discharging meat and poultry products
    facilities may consider closing. The EPA's preferred option would be
    considered economically achievable under any reasonable measure of
    impacts. Even under the two more extensive options in the proposed
    rule, projected possible closures are no more than 1.4% of the universe
    of discharging facilities. In light of the Administration's goal to
    create a more resilient meat and poultry supply chain, the EPA
    structured all three options to avoid undue financial stress on the
    industry as a whole and expressed a preference in the proposal for
    option 1.
        Question. Several technologies and chemical treatments that EPA
    highlights in the recent proposed rule on Effluent Limitation
    Guidelines (ELG) for Meat and Poultry Processors will result in the
    increased production of solids. If solids cannot be land applied
    (either because of the composition of the material or lack of available
    sites), the solids must be disposed of via landfill or other expensive
    and less environmentally friendly options. How has EPA modeled this
    displacement and environmental harms resulting from this rule?
        Answer. EPA modelled the net incremental increases in solid waste
    generation for the meat and poultry products ELG Proposed Rule, which
    are estimated between 384,000 and 1,210,000 tons per year. To account
    for the generation of these solids, the EPA included capital and
    operation and maintenance cost for solids handling equipment, and
    solids disposal at a landfill associated with the incremental increases
    in solid waste generation.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Merkley. So, appreciate your service. The hearing
    is adjourned.
        Mr. Regan. Thank you.
        Senator Merkley. [Whereupon, at 4:01 p.m., Wednesday, May
    1, and the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at a time
    subject to the call of the Chair.]

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025

                                  ----------

                             WEDNESDAY, MAY 8, 2024

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m. in
    Room SD-138, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Merkley
    (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Merkley, Murray, Reed, Van Hollen,
    Peters, Murkowski, Hoeven, Fischer, and Britt.

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    STATEMENT OF HON. DEB HAALAND, SECRETARY

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY

        Senator Merkley. Good morning. And welcome to the Interior
    Environment Appropriations Subcommittee hearing on the fiscal
    year 2025 President's Budget for the Department of the
    Interior.
        Secretary Haaland, thank you so much for being here today,
    along with your team members.
        In 2023, we had the hottest day, the hottest month, the
    hottest year in recorded human history. There is no doubt that
    climate chaos is wreaking havoc on our land, our wildlife, our
    own health. In my home state of Oregon, as temperatures have
    steadily climbed, the average snowpack in the Cascades has
    fallen by 20 feet in the last 90 years.
        This means there is less snow melt running down to our
    streams and rivers, devastating trout and salmon populations,
    less water for our ranchers and our farmers, and continuing
    drought cycle after drought cycle without relief. Wildfire
    season is starting early and ending later each year, the fires
    becoming more extreme.
        Secretary Haaland, you and President Biden have made
    fighting climate change, or as I like to call it ``climate
    chaos'', a cornerstone of the administration. I have pushed the
    administration to be even more aggressive, to work faster on
    rulemakings, and leasing decisions, and other actions, to
    address this challenge. And I will keep making that advocacy,
    since climate chaos is such a great threat to all of us.
        But we shouldn't lose sight of how far the administration
    has come, making a number of decisions, you and your team, the
    hard work you have been putting in, digging out from dangerous
    policies, and catching up on a long to-do list. Congratulations
    on finalizing the Bureau of Land Management's Public Lands
    Conservation Rule. In essence, this rule formalizes what should
    have always been the case, that conservation is a valuable
    contribution and related to public land leasing, and as
    valuable and important as other uses, such as Energy
    Development and Recreation.
        For too long, public lands leasing has really only asked
    the question, to lease or not to lease, to drill, or mine, but
    this new rule puts conservation on an equal footing so public
    lands can be dedicated to restoring and protecting habitats, to
    fighting invasive species, and to improving the health and
    climate resilience of ecosystems and landscapes.
        Just one of the challenges of climate chaos is the growing
    extinction crisis, like the dramatic disappearance of the
    western monarchs and other native pollinators over the last
    decade, largely caused by the combination of habitat loss,
    pesticides, pollution, and invasive species. The loss of
    pollinators threatens to damage entire ecosystems and could
    devastate significant sectors of our agricultural economy.
        Secretary Haaland, thank you for your efforts to work with
    me to create the Center for Pollinator Conservation, a one-stop
    shop of ideas to help stakeholders promote collaboration, and
    provide solutions to the stressors driving pollinator decline.
    I want to continue to work with you and the Department so we
    can save and strengthen our pollinator populations.
        Turning to other issues in my home state, thank you to the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs Team in the Northwest Region for
    progress on the In-Lieu and Treaty Fishing Access Sites;
    Congress set aside these sites for tribal fishers whose
    traditional fishing grounds were lost to dam construction. The
    sites have a number of features, access roads, boat ramps, and
    fish cleaning tables.
        I visited these sites, and was really horrified by the lack
    of maintenance and facilities. So I was very pleased that we
    provided $9 million over the past two fiscal years to improve
    these sites, including $2.6 million to clean up the sites and
    improve infrastructure on the ground and in the water. And I am
    pleased with the quick progress that you all have made to make
    these safer, and cleaner, and more usable to tribal members.
        As you know, I have been asking questions about the process
    for offshore wind projects in Oregon. In March, our Oregon
    Governor, Governor Kotek, signed a bill to set the framework
    for an offshore wind roadmap, including stakeholder engagement
    with tribes, with fishermen, and coastal communities. I am
    encouraged by that public engagement, and I hope to work with
    the Department and the State to move forward with that
    engagement to make sure we get this right, what we call the
    Oregon Way, doing a transparent, honest conversation with
    existing stakeholders to work out win-win solutions.
        Thank you, also, for taking leadership of the Columbia
    River Basin Restoration Initiative. I can't tell you, and I
    know you understand how important salmon is to the tribal
    communities of the Northwest. This work will not only restore
    salmon but bolster resiliency and stability of the surrounding
    communities, the ecosystem as a whole, and the economic
    vitality of the region. It is a huge undertaking, given the $1
    billion in new Federal investments, and it requires sustained
    commitment from this administration and from Congress across
    multiple agencies and jurisdictions.
        I know there is a lot of work to do to complete this
    initiative, but I wanted to acknowledge the work that your team
    has done, underscore the confidence I have in your Department
    and the administration to see this vision through.
        Turning to the budget request: In fiscal year 2024, the
    first-round of budget caps imposed damaging cuts on important
    programs in the Interior Department. I was concerned about the
    budget caps in the Fiscal Responsibility Act because I thought
    they were irresponsible.
        As you work to manage your Department, you must be seeing
    not only immediate and painful impacts on staffing, but also on
    missed opportunities, missed opportunities to increase
    investment in reducing the loads of hazardous fuels that feed
    catastrophic wildfires. In my town halls where I go, open town
    hall in all 36 of our counties, I hear time and time again
    about, why can't we do more to make the forest more fire
    resilient, because loads of burnable materials have built up
    over time, and the very long, very dry, hot summers make this
    an enormous challenge, if we don't do more forest management.
        Another missed opportunity is increased strides in research
    and science that leads to better decisionmaking in protecting
    our lands, waters, and wildlife, to better meet our trust and
    treaty responsibilities by increasing support for tribal
    communities, and to more aggressively fight climate chaos.
        We also miss the opportunity to properly staff our national
    parks and other public lands as the summer season approaches. I
    am pleased to see that in the fiscal year 2025 Budget Request
    of $16.3 billion, it addresses some of the damage done by the
    caps in fiscal year 2024. The request also makes modest
    increases for critical priorities such as tribal communities,
    education, public lands, wildfire staff increases, and critical
    conservation initiatives.
        I support these efforts. In fact, I would probably like to
    go further than the request proposes, because I feel that the
    situation we are in is not sufficient to respond to the climate
    crisis, the extinction crisis, the chronic funding gaps in
    Indian Country, and other threats to our land and water. We
    must work to make sure that the fiscal year 2025 budget caps
    are increased so that we can start again to do our jobs as
    appropriators and address these overlooked, underfunded needs.
        Thank you for your dedication, Secretary Haaland, to the
    people and to the mission of the Interior Department.
        I now turn to our Ranking Member Murkowski from Alaska, for
    her comments.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And appreciate
    you being here, Madam Secretary. We had an opportunity briefly
    to see one another last week at an AFN Reception where I think
    it was good to note the progress that has been made with
    murdered missing indigenous women, and persons, and recognizing
    that May 5th was a day to acknowledge some of that progress. So
    I thank you for that.
        I also saw you last week at the Energy and Natural
    Resources Committee. That was probably a much less pleasant
    time for you. You certainly heard my frustration about the
    Department's continued targeting of resources and resource
    development specifically in my home state of Alaska.
        To kind of share with colleagues, if you are interested, I
    am just going to recount one day, and it was not a good day.
    But it was one day out of many. It was April 19th when the
    State of Alaska was targeted with three separate releases,
    three separate declarations out of the administration. The
    Department closed 13 million acres of our petroleum reserve.
    The Department rejected the Ambler Access Project, which is
    guaranteed by law. And the Department issued a major land plan
    that failed to lift public land orders that was directed by a
    law, that I wrote 20 years ago. For 20 years, we have been
    trying to advance this.
        But this day, April 19th, where there were three measures
    that came out of the administration that just kind of laid
    Alaska to its knees, these are on top of dozens of others that
    have effectively worked to limit Alaska's opportunity when it
    comes to our resources. The term that I have used and others
    have picked up is that Alaska is being sanctioned by this
    administration more heavily than they say sanctioned regimes in
    places like Iran or Venezuela.
        When President Carter signed Alaska National Interest Lands
    Conservation Act (ANILCA) in 1980, he promised in that that 100
    percent of Alaska's offshore and 95 percent of our onshore
    would be open to responsible development. And Alaskans accepted
    that. We accepted that in good faith in exchange for tens of
    millions of acres that were placed in Federal conservation
    status. And so, just as we did in our Statehood Act, we assumed
    that we would have access to the lands that had been granted
    that we had selected.
        And so the irony is not lost on me, that President Biden,
    who voted for ANILCA, is now turning his back on what was a
    very carefully balanced effort, and is part of Alaska's
    foundational laws, and instead he is cutting off vast swaths of
    our state to score points with the environmental community in
    the name of, quote, ``Protecting 30 percent of America's lands
    by 2030''. And more immediately, I think, an effort to court
    voters.
        But in the meantime, Alaskans are left asking themselves,
    they are saying: Why? What is it? Alaska doesn't need to be
    protected from Alaskans. This is an area that we treasure, we
    love. It is our home. Alaskan Native people, as you well know,
    Madam Secretary, have been stewards of the land since time
    immemorial. We recognize the development is not appropriate in
    all places, and then when we do seek to develop, we don't ask
    for very much.
        The Coastal Plain; the Coastal Plan, the agreement in the
    law that was passed, the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act, agreed to
    access to 2,000 surface acres. It is one-10,000th of all of
    ANWR, one-10,000th, we describe it by way of a postage stamp.
    We describe it in ways that people recognize the
    extraordinarily small footprint. So when I look at that, and it
    is like: How is that for balance? Because effectively you have
    get Alaska that gets one part, and the Federal Government gets
    9,999. That doesn't seem like balance, but that was what we
    were asking for, not too much, and then where we have
    developed, our development, our environmental record, I will
    contend is second to none.
        And yet somehow, our record, our excellent record hasn't
    resulted in the trust that we deserve, but instead an even
    stronger effort to take more away. And that is a mistake. It is
    just absolutely, absolutely a mistake. There is so much that we
    have to offer in terms of energy, in terms of the minerals that
    we need to produce the clean energy. But it seems like the
    administration just does not care.
        Never mind that shutting down Alaska undermines the
    administration's own policies. Never mind that this enables
    authoritarian regimes, human rights abuses, environmental
    devastation in other nations. It just seems that the
    administration would rather export environmental injustice
    abroad, than develop our own resources to help our own people.
        So today, I see a Department that ignores the law with
    regards to Ambler, with regards to our petroleum reserve, with
    regards to our land management plans, our coastal plain, and
    the prioritization of conservation above all else. Even when it
    seems that you have the opportunity to do the right thing, you
    fail in it.
        A few months ago, I wrote language right here in this
    committee that directed you, Madam Secretary, to go back and
    consult with the Alaskan Natives on the North Slope before
    finalizing the NPRA Rule. If the Department have done that, if
    you had actually done that, you would have learned that those
    who live there, they didn't support that rule. You would know
    that they don't want Interior to protect them from the economic
    development that has done more to increase their life
    expectancies than anything else has.
        But you ignore the direction, and them, and the law, and
    Alaska's Congressional Delegation, and the Alaska's State
    Legislature, and you issued a bad Rule.
        And so I asked you last week to give some thought to what
    justifies this administration's treatment of Alaska. Why are we
    treated like one big national park and wildlife refuge, instead
    of a state that has balanced the need for development and the
    desire for conservation? Because that is what we try to do
    every single day, but when one end of that bargain is lost, the
    whole thing is lost. It took decades to settle Alaska lands
    matters but less than 4 years for this Administration to just
    turn everything on its head.
        So I hope that you are ready to answer my questions today,
    because right now I am in a position, I am in a place where it
    is really hard for me to discuss the budget request. All I can
    think of is if Interior is going to use its funding to make
    these kinds of decisions that penalize my state in this way.
    Then, I feel like what we need to be doing here is looking for
    ways to cut the Department's budget until the Department gets
    the point and returns to following the law and the balance that
    is reflected within it.
        So I am going to have a whole series of questions this
    morning, Mr. Chairman. And hopefully we can get some answers to
    some of the things that I have raised. Thank you.
        Senator Merkley. Well, thank you very much, Senator. And
    this is a great opportunity to ask those questions.
        We are going to now have five-minute rounds for questions,
    and I will ask everyone to not ask a question after your five
    minutes has expired. We will give the Secretary the ability to
    continue responding, and that way we will hopefully get through
    folks and have round two, round three, round four, and if I
    violate this myself, you feel free to gavel me down.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Merkley. And can we put five minutes on the clock?
        Well, first we have to hear your testimony. We are just so
    eager to get into our questions.
        [Laughter.]

                     SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. DEB HAALAND

        Secretary Haaland. And as eager as I am to hear your
    questions. Thank you for giving me time for my oral statement.
        Chair Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of the
    Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in
    support of Interior's fiscal year 2025 Budget Request.
        I appreciate all of the support the subcommittee, and your
    staff, have consistently shown the Department of the Interior.
    I have especially enjoyed visiting many of your home states;
    every trip informs my understanding of the issues important to
    the American people, the impact of the work that we do, and how
    our budget can support those interests.
        Our 2025 budget total is $18 billion in current authority.
    Of that amount, $16.4 billion is within the jurisdiction of the
    Interior Appropriations Subcommittee. First, I want to
    highlight several important proposals: permanent pay
    legislation and reforms for our Wildland Fire workforce,
    mandatory funding for future Indian Water Rights Settlements,
    and reclassifying Contract Support Costs, and leasing payments
    to tribes from discretionary to mandatory funding starting in
    fiscal year 2026.
        This administration has made a steadfast commitment to
    strengthen government-to-government relationships with Tribal
    Nations. We are doing so, thanks to significant investments
    from Congress, which are helping address the deficiencies that
    decades of underfunding have created. I am grateful to the
    Members of this Subcommittee for working on a bipartisan basis
    to champion tribal priorities.
        With a total request of $4.6 billion for Indian Affairs
    programs, this budget will address complex and difficult
    challenges such as the Missing and Murdered Indigenous People's
    Crisis, the legacy and continuing impacts of Federal Indian
    Boarding School policies, and Native language revitalization.
        Public safety continues to be a top priority for tribal
    leaders across the country. The budget includes $651 million to
    support critical public safety needs across all of Indian
    Country. We also request $1.5 billion for Indian education
    programs, with strong investments in the day-to-day operations
    of schools. This funding is critical as we prepare the next
    generation of indigenous Americans to lead their communities.
        Turning to wildland fire, we continue to see the
    devastating impacts fires are having across the country. I want
    to thank this subcommittee for your bipartisan support for
    extending supplemental fire pay for another year. The 2025
    budget invests in reforms, including $75 million to support
    permanent pay increases for Federal and tribal wildland
    firefighters.
        Stewardship of our natural resources is a core mission for
    us. Interior manages about 20 percent of American America's
    lands and is responsible for protection and recovery of more
    than 2,300 endangered and threatened species. Our request
    includes $2.8 billion in annual funding for conservation
    efforts that support key initiatives, such as wildlife
    corridors, and implementing the National Seed Strategy.
        I am proud of the proposal of $8 million for a mandatory
    funded Tribal Land Acquisition Program, a top priority of
    Tribes, as part of our implementation of the Land and Water
    Conservation Fund Program. This proposal honors the role Tribes
    play as stewards of the land, and will help ensure they have
    the resources to ensure healthy lands for future generations.
        The 2025 budget invests $189 million to continue the
    progress we have made in deploying clean energy, building a
    resilient domestic-based supply chain, and creating thousands
    of good-paying jobs. The demand for renewable energy has never
    been greater, and Interior is leading the way to a clean energy
    future.
        Regarding infrastructure, our request includes $2.7 billion
    to fund operations and maintenance for more than 130,000
    buildings and structures, and 65,000 miles of public roads. In
    addition, there is $1.6 billion in mandatory funding available
    in 2025 through the Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA) Legacy
    Restoration Fund. We are currently executing 326 GAOA-funded
    projects, with 83 additional projects requested for 2025.
        We cannot address our major maintenance needs through
    annual appropriations alone. I look forward to working with
    Congress to reauthorize the GAOA Legacy Restoration Fund.
        Overall, the President's budget request for Interior
    invests in programs to strengthen our Nation for all Americans.
    This great work would not be possible without the dedication of
    career public servants at Interior.
        I look forward to our continued work together on these
    important issues. Thank you for your partnership and support
    for the important work at the Department and its incredible
    employees.
        I am pleased that Denise Flanagan, Joan Mooney, and myself,
    will be here to answer any questions that you have.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Hon. Deb Haaland
        Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify in support of
    the Interior Department's Fiscal Year 2025 Budget Request.
        It is an honor and privilege for me to be here with you today to
    speak on behalf of the President's 2025 Budget for the Department of
    the Interior. I value and appreciate the tradition Interior has had
    working together with this subcommittee to accomplish great things for
    the American people. Interior Appropriations plays a vital role in the
    success of our agency. I look forward to working with the Members of
    this subcommittee this year in continued collaboration to address some
    of our country's most pressing challenges.
        As the steward of 20 percent of America's lands, the DOI serves
    critical roles for the Nation. Interior's programs are important to the
    Nation's economy: generating jobs, supporting local economic growth,
    building resilience to the changing climate, and managing important
    natural and cultural resources. Interior is also charged with unique
    responsibilities to fulfill the Nation's Trust and other obligations to
    American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians and the Insular
    Areas. In addition, Interior's scientists and technical experts provide
    actionable science and monitoring data people depend on to prepare for
    and respond to natural hazards, drought, and wildland fires.
        The Department's 2025 budget totals $18.0 billion in current
    authority ($17.8 billion in net discretionary authority)-an increase of
    $575.9 million, or 3 percent, from the 2024 continuing resolution (CR)
    level. An additional $360.0 million is accessible through a budget cap
    adjustment for wildfire suppression to ensure funds are available in
    the event the regular annual appropriation is inadequate to meet
    suppression needs. The budget also includes an estimated $14.8 billion
    in permanent funding available in 2025.
        Within the requested increase for 2025, $206.0 million is needed to
    cover fixed-cost increases, such as rent and Federal salary
    adjustments, to maintain Interior's core operations carried out by more
    than 68,000 people living and working in every corner of the country.
    The 2025 request also includes $412.2 million needed to keep pace with
    2024 fixed costs that are not included in the 2024 CR base.
        The 2025 President's Budget also allocates important mandatory
    funding available in 2025 through the Great American Outdoors Act
    (GAOA). This includes $1.6 billion for deferred maintenance projects
    through the Legacy Restoration Fund (LRF) in the Bureau of Land
    Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park
    Service (NPS), and Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) and $681.9 million
    in mandatory funding for Interior's Land and Water Conservation Fund
    (LWCF) programs. Interior's 2025 allocation for LWCF includes $313.0
    million for voluntary Federal land acquisition projects and programs,
    $8.0 million for a new Tribal LWCF land acquisition program, and $360.8
    million for grant programs. An additional $117.9 million is estimated
    to be available for State LWCF grants in FY 2025 from offshore oil and
    gas revenue in the Gulf of Mexico.
                           2025 legislative proposals
        The 2025 budget request includes the following legislative
    proposals and technical budgetary adjustments.
        Wildland Firefighting Workforce-The 2025 President's Budget
    provides funding increases to advance wildland firefighter workforce
    reform initiatives first proposed in the 2024 budget. The cornerstone
    of these long-term reforms is a permanent increase in pay, as provided
    for in the pay reform legislation transmitted to Congress in March
    2023. This legislation will establish a special base rate salary table
    for wildland firefighters, create a new premium pay category that
    provides additional compensation for all hours a wildland fire
    responder is mobilized on an incident, and establish a streamlined pay
    cap that includes waiver authority to the Secretary on the basis of
    specific criteria. The budget includes funding for these Federal pay
    reforms and similar pay increases for Tribal personnel. These proposals
    build upon the historic reforms in the BIL to ensure wildland fire
    personnel receive the enhanced support they need to meet evolving
    mission demands from the increasing frequency and intensity of
    catastrophic wildfires, which are expected to continue due to climate
    change.
        Indian Water Rights Settlements-The budget proposes $2.8 billion in
    mandatory funding over 10 years to expand the Indian Water Rights
    Settlement Completion Fund to cover the costs of enacted and future
    water rights settlements and provide for ongoing operations and
    maintenance costs associated with enacted water settlements managed by
    the Bureau of Reclamation.
        Providing a stable, dedicated funding source for Indian water
    rights settlements helps to ensure these commitments are honored and
    Tribal communities have safe, reliable water supplies to support public
    and environmental health and economic opportunity.
        Transfer Authority for Implementation of BIL Projects-The 2025
    budget continues to propose appropriations language to expand authority
    for Federal agencies to transfer funds provided under the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law (BIL) to FWS to accelerate and improve Endangered
    Species Act consultations in support of responsible development of
    priority infrastructure projects and energy solutions.
        Tribal Contract Support Costs-Contract Support Costs funding is a
    critical Tribal sovereignty payment enabling Tribes to assume
    responsibility for operating Federal programs by covering the costs to
    administer the programs. The budget proposes to reclassify Tribal
    Contract Support Costs from discretionary to mandatory funding
    beginning in 2026 and requests discretionary funding in 2025 to fully
    cover estimated requirements.
        Payments for Tribal Leases-Section 105(l) of the Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act provides that Tribes and
    Tribal organizations carrying out Federal functions under a self-
    determination contract or self-governance compact may enter into a
    lease agreement with the Department of the Interior for the tribally
    owned or rented facility used to carry out those functions. This
    critical Tribal sovereignty payment is allowing Indian Affairs to get
    Tribes closer to meeting the full cost of program implementation and
    improve their facilities. The 2025 budget proposes to reclassify
    funding for 105(l) lease agreement requirements from discretionary to
    mandatory funding beginning in 2026 and requests discretionary funding
    in 2025 to fully cover estimated requirements.
        Land and Water Conservation Fund Program for Tribes-The budget
    proposes language that will allocate $8.0 million of mandatory LWCF
    funding to establish a Tribal LWCF program in the Office of the
    Secretary account. The program will be managed by the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs to award funding for Tribal land acquisition proposals that
    meet the criteria of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to advance
    conservation and recreation opportunities. This program will, for the
    first time, provide Tribes direct access to participate in LWCF without
    relying on partners- an important advancement supporting Tribal Self-
    Determination.
                          strengthening tribal nations
        This Administration has made a steadfast commitment to honor our
    Nation's Tribal trust responsibilities and strengthen government-to-
    government relationships with Tribal Nations. This budget maintains
    that commitment to support and expand this work with a total request of
    $4.6 billion for Indian Affairs programs. Through initiatives
    addressing complex and difficult challenges, such as addressing the
    legacy of the Federal Indian Boarding Schools, meeting the need for
    native language revitalization, and coordinating Federal efforts to
    address Missing and Murdered Indigenous People, this Administration's
    commitment to respect the sovereignty of Tribal Nations and address
    long-standing disparities is unprecedented.
                          honoring tribal sovereignty
        The 2025 budget makes significant investments in Tribal sovereignty
    and revitalization, providing new and expanded funding opportunities
    and resources for Tribes to manage their lands and waters. Interior's
    efforts to strengthen Tribal sovereignty extend across the Department
    and with other Federal partners. For example, the Department held
    Tribal consultation sessions with the USDA, with the participation of
    NOAA, in which participants consistently pointed to the adverse impacts
    the changing climate is having on Alaska Native communities and
    subsistence practices, and they emphasized the need to expand Tribal
    co-management partnerships and incorporate Indigenous knowledge into
    subsistence management. Subsistence practices are vital to the lifeways
    of Alaska Native communities and people. Alaska Native people depend
    heavily on subsistence practices for their nutritional, social,
    economic, and traditional cultural needs. The budget includes increases
    in FWS and NPS to support resource management associated with Alaska
    Native subsistence. The Department is working to implement the FY 2024
    Congressional direction transferring the Office of Subsistence
    Management from FWS to the Office of the Secretary.
        In late 2023, I hosted the 12th and final session of the ``The Road
    to Healing'' tour, a year-long commitment to travel across the country
    to allow survivors of the Federal Indian boarding school system the
    opportunity to share their stories and help connect communities with
    trauma-informed support. During the ``Road to Healing'' Listening
    Sessions, one of the most significant Tribal concerns expressed was the
    devastating impact boarding school policies have had on the retention
    of Native languages in their communities. To address those concerns,
    the 2025 budget includes $18.0 million, an increase of $11.5 million
    from the 2024 CR amount, to expand BIA grant awards for Tribal Native
    language revitalization programs that are imperative to restore
    generational continuity and Tribal culture and strengthen Tribal
    sovereignty.
        The 2025 budget maintains the Administration's strong commitment to
    fully fund Tribal Contract Support Costs and Tribal 105 (l) lease
    costs, which compensate Tribes for the cost of administering programs
    on behalf of the Federal Government, and for the use of tribally owned
    space for the operation of Government-owned services. The budget
    continues to propose to reclassify these required costs as mandatory
    funding starting in FY 2026 and, for FY 2025, proposes discretionary
    funding to fully fund requirements in the budget year: an estimated
    $426.2 million for Contract Support Costs and $120.0 million for Tribal
    105(l) Lease Costs.
                        investing in tribal communities
        The budget includes $2.9 billion for Bureau of Indian Affairs
    programs, $344.8 million above the 2024 CR level. The 2025 BIA budget
    contains significant investments in Tribal communities, including $73.1
    million for the Tiwahe Initiative, $28.6 million above the 2024 CR
    level. Under Tiwahe, funding assists Tribes at selected sites to
    implement a tribally driven approach to deliver essential services more
    effectively and efficiently. The initiative facilitates collaboration
    within Tribal communities-which can help to leverage resources, share
    expertise, reduce duplication, and exchange information about families'
    needs-to formulate the most responsive approach to provide service.
    Since 2015, the Tiwahe Initiative has focused primarily on promoting
    family stability though several Human Services programs. The
    Department's 2025 budget further expands Tiwahe in Social Services,
    Indian Child Welfare Act, Housing, and Tribal Justice Support programs.
        The budget includes $50.1 million, $10.9 million above the 2024 CR
    level, to address another long-standing Tribal priority to improve road
    maintenance. Poor road conditions directly affect the quality of life
    in many Tribal communities, limiting transportation for public safety
    and emergency response, travel to school, and travel to work. This
    additional investment increases maintenance for an additional 5,000
    miles of BIA roads. Funding will also increase bridge maintenance and
    safety reviews of 250 bridges to inform prioritization, project
    selection, and planning to better implement construction funding
    available through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). The
    estimated deferred maintenance backlog for BIA roads and bridges is
    nearly $400 million. BIA's budget includes additional investments in
    Tribal communities in areas such as Tribal climate resilience, social
    services, housing, and land consolidation.
        Public safety continues to be a top priority for Tribal leaders
    across the country. The elevated level of concern is coupled with
    emerging needs to expand services to address the McGirt v. Oklahoma
    decision and the needs of 31 Tribes that are eligible for but do not
    receive BIA public safety and justice funding. The budget includes
    $651.2 million in Tribal Public Safety and Justice funding, a net total
    change of $71.5 million above the 2024 CR level, to support critical
    public safety needs in Indian Country. The request provides additional
    resources to help meet Tribal needs in policing, detention, and Tribal
    courts. A $41.9 million program increase is included for Criminal
    Investigations and Police Services; of that amount, $33.5 million is
    specifically targeted to increase the number of officers and
    investigators on the ground in Indian Country. The budget also includes
    a $20.1 million increase for Detention and Corrections programs and
    maintains public safety and justice construction funding at the FY 2024
    CR level of $51.6 million.
                           advancing indian education
        Indian Education programs are funded in the 2025 budget at $1.5
    billion, $119.5 million above the 2024 CR level, to provide a strong
    educational foundation for Native children to succeed. Native students
    face stark inequities in access to education, many of which were
    highlighted and exacerbated by the pandemic. To help address the gap,
    the budget invests in the day-to-day operations of BIE-funded
    elementary and secondary schools. The budget includes $518.1 million,
    an increase of $36.5 million above the 2024 CR level, for Indian
    Student Equalization Program formula funds, which provide the primary
    support for academic activities in the classroom, instructional
    services, and teacher training, recruitment, and retention. The budget
    includes resources to operate and maintain BIE-funded schools and fully
    funds the estimated $100.7 million required for Tribal Grant Support
    costs, which cover the administration costs for Tribes that choose to
    operate BIE-funded schools. The 2025 budget also features $7.5 million
    for Native language immersion programs at BIE schools.
        The budget includes $191.1 million for postsecondary schools and
    programs-including Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern
    Indian Polytechnic Institute, Tribal colleges, universities, and
    technical colleges-and expanded Tribal scholarships and adult education
    programs.
        At $310.2 million in the 2025 budget, annual funding for Education
    Construction is $42.3 million above the 2024 CR level. The 2025 budget
    also continues efforts to address BIE-funded school facilities in poor
    condition and the deferred maintenance backlog in the BIE school
    system, which totals more than 180 schools. The budget includes $162.6
    million, $8.1 million above the 2024 CR level, for facilities
    operations and maintenance. An additional $95.0 million in mandatory
    funding for BIE school construction through the GAOA Legacy Restoration
    Fund is available in 2025 to support projects at two school campuses.
    Together, this funding will allow BIE to replace four schools in 2025
    and address cost increases at schools funded in prior years.
                meeting financial tribal trust responsibilities
        The 2025 budget includes $111.3 million, level with the 2024 CR
    amount, to support Tribal and Individual Indian Money financial
    functions managed by the Bureau of Trust Funds Administration (BTFA).
    BTFA was established within the Office of the Assistant Secretary-
    Indian Affairs in 2020 to house the ongoing financial trust management
    functions established through trust reforms carried out by the Office
    of the Special Trustee for American Indians.
        BTFA currently serves as the financial manager for more than $8
    billion of Indian Trust Funds and provides services for 4,200 Tribal
    accounts and roughly 411,000 Individual Indian Money accounts. Thank
    you for providing full recognition of BTFA as a bureau in the FY 2024
    Enacted Appropriation which will allow the organization to focus on its
    mission of serving Indian Country.
             addressing climate challenges and building resilience
        Across America, communities are enduring historic and catastrophic
    flooding, wildfires, extreme heat, drought, and more, and longer-term
    changes in temperature are affecting ecosystems and the economies that
    depend on them. The impacts of climate change are intensifying,
    disrupting lives and livelihoods, and causing billions of dollars in
    damages. Together with agencies across the Federal Government, States,
    Tribes, and other partners, Interior is working to address the
    immediate and long-term needs driven by the changing climate.
    Catastrophic fire, flood, and drought events are increasingly top-of-
    mind considerations for Interior's resource managers. These events
    demand immediate attention and resources, but long-term success
    requires work to build climate resilience. The 2025 budget reflects
    Interior's important role in the all-of- government approach to
    tackling climate change and building long-term resilience. The budget
    invests $5.5 billion in climate adaptation and resilience efforts to
    address these important challenges.
                            wildland fire management
        The devastating consequences of severe wildfires continue to affect
    communities and wildland firefighters across the country. The National
    Interagency Coordination Center reports that more than 56,000 wildfires
    occurred across the United States in 2023, burning nearly 2.7 million
    acres. Climate change-driven, long-term trends continue, with
    increasing wildfire occurrence, burned area, and high-severity
    incidents expected in 2025 and beyond, with impacts ranging from direct
    loss of life and property to health, economic, and ecosystem impacts.
    For 2025, the President's Budget expands the Nation's response to
    wildfire impacts beyond the near term, investing in longer-term actions
    to restore wildfire resilience, rehabilitate burned areas, and increase
    the workforce capacity and capability to manage wildland fires.
        The 2025 budget request for the Department's Wildland Fire
    Management (WFM) programs is $1.6 billion, including $1.3 billion for
    WFM annual appropriations and $360.0 million for the Wildfire
    Suppression Operations Reserve Fund. The request for the WFM account
    includes $831.8 million in emergency designated appropriations (also
    referred to as shifted base). The total request is an increase of
    $206.7 million, and an estimated 61 Federal full-time equivalents
    (FTEs) and 7 Tribal FTE, a funding increase of 14.4 percent above the
    2024 CR level. The request includes $75.0 million to support permanent
    pay increases for Federal and Tribal wildland firefighters and an
    increase of $39.8 million above the 2024 CR level.
        The 2025 budget continues to press for implementation of permanent,
    comprehensive pay reform for Federal wildland firefighters at Interior
    and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
        Enacting pay reform is essential to meet the challenges posed by
    longer and more intense wildfire seasons to ensure stable firefighter
    recruitment and retention. The long-term reforms are supported by
    funding requested to implement a permanent pay increase to replace the
    temporary pay increases provided in the BIL and continued in the 2024
    Enacted Appropriation.
        Complementing these pay reforms are investments to enhance health
    services, hire additional permanent and temporary wildland firefighters
    to increase capacity, and improve government housing. These investments
    will help address long-standing recruitment and retention challenges,
    attend to firefighter mental health and well-being, increase the
    Department's capacity to complete critical risk mitigation and post-
    fire recovery work, and further the Administration's commitment to
    build a more resilient wildland firefighting workforce as the frequency
    and intensity of catastrophic wildfires continue to increase due to
    climate change.
        The 2025 budget continues to reflect the important role proactive
    fuels management plays in wildland fire management to reduce the
    intensity, severity, and negative effects of wildfire and improve the
    resiliency of public and Tribal lands. The budget includes $287.6
    million for Fuels Management, which maintains program capacity at the
    2024 CR level and includes a program increase of $25.0 million to cover
    the program's share of the increased cost of the permanent firefighter
    pay reform. Combined with funding provided in the BIL for fuels
    management, the Department expects to treat 1.8 million acres in 2025.
        The 2025 budget also proposes appropriations language to increase
    Interior's flexibility to engage in cross-boundary fuels management and
    burned area rehabilitation work, including on non-Federal lands if the
    work benefits resources on Federal lands. These changes will address
    gaps and uncertainties in current authority and support implementation
    of the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. Among other
    benefits, these changes will support underserved communities that may
    be unable to share the costs for work that also benefits Federal
    jurisdictions.
        The budget for Wildland Fire includes $15.0 million for Facilities
    Construction and Maintenance, $5.0 million above the 2024 CR level,
    which includes $10.0 million to repair, renovate, and construct housing
    for wildland fire personnel. These funds will significantly help
    address the problem of inadequate or unaffordable housing facing many
    wildland firefighters working in certain geographic locations. The
    budget will further improve wildland fire management by establishing a
    Joint Office for Wildfire Science and Technology with the U.S. Forest
    Service. The budget includes $2.5 million in Interior's Preparedness
    program and $2.5 million in the U.S. Forest Service budget to support
    joint efforts leading to the development, deployment, and sustainment
    of technology, science, and data to be used to improve safety,
    effectiveness, and cost efficiency across the Wildland Fire Management
    program.
                      drought and ongoing water challenges
        Severe and sustained drought conditions across the West are forcing
    difficult challenges and choices to manage available water supplies.
    Limited water availability and increased wildland fire risk pose
    significant threats and challenges for communities, agriculture,
    Tribes, and ecosystems. Interior is bringing every resource to bear to
    help mitigate the impacts of drought and bolster long-term solutions
    supporting continued conservation and economic growth, so no community
    is left behind.
        The 2025 President's Budget for the Bureau of Reclamation, funded
    through the Energy and Water Development subcommittee, complements the
    transformative investments in water infrastructure, drought mitigation,
    and domestic water supply projects now underway through funding from
    the BIL and the IRA. The 2025 budget includes $1.5 billion for
    Reclamation's water programs and projects, sustaining a strong
    commitment to drought mitigation in the Bureau's annual appropriations.
    Funding in the request will help to ensure communities across the West
    have access to a resilient and reliable water supply by investing in
    rural water projects, water conservation, desalination technology
    development, and water recycling and reuse projects. The budget
    provides funding to address the ongoing drought affecting water systems
    across the West, including along the Colorado River System, which is
    near historically low levels.
        In the past 3 years, Interior has allocated $2.43 billion available
    through the BIL to address Indian water rights settlements enacted by
    Congress as of November 15, 2021. Indian reserved water rights are
    vested property rights for which the United States has a trust
    responsibility.
        Settlement of Indian water rights disputes helps create conditions
    that improve water resource management and provides certainty as to the
    rights of all water users who are parties to the disputes. Honoring
    those commitments promptly is especially important to the health,
    safety, and empowerment of Tribal communities.
        In addition to these previous investments, the budget provides
    $181.0 million in the Bureau of Reclamation to support the White
    Mountain Apache Tribe's water settlement agreement within the
    settlement's statutory completion deadline. The budget also includes
    $45.0 million in the Bureau of Indian Affairs to support payments
    authorized in the Hualapai Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2022.
        The Administration proposes legislation to expand the Indian Water
    Rights Settlement Completion Fund. This proposal will provide $2.8
    billion in mandatory funding over 10 years to help ensure commitments
    are honored on existing, newly enacted, and anticipated Indian Water
    Rights Settlements. Included in this total is $340.0 million in
    mandatory funding for operations and maintenance costs associated with
    currently enacted Bureau of Reclamation funded settlement projects.
        The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) also works with partners to
    deliver water predictions and drought risk assessment tools that
    support the mitigation of and response to prolonged drought. USGS has
    supported extensive partner engagement throughout the Colorado River
    Basin with science to identify and begin to understand the cascading
    effects of drought on ecosystems and socioeconomic factors; improve
    partners' access to science, data, and tools; and improve the
    understanding of gains and losses of water as it moves from one
    Colorado River reservoir to another. Predictions and assessments-along
    with other fundamental information on how drought drives physical,
    biological, and chemical landscape change-are used to evaluate
    watershed conditions on multiple-use public lands, the status of fish
    and wildlife species, drought impacts on rangeland management, and
    plans and investments for infrastructure, conservation, and restoration
    projects. In FY 2025, USGS will invest an additional $7.0 million to
    support these efforts to address the critical issues facing our Nation
    due to drought.
                         building resilient communities
        The impacts of climate change on communities across the Nation have
    focused more attention on the need to strengthen resilience to these
    changes through short-term disaster preparedness and long-term planning
    and infrastructure investments. Interior programs advance these efforts
    in many ways through proactive investments leveraging science and
    critical monitoring networks.
        USGS manages the Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program,
    which maintains a nationwide network of streamflow and water level
    information collected from more than 31,000 sites. The budget includes
    $121.4 million for this program, $6.8 million above the 2024 CR level.
    Network information is available online to help States, Tribes, natural
    resource managers, scientists, and emergency managers across the
    country to monitor for floods and drought and forecast water
    availability for crops and natural resource management.
        The USGS Ecosystem Change Research Program analyzes and synthesizes
    the effects of environment, land use, and climate changes on ecosystems
    to inform natural resource management policy and decisions-including
    those concerning wildfires and drought-and collaborates with Tribal
    partners to assess climate impacts on Tribal lands and waters.
        As part of the USGS Coastal and Marine Hazards programs,
    researchers use on-the-ground field work, high-resolution data, and
    modeling to help communities understand and respond to changes in
    coastal landscapes. Federal, Tribal, State, and local entities around
    the country use USGS data to inform coastal management and strategic
    planning. Some organizations use this science to plan evacuation
    notices, inform city planning, and construct storm-resistant
    infrastructure. Others use USGS habitat assessments and decision-
    support tools to restore coastal ecosystems and develop infrastructure
    that can help buffer future storm damage and coastal erosion. The
    budget includes $49.2 million for the Coastal and Marine Hazards
    program, $6.0 million above the 2024 CR level.
        The 2025 budget includes $48.8 million, $13.8 million above the
    2024 CR level, in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) for Interior's
    Tribal Climate Resilience program to support Tribes in climate
    resilience planning, assessment, and adaptation activities. The program
    also funds planning and design work for Tribal communities evaluating
    the need for or pursuing climate- related relocation. This annually
    funded program complements the Voluntary Community- Driven Relocation
    program, led by Interior, and made possible with investments from the
    BIL and the IRA, with additional support for relocation from the
    Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Denali Commission. This
    initiative is helping Tribal communities severely affected by climate-
    related environmental threats take the next step in the process of
    relocating crucial community infrastructure away from imminent threats.
        The Office of Insular Affairs budget includes $118.3 million for
    Assistance to Territories to support basic services in the Insular
    Areas and targeted investments related to climate change. These
    investments include $15.5 million to promote renewable energy and
    strengthen grid infrastructure in the Insular Areas and $2.8 million
    for work related to coral reef ecosystems and other natural resource
    needs. Funding in 2025 for Assistance to Territories includes total
    increases of $4.0 million for important investments needed to maintain
    ongoing support for conservation and climate resilience in the Insular
    Areas. These increases are offset by a reduction of $6.0 million
    reflecting the discontinuation of support for the discretionary funded
    Compact Impact program. Compact Impact is addressed in the recently
    enacted COFA legislation.
                   healthy public lands, waters, and wildlife
        Interior manages more than 480 million acres of lands across the
    United States and is responsible for the protection and recovery of
    2,367 endangered and threatened species. Interior leads as an active
    partner in ongoing efforts to understand and mitigate climate impacts
    on natural resources, promote biodiversity, and ensure these valuable
    assets remain available for the public to experience and enjoy. Natural
    resource conservation, restoration, recovery, and adaptive management
    are a fundamental part of Interior's mission across the agency.
    Interior's conservation and adaptive management work relies heavily on
    partnerships and interagency collaboration to leverage information and
    resources. The 2025 budget includes roughly $2.8 billion in annual
    funding for conservation efforts, including critical work for
    restoration and improvements supporting healthier lands, waters,
    ecosystems, and their resident species.
        The 2025 budget includes targeted investments aimed at protecting
    biodiversity; restoring fish, wildlife, and their habitats; and halting
    nature loss. The request includes $2.0 billion for natural resource
    programs in NPS, BLM, and FWS. This funding supports Interior's core
    mission activities and at the same time supports the objectives of the
    America the Beautiful initiative to advance conservation efforts that
    are locally led, collaborative and inclusive, honor Tribal sovereignty,
    and follow science.
        The FWS budget invests $602.3 million in the National Wildlife
    Refuge System to maintain and operate 571 national refuge areas across
    the country. Each unit of the refuge system is established to target
    conservation of native species dependent on its lands and water, and
    all activities on those lands are reviewed for compatibility with this
    purpose. The budget includes $280.4 million for Wildlife and Habitat
    Management activities in the National refuge areas, an increase of
    $19.9 million above the 2024 CR amount.
        The budget also includes $942.5 million, an increase of $37.9
    million from the 2024 CR level, for FWS species and habitat
    conservation; restoration and recovery of species; migratory bird
    programs; fish and aquatic conservation; and international conservation
    programs. Many of these programs support collaborative partnerships
    leveraging the support of a wide range of partners, including
    sportspeople, local communities, private landowners, and Tribes. The
    budget includes $68.1 million for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife
    Program, $7.8 million above the 2024 CR level, to further support
    voluntary conservation on private lands-a key focus of the America the
    Beautiful initiative. The FWS budget also includes $17.6 million for
    the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures program, $0.8 million above the 2024
    CR amount, to continue collaborations with a multitude of partners to
    ensure the migratory pathways of our Nation's birds remain connected
    and support sustainable populations.
        A primary responsibility of the National Park Service is to
    conserve and protect the natural and cultural resources and values at
    429 park units, 25 trails, and 66 wild and scenic rivers. NPS natural
    resource stewardship activities support active management, research,
    and projects to conserve, protect, and better understand park natural
    resources. NPS is managing invasive plants and animals, restoring
    disturbed ecosystems, and addressing the resiliency of park resources
    to climate changes to conserve iconic natural resources and enhance the
    visitor experience. NPS develops best management practices and applies
    science to understand the risks to park resources from environmental
    hazards, identifies specific factors that affect park resources and
    park investments. National Park lands are also venues to collaborate
    with partners and the public on this important work. The budget
    includes $431.0 million for natural and cultural resource stewardship
    activities across the National parks, $11.3 million above the 2024 CR
    level.
        The Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) National Conservation Lands
    (NCL) system of national monuments and national conservation areas
    comprise nearly 37 million acres. The NCL system was created to
    recognize and help protect the outstanding value of these unique
    places, which are some of BLM's most popular and heavily visited sites.
    The 2025 budget includes $54.6 million, $4.0 million above the 2024 CR
    level, to maintain and operate these areas on behalf of the public. The
    funds support the management and operation of the NCL sites to protect
    and conserve these special places and address the impacts of stressors,
    such as high recreational use, invasive species, and climate change.
    BLM and its volunteers provide key visitor services and interpretive
    programs at areas with the highest visitation to offer the American
    people exceptional areas for recreation. The budget includes $61.5
    million, $5.9 million above the 2024 CR level, for recreation
    management activities across BLM. That amount includes increased
    funding to implement the MAPLand Act (Modernizing Access to Our Public
    Land Act) to improve geospatial data about and facilitate access to
    BLM-managed public lands.
        Interior bureaus often work collaboratively to address cross-
    cutting resource stewardship challenges. A long-standing example of
    this approach is Interior's ongoing support to enhance wildlife
    migration corridors and habitat connectivity to help ensure fish and
    wildlife have the freedom to move and migrate, as areas are
    increasingly fragmented by roads, fences, and other barriers. Since
    2018, Interior has worked in partnership with 11 Western States, a wide
    diversity of nongovernmental organizations, and Western Tribes to
    support projects to better understand migration routes, remove barriers
    to migrating wildlife, and improve habitat conditions on public and
    private lands. The budget includes $12.0 million for migration corridor
    activities in the FWS, BLM, NPS, and the USGS to help leverage public-
    private partnership efforts to protect pronghorn, elk, mule deer, and
    other iconic species across the West. As part of this work, USGS has
    led development of the coproduced science needed to manage migration
    corridors. Because of the widely acknowledged value of this work and
    the recognition of increasing threats to Western landscapes, the 2025
    USGS budget includes $3.9 million to support this work, a program
    increase of $3.5 million above the 2024 CR level.
        Interior plays a leadership role in implementing the National Seed
    Strategy (NSS) to support ecosystem restoration by addressing the
    increasing demand for native seed that outpaces the supply. The NSS
    provides a framework for coordination across Federal agencies and other
    partners and cooperators to build an adequate supply of native seeds.
    The 2025 budget includes $27.2 million, $4.3 million above the 2024 CR
    level, across BLM, FWS, and BIA to implement the NSS as part of
    Interior's core operations. This investment is consistent with
    congressional direction to ``supply native plant materials for
    emergency stabilization and longer-term rehabilitation'' and will
    strengthen broader restoration efforts by helping to reduce suppliers'
    uncertainty of demand for seed, increase the availability of stock
    seeds, and increase knowledge sharing.
         creating jobs and meeting energy and environmental challenges
        Interior's programs create jobs and spur economic growth in a
    variety of areas-energy and minerals, recreation and tourism,
    irrigation and other water-related activities, grants and payments, and
    infrastructure investment. Enactment of the Great American Outdoors
    Act, the BIL, and the IRA have and will continue to significantly
    expand Interior's contributions to America's economic and job growth. A
    DOI analysis completed in 2023 found that investments from three BIL-
    funded programs alone-Abandoned Mine Lands; Orphaned Well Plugging,
    Remediation, and Reclamation; and Water Resources-support on average
    17,669 jobs and generate $2.0 billion for the U.S. economy each year.
    The 2025 budget maintains a consistent strategy to emphasize
    investments that create jobs and better position the country to be more
    competitive worldwide.
                    developing a robust clean energy economy
        The 2025 budget continues to advance the Administration's clean
    energy goals. Interior has made significant progress to stand up clean
    energy projects on public lands and establish a strong offshore wind
    energy program, which will create good-paying union jobs and help the
    transition to a decarbonized economy.
        At the start of 2024, two U.S. offshore wind energy sites announced
    the first delivery of electricity to the grid from projects off New
    England and Montauk, NY. This event came on the heels of Interior's
    announcement at the end of 2023 that the Nation's sixth commercial
    offshore wind energy project had been approved and a new offshore wind
    lease sale was proposed in the Central Atlantic. Four offshore wind-
    lease auctions have taken place during this Administration, which have
    brought in almost $5.5 billion in high bids. BOEM has also advanced the
    process to explore additional opportunities for offshore wind energy
    development, including in the Gulf of Maine and Gulf of Mexico and
    offshore the U.S. Central Atlantic and Oregon coasts. Also this year,
    the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) stood up a
    regulatory and enforcement program for this new offshore industry. BSEE
    is also preparing a regulatory update to ensure safe development and
    operation of offshore wind facilities.
        In 2023, the Bureau of Land Management approved 10 wind, solar, and
    geothermal projects that, when built, will power millions of homes
    across the West. The Administration also made significant progress
    clearing the way for key transmission lines crossing federally managed
    lands and celebrated the groundbreakings of the TransWest Express
    Transmission Project (Wyoming), the Ten West Link (Arizona and
    California), and the SunZia Transmission Project (New Mexico, Arizona,
    and California).
        BLM is processing more than three dozen utility-scale onshore clean
    energy projects proposed on public lands-including solar, wind, and
    geothermal projects-and the interconnected generation tie lines vital
    for connecting clean energy projects on non-Federal land to
    transmission lines. These projects have the combined potential to add
    more than 22 gigawatts of renewable energy to the Western electric
    grid.
        Overall, the budget includes $189.3 million, $35.3 million above
    the 2024 CR level, to continue the Administration's progress in
    deploying clean energy, spurring economic development, and creating
    thousands of good-paying jobs. Funding supports the leasing, planning,
    and permitting of solar, wind, and geothermal energy projects and
    associated transmission infrastructure that will help mitigate the
    impacts of climate change and support the Administration's goal of
    deploying 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2030 and 25
    gigawatts of clean energy capacity on public lands by 2025.
        The 2025 budget includes $53.1 million for BLM's onshore renewable
    energy program, $12.1 million above the 2024 CR level. The request will
    help build staffing capacity at BLM's Renewable Energy Coordination
    Offices and accelerate planning and permitting to accommodate increased
    demand and workload. BLM also plans to undertake market and technology
    trend analysis; enhance engagement with States, counties, and Tribes;
    and work to adopt a regional approach to permitting and environmental
    reviews.
        The 2025 budget includes $52.0 million for BOEM's Renewable Energy
    program, a $9.2 million increase above the 2024 CR level. This request
    includes funding to continue to support permitting for projects
    proposed on existing leases and activities associated with Interior's
    current Offshore Wind Leasing Path Forward 2021-2025. The budget
    includes $21.7 million within BOEM's Environmental Programs for studies
    that inform clean energy decisions, an increase of $1.7 million, which
    includes additional funding for environmental reviews associated with
    offshore renewable energy projects.
        The budget for BSEE includes $12.6 million to continue work in
    support of offshore renewable energy deployment. BSEE anticipates
    receiving more than 40,000 wind engineering, construction, and other
    technical reports for review through the end of FY 2025. The bureau is
    working closely with BOEM to implement the framework needed to ensure
    offshore renewable energy projects are constructed and operated safely
    and responsibly.
                              conventional energy
        The budget for BOEM provides $67.5 million for conventional energy
    programs, approximately $6.0 million above the 2024 CR level, to
    support Outer Continental Shelf planning, leasing, and oversight. This
    work includes inventorying oil and gas reserves, overseeing ongoing
    activities, ensuring adequate financial assurances for decommissioning
    liability and risk management, implementing the 2024-2029 National OCS
    Oil and Gas Leasing Program, reviewing and administering oil and gas
    exploration and development plans and geological and geophysical
    permits, and conducting economic analyses, environmental studies, and
    resource evaluation.
        Decisions pertaining to conventional energy activities also receive
    support from the Environmental Programs funding.
        The 2025 budget for BSEE includes $213.0 million that supports
    conventional energy program work. This funding supports OCS permit
    application reviews, regulation and standard development for offshore
    activities, verification and enforcement of operator compliance with
    all applicable environmental laws and regulations, technical reviews of
    planned operations and emerging technologies to properly identify and
    mitigate risks, an annual inspection program that includes risk-based
    inspections, and incident investigations. Within this funding, BSEE
    will continue to strengthen its technical workforce to keep pace with
    an evolving industry with increasingly complex deepwater operations.
    BSEE's budget also includes $12.0 million to fund the decommissioning
    of orphaned offshore oil and gas infrastructure. This funding, along
    with funding from other sources, will be used to address the most
    immediate and urgent well, pipeline, and platform decommissioning needs
    to help reduce the risk of pollution.
        Included in the 2025 budget is $115.8 million for BLM's Oil and Gas
    Management program, an increase of $3.0 million from the 2024 CR level.
    The BLM budget also includes $51.0 million for Oil and Gas Inspection
    Activities and proposes to offset the cost of this program through
    onshore inspection fees.
        The 2025 budget continues to support onshore and offshore carbon
    sequestration activities. The BIL provides authority to the Secretary
    of the Interior to grant a lease, easement, or right-of-way on the
    Outer Continental Shelf for activities that ``provide for, support, or
    are directly related to the injection of a carbon dioxide stream into
    sub-seabed geologic formations for the purpose of long-term carbon
    sequestration.'' Carbon sequestration permanently stores carbon dioxide
    (CO2) in secure subsurface geologic reservoirs to reduce the amount of
    CO2 in the atmosphere and mitigate its impact on global climate change.
    BOEM and BSEE are working to develop and publish draft offshore carbon
    sequestration regulations for public comment. The proposed rule will
    address aspects of carbon sequestration on the OCS, including the
    transportation and geologic sequestration of CO2, leasing of OCS areas
    for that purpose, storage site characterization (i.e., delineation of
    potential storage reservoirs), environmental plans and mitigation
    measures, facility and infrastructure design and installation,
    injection operations, monitoring, incident response, financial
    assurance, and safety, among other issues.
        While the rule is under development, BOEM and BSEE will continue to
    develop their carbon sequestration programs to facilitate program
    implementation upon final rule publication. The 2025 BOEM budget
    includes $1.0 million to establish a dedicated carbon sequestration
    team and fund environmental studies, scientific research, data
    collection, and other activities critical to implement the new program.
    The 2025 BSEE budget includes $1.5 million to prepare to regulate and
    oversee safe and effective offshore carbon sequestration activities.
                                reclamation jobs
        The 2025 budget continues to provide annual ongoing support for
    related reclamation activities targeting State and Tribal reclamation
    needs associated with abandoned hardrock mines, legacy pollution on
    Interior's lands, and innovative coal mine reclamation projects
    directly supporting local economic growth. The Administration is
    committed to remediating the physical and environmental hazards to
    repair those lands, improve air and water quality, and, at the same
    time, create jobs in rural communities. The budget includes $7.0
    million, $2.0 million above the 2024 CR level, for the Abandoned
    Hardrock Mine Reclamation Program to support State, Tribal, and Federal
    efforts to inventory and address legacy sites on their lands. Abandoned
    hardrock mine sites often pose significant health and safety risks to
    surrounding areas and are found across the country. Many States,
    Tribes, and Federal land programs do not have good inventories or
    strong programs to manage those sites. This program targets the need to
    build capacity and begin to address this long-standing problem.
        On Interior lands, the Department has identified thousands of mines
    and features that pose safety risks and generate environmental
    contaminants. USGS, in partnership with BLM, has developed the first
    national database of current and historical mine features. Tens of
    thousands of legacy pollution sites are on BLM lands alone, including
    roughly 56,600 abandoned hardrock mine sites, many of which pose
    serious threats to the public and the environment. Rural and Tribal
    communities proximate to historic mining sites feel the physical and
    environmental impacts of those sites most keenly, but the growing
    popularity of BLM lands for recreation has placed even more people in
    harm's way. The budget includes $58.4 million for BLM's Abandoned Mine
    Lands and Hazardous Materials Management program, $1.3 million above
    the 2024 CR level, which will work in tandem with national Abandoned
    Hardrock Mine Reclamation Program efforts to inventory and remediate
    those sites more broadly on State, private, Tribal, and other Federal
    agency lands.
        The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE)
    works with States and Tribes to regulate active coal mines to ensure
    environmental problems do not occur and remediate abandoned coal mines
    to address health and safety hazards. High-priority abandoned coal mine
    problems can include clogged streams, acid mine drainage, dangerous
    highwalls, waste piles or embankments, subsidence, underground mine
    fires, and polluted water-all of which can pose immediate threats to
    the public health and safety of communities. OSMRE manages the State
    and Tribal abandoned mine reclamation grant programs authorized by the
    Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act and the BIL. In 2023, OSMRE
    invested nearly $1 billion in coal communities, including $724.8
    million made available to 22 States and the Navajo Nation for
    reclamation as part of the BIL and $126.5 million available through the
    traditional, fee-funded, mandatory Abandoned Mine Land (AML) grant
    program.
        OSMRE also manages the Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalization
    (AMLER) program, which administers grants to six States and three
    Tribal Nations to return legacy coal mining sites to productive uses
    and foster economic and community development. Since 2016, the AMLER
    program has provided more than $900 million to America's current and
    former coal communities to deliver economic and community development
    and achieve reclamation of historic abandoned mine sites. The 2025
    budget includes $135.0 million to continue support for AMLER.
        In 2025, the OSMRE budget includes $2.5 million to provide grants
    to nongovernmental organizations and local and State government
    agencies to help construct, operate, maintain, and rehabilitate
    abandoned mine land passive-treatment systems that were previously
    constructed to address water pollution from mine drainage. This funding
    helps local communities protect the investments made in passive-
    treatment systems installed to address water pollution discharges from
    abandoned mine lands.
     promoting equity, diversity, and inclusion of underserved communities
        Interior is taking steps across the Department to expand equity,
    diversity, and inclusion beyond day-to-day management policies to
    incorporate this concept into the delivery of DOI's missions. This
    commitment is consistent with the Administration's all-of-government
    approach to advance equity, civil rights, racial justice, and equal
    opportunity. Interior's 2025 budget request supports the actions needed
    to recognize and redress inequities and to proactively advance
    diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility within the Department's
    workforce and program implementation. The Department seeks to ensure
    that everyone-no matter their background or ZIP Code-can enjoy the
    benefits of Interior's mission programs.
        The Department of the Interior is committed to maintaining a
    diverse workforce that reflects the public we serve and sustaining an
    equitable and inclusive workplace environment. In 2022, the Department
    published its first Equity Action Plan, which was then updated in 2024.
    It outlines efforts to advance equity through all DOI operations,
    remove barriers to equal opportunity, and deliver resources and
    benefits equitably to the public.
                   ongoing commitment to diversity and equity
        In support of the Equity Action Plan, the 2025 budget includes
    program increases of $2.8 million for the Office of Diversity,
    Inclusion, and Civil Rights; Office of Human Capital; and Office of
    Collaborative Alternative Dispute Resolution to strengthen Equal
    Employment Opportunity compliance and advance antidiscrimination
    protections provided to DOI employees and job applicants.
              increasing representation and tribal co-stewardship
        Reflecting the Administration's commitment to accessibility and
    inclusion, the budget includes targeted investments to increase
    representation in the delivery of Interior's core missions. An example
    is $3.1 million requested in the NPS budget to support recent or
    potential new designations that preserve important places and tell the
    stories of those historically underrepresented. Through the Outdoor
    Recreation Legacy Partnership Program, NPS recently designated three
    new local parks in urban areas to increase residents' opportunities to
    connect with the outdoors. The designations include a park in
    Anchorage, AK, in an area with a high concentration of low-income
    youth; an aging park in Moorhead, MN, in a community with a high
    poverty rate; and Roosevelt Park in Buffalo, NY, to address a severely
    deteriorated multiuse athletics field built in the 1950s in a community
    with a high poverty rate.
        The responsibility for meeting Tribal trust responsibilities and
    promoting Tribal sovereignty stretches across Interior. The 2025 budget
    includes targeted increases to expand Tribal co-stewardship across the
    Department. The NPS budget includes a $3.0 million increase to directly
    support Tribal participation in management of Federal lands and waters
    with cultural and natural resources of significance and value to Indian
    Tribes and their citizens, including sacred religious sites, burial
    sites, wildlife, and sources of Indigenous foods and medicines.
        The budget for FWS includes increases totaling $5.5 million to
    advance co-stewardship and engagement with Tribes on Indigenous
    knowledge research, conservation planning, and marine mammal
    management. Implicit in the Marine Mammal Protection Act is the
    realization that cooperative management of subsistence harvests between
    FWS and Alaska Native organizations is more likely to achieve the goals
    of the act than management by a Federal agency alone. The budget
    provides strong support to continue to build these relationships with
    partners such as the Eskimo Walrus Commission and the Alaska Nannut Co-
    management Council, which is the FWS co-management partner for polar
    bears.
        The NPS 2025 budget proposes $2.5 million in dedicated funding for
    Tribal Heritage Grants within the Historic Preservation Fund to support
    Indian Tribes, Alaska Native villages and corporations, and Native
    Hawaiian Organizations for the preservation and protection of their
    cultural heritage in addition to other important ongoing Tribal
    programs.
        The Bureau of Reclamation budget includes $29.5 million for its
    Native American Affairs Program, $9.5 million above the 2024 CR level.
    The program supports a variety of Reclamation activities with Tribes,
    including technical assistance, drought assistance, the Secretary's
    Indian Water Rights Settlements Program, and outreach.
                            building agency capacity
        Interior is strengthening the Department's delivery of core
    programs and services for the American people. Efforts related to
    improving Interior's workforce and operations and better leveraging
    technology and information are underway across the Department.
                    interior's workforce and infrastructure
        Interior is building its capacity for next generation hiring
    through promotion and expansion of existing and emerging hiring
    authorities, working closely with the Office of Personnel Management
    and the Office of Management and Budget. Recently, the Department
    received approval for use of term appointments excepted beyond general
    time limits for work in support of the Great American Outdoors Act and
    direct-hire authority for permitting positions. The Department
    continues to use direct-hire authority for wildland firefighting,
    information technology, and STEM positions. Interior also recently
    increased the hiring of former Public Lands Corps participants,
    Resource Assistant interns, Knauss Fellows, and military spouses.
        These programs-when combined with Schedule A hiring for persons
    with disabilities, Pathways internships, hiring of recent graduates,
    and the Presidential Management Fellowship (PMF) program-will greatly
    affect the Department's ability to acquire the talent needed to achieve
    its mission for the next several decades.
        The budget includes $206.0 million to fully support anticipated
    fixed-cost increases in 2025, assuming a 2.0-percent increase in
    Federal salaries in FY 2025. The budget also includes $412.2 million in
    program baseline capacity funding to reflect increased 2024 fixed-cost
    requirements over the 2-year budget comparison. Without full funding
    for these costs, Interior bureaus and offices will absorb these must-
    pay costs by cutting funding for program work or staffing.
        Another key operational priority for Interior is infrastructure.
    Interior manages a real property portfolio valued at more than $400
    billion, consisting of more than 130,000 buildings and structures,
    65,000 miles of public roads, and a wide variety of other constructed
    assets. Those facilities serve millions of visitors each year, provide
    schooling for tens of thousands of Native American children, and are
    places of work for more than 68,000 DOI employees. Many of Interior's
    infrastructure assets are priceless for their historical significance.
    As the steward of those assets, DOI is committed to sustaining and
    making the lifecycle investments in facilities that are critical to its
    mission.
        The Department continues its evolution toward a lifecycle
    investment approach to help slow the growth of the maintenance backlog
    and sustain assets in the long term. This approach includes focusing
    efforts on preventive and recurring maintenance and selectively
    targeting assets for modernization and renewal investments, which will
    enable bureaus to move away from practices that result in an
    unmanageable backlog. The 2025 budget includes more than $2.7 billion
    for lifecycle management of real property.
        The Department continues to support the Administration's goals to
    transition the Federal motor vehicle fleet to clean and zero-emission
    vehicles. The 2025 budget includes $13.0 million across bureaus to
    support the Department's transition of light-duty fleet acquisitions to
    ZEVs. This funding will be used to conduct fleet planning (including
    ZEV integration), electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE) site
    evaluations, and EVSE installation The funding will also support
    Interior's efforts to right-size its fleet to ensure the Department has
    efficient, mission-capable vehicles at the right locations and with the
    right vehicle mix to deliver Interior's missions. Fleet planning will
    ensure ZEVs are integrated into the overall fleet plan, prioritizing
    locations and appropriate missions for deployment of those vehicles.
               investing in technology and information management
        The 2025 budget includes $57.8 million, $3.5 million above the 2024
    CR level, for the operation and maintenance of the Financial and
    Business Management System (FBMS), which supports the Department's core
    financial and business management requirements. The request provides
    for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the Department's
    integrated FBMS system of record, mandatory technology upgrades,
    improved end-user training, and implementation of zero trust
    architecture to strengthen FBMS' IT security. Modernizing Interior's
    core business system helps to ensure a strong administrative backbone
    and is critical to the continued execution of Interior's mission
    activities.
        Cybersecurity remains a top priority for the Department. Malicious
    actors continue to present risks to Federal systems and the Nation's
    critical infrastructure. Interior continues to work to support a
    consistent level of assurance and risk reduction for the Department at
    the enterprise level. This effort will provide a solid foundation for
    an operationally focused enterprise cybersecurity architecture that is
    resilient and scalable and will allow the Department to respond rapidly
    to sophisticated and advanced threats.
        The 2025 budget includes $67.8 million for Departmentwide
    cybersecurity, $23.5 million above the 2024 CR level. This investment
    funds high-priority recurring operations and maintenance costs for
    incident remediation, provides resources to fight emerging threats, and
    supports the development of an enterprise cybersecurity architecture.
    The increase in the 2025 budget enables foundational enterprise
    capability to implement zero trust principles, which require all
    devices and users-regardless of whether they are inside or outside an
    organization's network-to be authenticated, authorized, and regularly
    validated before being granted access. Within the increase is $5.0
    million to implement a secure access service edge (SASE) solution to
    secure access points to meet the required zero trust security and
    performance standards.
                                   conclusion
        The 2025 President's Budget for Interior invests in programs which
    will strengthen our country for all Americans, protect our environment,
    and ensure future generations continue to not only enjoy, but improve
    their way of life.
        I look forward to doing this work together. Thank you again for
    having me, and I am pleased to answer any questions you may have.

                      NATIONAL PARK SERVICE SEASONAL HIRES

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Madame Secretary. I
    am very pleased with the fiscal year 2024 budget that Senator
    Murkowski and I worked so hard on, but there were some very
    painful pieces of that, and one of them is related to the
    National Park Service, and the budget forces them to scale back
    on summer seasonal hiring. And of course that is when Americans
    pour out of their homes and love getting to our national parks.
    What kind of impact are we going to see at the parks this
    summer?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, thank you so much for the
    question. And of course, yes, we all know that visitation has
    increased immensely in our national parks. In 2024, park
    operations funding did not receive roughly $102 million that
    was needed to cover salary and benefit increases, and other
    fixed costs, in addition to taking a cut of $10 million below
    the prior year.
        Staffing costs account for the majority of park operating
    expenses and this loss of spending capacity will substantially
    impact the park seasonal employee levels. So yes, fewer rangers
    will mean that we may need to curtail visitor services, there
    are a lot of things that happen with that, maintenance
    activities such as, restroom cleaning, and campground cleanup,
    and things of that nature, visitor operating hours could also
    be cut, and newly established parks and programs did not
    receive requested funding increases, and those will be impacted
    as well.
        Senator Merkley. Will your budget prepare for the
    possibility of addressing this for fiscal year 2025?
        Secretary Haaland. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. Thank you.
        Secretary Haaland. Yes.

                REAUTHORIZATION OF GAOA LEGACY RESTORATION FUND

        Senator Merkley. I want to turn to the extension of GAOA.
    GAOA was an investment per year, about 1.9 billion per year for
    5 years. The fiscal year 2025 budget doesn't include a proposal
    to extend GAOA. Will you and your administration aggressively
    push for an extension as we move further into 2024?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, as I mentioned in my remarks,
    we cannot address the major maintenance needs of our asset
    portfolio through annual appropriations alone, the amounts are
    too high. I supported GAOA when I was in Congress myself. I
    think it is a wonderful bipartisan effort, and so of course we
    would support that and hope that it can be reauthorized.
        Senator Merkley. When I think about this, I think about the
    Chateau at Oregon Caves. A hunter's dog chased a bear into the
    cave, and it was thereby discovered. He almost got lost and
    couldn't find his way out, but was fortunate to have a few
    matches on him, and eventually the matches ran out, but he
    followed the trickle of water and escaped, and thus was this
    very rare geological feature found in Oregon, which doesn't
    really have anything like this type of marble cave elsewhere.
        But the Chateau has been closed for years, and years, and
    years. It is a national monument, is a national historic
    landmark, and it is an example of the type of work that needs
    to be done. And so I hope we will continue to push to restore
    and save the investments. The last generation made in so many
    important pieces of infrastructure.

                        RENEWABLE ENERGY ON TRIBAL LANDS

        I want to turn to renewable energy development on tribal
    lands. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation
    Reduction Act created incentives to do large-scale renewable
    energy across Indian Country: tax incentives, loans, some
    subsidies. But here are a couple examples: The Warm Springs
    Tribe in Oregon has a lot of sunshine but has to build the
    infrastructure to connect to be able to get that potential
    renewable energy to market. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of
    North and South Dakota is struggling to get a wind project off
    the ground with similar difficulties.
        It takes capital up front. This isn't just a Department of
    Interior challenge, so we need interagency cooperation with the
    Department of Energy and with FERC. But it is like a vision,
    but a valley that has to be crossed to get to that vision. You
    are co-Chair of the White House Council on Native American
    Affairs. What tools is the administration utilizing across the
    Federal Government to try to solve this problem and enable
    tribes to be part of the climate solution, and part of the
    renewable energy economy, including good paying jobs for tribal
    members?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Senator. As you know, the
    President restarted the White House Council on Native American
    Affairs, because he feels very confident that an all-of-
    government approach to tribal issues is the best path forward.
    For our part, Interior offers loan guarantees and technical
    assistance to Tribes for renewable energy activities, but they
    are on a much smaller scale than the Department of Energy's
    programs.
        We are working to help improve opportunities for
    development. The BIA took action to improve and streamline
    applications for processing rights of way and business leases,
    including those needed for renewable energy projects. We will
    continue to work across the government to make sure Tribes have
    what they need to develop on their lands, and I am happy to
    work with you and the Tribes in your state to help. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Madam Secretary. The Chairman
    just informed me that he is going to have to excuse himself for
    a few minutes.

                                  AMBLER ROAD

        So let me start with Ambler. You know the project very
    well. This is a proposed private haul road to a mining district
    that has great copper and numerous critical mineral potential.
    I think pretty key to the administration's push for the
    minerals that are needed for clean energy. And as I mentioned
    in my opening, ANILCA created the Gates of the Arctic National
    Park and Preserve, it is about 8.4 million acres. The same
    sections of the same law provide for service transportation
    access to the Ambler District.
        So I have got behind me a copy, or a quote from section
    2014, and it says in the highlighted area, ``Congress finds
    that there is a need for access for surface transportation
    purposes across the Western Kobuk River unit of the Gates of
    the Arctic National Preserve, from the Ambler Mining District
    to the Alaska Pipeline Haul Road, and the Secretary shall
    permit such access in accordance with the provisions of this
    subsection.''
        I think the text of the law is very clear. But what is
    equally clear is that this was a balance here, Congress created
    Gates of the Arctic and then guaranteed access to Ambler, ``The
    Secretary shall permit access''. So the concern, the problem
    that we have is when the administration announced that it will
    be choosing the no action alternative, it effectively denies
    this project to proceed, which is directly contrary to the
    Federal law that is stated pretty clearly, and in contrary to,
    again, this very careful balance that ANILCA struck between
    development and conservation.
        I look at this, and as a lawyer that hasn't practiced in a
    long time, I can read the plain meaning of the law, do you not
    see that the action that the administration has moved forward
    with, as a no action alternative, is contrary to the clear
    stated intention of this section of ANILCA?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, as you know, the Department has
    not yet made a final decision regarding either of the rights of
    away for Ambler Road. The proposed 211 mile route, it crosses
    different lands, approximately 25 miles of BLM-managed lands
    and 26 miles of NPS-managed lands. ANILCA does not address
    Ambler road crossing BLM managed lands. Those are all things
    that we needed to take into consideration. The BLM's
    discretionary authority to issue a right of way over BLM-
    managed lands is found in FLPMA.
        We don't feel that we are ignoring the law. We are in fact
    doing exactly what the law has directed, and of course, we are
    happy to follow up with you, for the record, on specific legal
    citations.
        Senator Murkowski. I think we need, do need to have an
    understanding here, because if I am interpreting what you have
    just said, you are effectively saying that Congress protected
    the wrong lands, that that was Parklands instead of BLM lands,
    and you are ignoring the plain text again of the law which
    says, ``From the Ambler Mining District to the Alaska Pipeline
    Haul Road.'' I don't think, I don't think that that language
    could be any clearer.
        So the other thing that I heard you say here, though, is
    that this is not the final, the final is coming. I understand
    that, but are you suggesting here that we might see something
    different than the ``no action'' alternative coming out of the
    administration?
        Secretary Haaland. I am not saying anything. I essentially
    don't have any news to share today with respect to that, but we
    are more than happy to stay in touch with your office, and try
    to answer any other specific questions.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, let me ask it another way. How is
    this not a Federal taking? How is this not a Federal taking of
    lands that the State of Alaska owns, because nobody is
    disputing that they own the lands in the Ambler District, but
    if the administration proceeds with this, they are unable to
    access it despite the guarantees in Federal Law, how is that
    not a taking?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, I apologize, it sounds like a
    specific legal question, one that our solicitor would be happy
    to discuss with you, and in fact, I know that you have spoken
    with Bob Anderson on many occasions, and I am happy to have his
    office follow up.
        Senator Murkowski. And what I would like is a formal legal
    analysis from Interior on how this no action decision complies
    with ANILCA. I want to know. If you believe that the no action
    actually is within the law. I would like to see that before a
    Record of Decision is announced.
        [The information follows:]
                           ambler road legal analysis
        The Record of Decision, which follows, was finalized in June 2024
    includes a detailed legal analysis of issues concerning the Ambler Road
    Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement on pages 21-25.

        https://eplanning.blm.gov/public--projects/57323/200091317/
    20118938/251018918/Ambler%20Road%20BLM%20ROD--508.pdf

        We will now turn to Senator Reed.
        Oh. I am sorry. Go ahead, Senator Peters.

                    INCREASED ACCESSIBILITY TO PUBLIC LANDS

        Senator Peters. Thank you. Secretary Haaland, good to see
    you here today, as always. As you know, Secretary, our public
    lands are some of the Nation's most treasured resources,
    providing significant benefits to Americans, to our economy,
    and to the environment. And in Michigan, in particular, we are
    home to some spectacular geologic and ecological environments
    like the Pictured Rocks, the National Lakeshore, the Detroit
    River International Wildlife Refuge, and one of my all-time
    favorites, Isle Royale National Park, which is amazing.
        But at the Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, thanks
    to a nonprofit partnership, visitors are able to reserve
    adaptive recreation equipment and explore new areas of the
    Lakeshore on additional designated trails. However,
    opportunities like this, unfortunately, are scattered across
    DOI public lands, not all of them, unfortunately, and accurate
    information about trails is needed to identify where different
    adaptive recreation equipment can be enjoyed for visitors to
    make informed decisions about where they will go.
        So my question for you, Madam Secretary, is can you speak
    to the importance of expanding these adaptive recreation
    equipment programs all across the Department of Interior?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you for the question, Senator. We
    went to your state and we went to the sand dunes. I had a
    broken leg at the time with a big boot on, and they offered me
    this sand buggy.
        Senator Peters. Right.
        Secretary Haaland. I declined, however, I know that those
    are available to people with accessibility issues, so I was
    grateful to be offered, and of course, I strongly support
    increased public accessibility for Americans to enjoy their
    public lands. My mother rest her soul, used a wheelchair in the
    later part of her years, and taking her to some of the parks
    where there were opportunities to wheel her around was
    important to us.
        We continue to identify and propose investments and
    opportunities to improve public accessibility as part of the
    budget process. We are happy to stay in touch with your office
    on this, and of course, please know that we are always working
    on that from our end.
        Senator Peters. Well, I would hope you would consider
    prioritizing funding opportunities, is that something you are
    open to and we can work together on?
        Secretary Haaland. Absolutely.

                           TRIBAL HATCHERY OPERATIONS

        Senator Peters. Great. Thank you. The DOI Fish Hatchery
    Operations Program provides funding to fish-producing tribes in
    support of associated hatching, rearing, and stocking programs.
    This, excuse me, this type of fish production helps achieve
    mandated fish recovery efforts throughout the Great Lakes
    states, and as well as across the country. And the benefits of
    tribal hatchery production is far-reaching, as I know you know,
    including boosting commercial and recreational fishing, but
    also tourism, as well as ecosystem benefits.
        My question for you, Madam Secretary, is can you speak to
    the importance of fully funding this program and how it is used
    to assist tribal subsistence efforts and the development of
    reservation economies?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much for the question. I
    can tell you that in 2023, EPA provided Interior with $368
    million for the important Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.
    As of January 2023, the Bureau of Indian Affairs had provided
    over $113 million through the Initiative to Great Lakes Tribes
    so that they could implement roughly 800 tribally Led
    restoration projects in capacity awards. That is ongoing. Happy
    to keep you and your staff informed of how that is moving
    forward.
        Senator Peters. Well, I appreciate your work on the Great
    Lakes and your focus, and great that you were up there visiting
    and seeing firsthand, the joys of it.

                        NATIONAL PARK SERVICE EMPLOYEES

        Secretary, last year we discussed an issue that I am
    particularly interested in addressing, the disparities and high
    cost of Living for employees throughout the national park
    system. Specifically, we discussed the importance of taking a
    closer look at how pay is decided, and how that would bring a
    more detailed understanding of pay needs, and perhaps better
    match pay rates to the areas where the parks are actually
    located, which tend to have a very high cost of living because
    they are near wonderful places where people want to live, and
    bid the price up.
        Last year, you agreed that taking a closer look at how pay
    is decided would bring a more detailed understanding of pay
    needs, and you committed to taking a closer look at this. Can
    you provide me with an update on your work on examining this
    issue, please?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, thank you for the question. Of
    course, that is definitely a priority for us, the budget
    proposes over $100 million from different funding sources to
    improve employee housing and parks, and we also--because if you
    can get some of the cost down, of course, that also helps
    employees to have an opportunity to live. We were grateful to
    have a $40 million anonymous contribution toward National Park
    employee housing in Yellowstone. So that is still a priority
    for us. I don't have anything specifically to report on pay
    currently, but we are happy to keep you updated current,
    shortly after this hearing. But just know that we are working
    hard to ensure that we can get those costs down, and housing is
    one of those areas, one of the big-ticket items.
        Senator Peters. Good. Well, I look forward to keep working
    with you. It is a critical issue for folks who just can't find
    affordable housing near the parks.
        Secretary Haaland. Yes, indeed.
        Senator Peters. Thank you.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Peters. Senator
    Fischer.

                        AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL INITIATIVE

        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Murkowski.
        Welcome, Secretary, nice to see you again. Last year I
    discussed with you that Nebraska is a private property state,
    97 percent of Nebraska's land is privately owned. I continue to
    hear great concern about the administration's America the
    Beautiful Initiative or the 30x30 Proposal. As a reminder, 70
    counties in my State of Nebraska have issued resolutions of
    disapproval about the 30x30 Initiative. Nebraskans remain
    concerned that this effort is an attempt at a land grab, and a
    failure of the administration to recognize that private land
    owners often are much better at managing land than the Federal
    Government. I would like to start by following up on a question
    that I asked last year; in regards to the 30x30 Initiative, how
    exactly are you defining conservation?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much, Senator. With
    respect to the America the Beautiful Initiative, as you know,
    it is a voluntary, locally led, partnership driven,
    conservation and restoration effort across the country. With
    respect to the definition of conserved land, we continue to
    work toward a flexible, inclusive definition given the many
    types of conservation that exist on Federal, state, and private
    land.
        I think one of the operative words is ``voluntary''. Folks
    can volunteer to include their lands in conservation or the
    definition of conservation, or they don't have to.
        Senator Fischer. How do you reconcile stating that this is
    being a locally led, voluntary effort, yet in 2023 America the
    Beautiful Initiative, you cite five New National Monument
    designations, restoration of protections to various Federal
    lands, and several mineral withdrawals as key progress? How is
    that key progress when I don't believe that those actions sound
    at all like they are locally led, or voluntary efforts?
        Secretary Haaland. In fact, many of those are, Senator, we
    could take----
        Senator Fischer. Can you give me an example?
        Secretary Haaland. Sure. The Avi Kwa Ame National Monument.
    That was, a conservation effort that was worked on by the
    Tribes of Nevada for almost decades, and it is their ancestral
    homeland. When tribes come to us and ask us to help them to
    conserve a certain portion of land that they care deeply about,
    we listen. It is a transparent process. We open up a public
    comment period. There are a lot of people that get to weigh in
    on that issue.
        Senator Fischer. Does the land remain under the control of
    the tribe? Or is it put into a National Monument designation?
    You know, I can see the Federal Government trying to work with
    land owners on different conservation practices. I probably
    define that different than you, but when the tribe, you said,
    has worked for decades on this, do they still then maintain
    control? And does it fit into the bucket that the
    administration is trying to have for the 30x30?
        Secretary Haaland. So staying with the example of Avi Kwa
    Ame that I gave you, it is BLM managed land, however, we also
    enter into co-stewardship agreements with tribes.

                 AMERICA THE BEAUTIFUL AND THE 30X30 INITIATIVE

        Senator Fischer. So does that fit in the 30x30? Is that
    part of the program since it has been happening for decades?
        Secretary Haaland. So the 30x30 is an initiative. It is not
    a specific program. It is an initiative of the administration.
    And so it is not a specific program with a line item in our
    budget, but we work toward conserving land under that umbrella.
    But yes, we would count that land if we were counting land,
    sure, that would be under a conservation effort, and the tribes
    would have a say in it.

                               CRITICAL MINERALS

        Senator Fischer. If I could move on just quickly here, in
    your budget, you request $13 million for acquisition of zero
    emission vehicles, and electric vehicles we know are costlier.
    They have a host of issues, including increasing our nation's
    reliance on foreign controlled critical minerals.
        Secretary, thinking about the vast number of priorities
    across your Agency, including improving permitting and ESA
    consultations as we discussed, do you really believe this is
    the right time to be prioritizing the purchase of more
    expensive and probably less practical electrical vehicles for
    the Department? And do you find it troublesome that the
    Department has widely fought to restrict the development of
    critical minerals and mining domestically, while also pushing
    for vehicles that are currently heavily dependent on foreign
    supply chains for these? And I would emphasize, in areas of the
    world like Congo where we have children mining cobalt, which
    then we can sit back and say, oh but we don't allow that. But
    yet you want vehicles that are dependent upon it.
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, since President Biden took the
    oath of office in January of 2021, we have approved or moved
    through five critical mineral mine permits, and those mines are
    moving forward now. We started the Interagency Work Group on
    Mining Reform to look at the 150-year-old law. We felt there is
    a lot of new technology. We are trying to streamline some of
    these efforts, and so the report has come out and we are
    working to follow the recommendations of the report that we
    think will help us to move forward in a quicker fashion.
        Additionally, under President Biden's leadership, forty
    mine modification permits have also been approved. The career
    staff at Interior is working hard to move this process through.
    And we also believe very strongly that we need a supply chain
    of critical minerals if we wish to move our country toward
    clean energy.
        Senator Fischer. Do you think it is practical to request
    that 13 million in your budget for those vehicles?
        Senator Murkowski. Senator Fischer asks a great question,
    but the Chairman reminded me we were all going to try to stick
    to our five minutes.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. Maybe we can answer this in response to
    another Senator. Senator Reed.
        Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski, and I
    want to thank you, Madam Secretary, for visiting the Blackstone
    River Valley National Historic Park last summer, and thank you
    for including $9 million in the Great American Outdoors Fund
    for repairs to the historic Slater Mill, which is the
    birthplace of the American Industrial Revolution. It is
    something that is going to make a great deal of difference. So
    many thanks.

                 ENERGY PRODUCTION ON FEDERAL LANDS AND WATERS

        I listened very attentively to Senator Murkowski, who is
    someone I have had the privilege of working closely with, and
    she has raised some very serious questions which I think must
    be answered. But it struck me, one of the ironies is that today
    the United States is the world's largest crude oil producer, so
    we are doing a lot when it comes to produce hydrocarbons in new
    drilling, and was in 2023, 2,100 new oil and gas wells on
    public lands, that is a 29 percent increase from 2021, and
    there are 7,300 permits to drill on public native lands that
    have not even been used yet.
        So we are in a very interesting situation. We have
    overtaken Qatar as the largest export of liquefied natural gas.
    And by the way, profits have almost tripled for the 10 biggest
    producers of oil and gas. So we are at a moment where we have
    to make a shift, I believe, to a green energy economy, but at
    the same time, we are not trying to suppress the oil and gas
    industry. In fact, they have never had it so good. And that is
    a very difficult and delegate balance that you and the
    President have to perform. And I wonder if you have any
    comments on that general topic.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much, Senator. And yes,
    you are right, companies have over 7,300 approved drilling
    permits on Federal and Indian lands that they aren't using.
    Onshore, nearly 11 million acres under lease that are not
    producing, roughly half of all Federal lands that are under
    lease. And offshore, nearly 10 million acres are under lease
    that are not producing, and that is over 75 percent of all
    offshore Federal lands that aren't producing.
        Yes, since President Biden has been in office, those
    applications for permits to drill have moved forward through
    our career staff. They are very dedicated to their jobs, and
    yes, it is undeniable that oil production is currently at an
    all-time high on our public lands.
        And yes, thank you also for recognizing the need for us to
    transition to a clean energy future. We believe very strongly
    that will benefit many Americans, and work to lower costs for
    them as well.
        Senator Reed. No. Again I seeing the weather effects
    recently in Rhode Island, I can't speak for the rest of the
    country, and something is changing, I sense, and we have to get
    ahead of that change.
        In 2022 BOEM proposed guidance to the mitigation, to
    commercial and recreational fisheries from offshore wind, again
    this is one of those balancing acts. We need offshore wind,
    Rhode Island was the first state to have an offshore wind
    project, but we also have to consider the effects on fishery,
    on other uses. They proposed to issue the final guidance. It
    has been 2 years now. When do you expect that guidance, Madam
    Secretary?
        Secretary Haaland. I beg your pardon, Senator? The specific
    question was?
        Senator Reed. It was, in 2022, BOEM proposed guidance for
    mitigation to commerci0al and recreational fisheries, issuing
    final guidance, they have not issued that yet, will provide
    clarity for all the stakeholders, when do you expect this final
    guidance to be issued?
        Secretary Haaland. I would love to get back with your
    office with a specific response, if that is possible.
        Senator Reed. Thank you.
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, we can work on that. I don't
    have that in front of me.
        [The information follows:]
          fisheries mitigation guidance for offshore energy production
        The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is developing guidance
    for the mitigation of potential impacts from offshore wind energy
    projects on commercial and recreational fishing communities. The
    guidance will provide detailed processes that offshore wind lessees can
    follow to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to fisheries in the
    areas of project siting, design, navigation, access, safety, and
    financial compensation.
        In June 2022, BOEM published the draft guidance document and opened
    a 60-day comment period that concluded on August 22, 2022. In total, 88
    comments were received from 79 organizations and 9 individuals. During
    that time BOEM also held four virtual meetings to present the draft
    guidance and answer questions. In April 2023, in response to comments
    from Tribal nations, BOEM directly solicited comments on the draft
    guidance from federally recognized Tribes.
        BOEM's goal is to have the final guidance available by the end of
    this year. It should be noted that all projects approved to date have
    included fisheries mitigation plans. BOEM is ensuring that lessons
    learned from implementation of those plans are incorporated into the
    guidance. BOEM intends to have a public meeting after the final
    guidance is issued to explain the changes made by the Bureau based on
    the comments received.

        Senator Reed. And I yield back to the Chair Lady, of the
    moment.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Reed. Chairman
    Murray.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much. And thank you
    Secretary Haaland for joining us today to talk about the
    resources that Interior needs to keep up its vital work.
        In my home State of Washington, our incredible forests, and
    mountains, and waters, give our families a great place to go
    outdoors and explore. We attract many visitors and bring in
    dollars from across the world, and it is central to our
    economy. The work we do to take care of them for now and for
    generations to come could not be more important. Everything
    from tackling the climate crisis and wildfires to protecting
    our priceless ecosystems and species, including salmon of
    course, and keeping our word to our tribes, which should
    include ensuring certainty for tribal sovereignty payments by
    moving them to the mandatory side of the ledger, which is
    something Chairman Merkley and I are both very focused on.
        And as we talk about our incredible public lands, I want to
    note that yesterday marks 1 year since the Hurricane Ridge Day
    Lodge at Olympic National Park in my home state of Washington,
    burned down. This was an amazing, iconic structure, and
    ensuring that Hurricane Ridge gets rebuilt remains a top
    priority for me. Our public lands are not just a national
    treasure, they are truly a national necessity, and I want to
    make sure that our fiscal year 2025 bills really reflect that.
        Fiscal year 2024 was a tough year that forced a lot of
    difficult decisions, and the 1 percent increase in funding that
    is now provided for fiscal year 2025 under the caps we are now
    living with is not enough to meet this moment, including for
    Interior. So as members talk about how we might increase
    investments to better meet our defense needs, I will not let us
    ignore our needs here at home as well, either.
        We have to remember that our national strength is directly
    tied to having strong, vibrant and resilient ecosystems, and
    our safety is directly related to our response to threats like
    wildfires, to just give a few examples. As I said before, when
    it comes to considering additional resources, I am going to
    insist on parity for nondefense.
        Secretary Haaland, the fiscal year 2025 budget request
    includes key funding increases to sustain programs. When we do
    not fully fund our programs there are real on the ground
    impacts, like at North Cascades National Park where cuts have
    meant that the park has had to cut back on staffing. Stehekin
    is going to offer fewer services this year, and the Golden West
    Visitor Center is going to remain closed this summer. How is
    your Department managing staffing levels, particularly, by the
    way, in the face of rising housing costs?

                         STAFFING AT THE NATIONAL PARKS

        Secretary Haaland. Senator, thank you so much for the
    question. And yes, I know this is a constant issue across the
    National Park system, specifically with the rise of visitation.
    Unfortunately, parks will not be able to hire as many seasonal
    rangers for the peak visitation season. However, we are working
    hard to ensure that we can move the needle on that forward.
    2024, yes, it was a terrible year. And it remains a priority
    for us given all the facts that you just mentioned to us.
        Senator Murray. Well, I just think we all have to remember
    that the work we do here impacts people's ability to visit our
    amazing places across the country, and that is why I am so
    adamant about funding for that.

                                SALMON RECOVERY

        Salmon are absolutely essential for tribes, the
    environment, and the economy of the Pacific Northwest, and
    salmon recovery is not easy. It requires working at it from
    every angle, like investing in our hatchery infrastructure,
    protecting and restoring our critical habitat, combating
    invasive species like the European green crab, and addressing
    emergent pollutants like 6-PPD.
        Secretary Haaland, talk to us about how your fiscal year
    2025 budget request will help with salmon recovery?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Senator. The 2025 budget
    includes $24 million in appropriated funding to support the
    Columbia River Basin Salmon Recovery efforts in Reclamation and
    in the Fish and Wildlife Service. This includes funding in the
    Bureau of Reclamation for the Columbia and Snake River Salmon
    Recovery Project for studies, habitat restoration, and
    mitigation to address the impacts of reclamation water projects
    on anadromous fish.
        Also, this provides funding to evaluate the potential
    success of reintroducing those fish upstream of the Grand
    Coulee Dam. Funding in the Fish and Wildlife Service Partners
    for Fish and Wildlife, and Coastal programs, and hatchery
    operations will also support Partnership Salmon Recovery and
    Habitat Restoration efforts.

                   TRIBAL ENGAGEMENT OF OFFSHORE WIND LEASING

        Senator Murray. Thank you. And finally, the Department of
    Interior plays, as you know, a crucial role in the energy
    transition, an effort I know that you strongly prioritize. That
    includes offshore wind leasing, like last week's proposed
    auction off the Coast of Oregon. I certainly support the
    Department's efforts. I have heard from tribes in my state that
    the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is not doing enough to
    consult with them before making decisions. These tribes have
    fishing rights for Pacific salmon, with migratory ranges
    extending all the way to Southern California. Can you tell me
    what BOEM is doing to not only consult with the treaty tribes
    but to incorporate their feedback when making offshore wind
    leasing decisions?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you for that question as well, and
    of course, we listen and take tribal concerns very seriously.
    Tribal consultation is one of our top priorities. I know that
    BOEM engages with indigenous communities on all of these
    issues. They have made that a specific part of their leadership
    team, to ensure that there is a specific person that liaises
    with Tribes.
        BOEM also works closely with tribal communities to support
    capacity building and meaningful engagement. We work with any
    of the wind companies that are working in the particular areas
    to create their own relationships with the Tribes. I know that
    there have been, recently, the industry has worked to create
    agreements with Tribes specifically for some of the issues that
    they are concerned about.
        I can just tell you that I have traveled personally to meet
    with Tribes on offshore wind on many occasions, both on the
    East and the West Coasts and we are doing our best to ensure
    they are part of the conversation, and yes, that their concerns
    get incorporated.
        Senator Murray. Okay. Well, we are hearing concerns from
    our tribes about being consulted, so if my staff could follow
    up with yours.
        Secretary Haaland. We will be happy to be in touch with
    them.
        [The information follows:]
                                offshore energy
        BOEM is committed to upholding its Tribal trust responsibilities
    and fostering working relationships with Tribes based on trust and
    meaningful consultation. BOEM engages and invites consultation
    regularly with Tribal Nations, including those in Washington State, at
    all phases of the renewable energy leasing process to incorporate
    Indigenous knowledge and Tribal perspectives. For example:

      --In 2023, BOEM held 6 individual meetings (government-to-government
            and staff- level, depending on preference of the Tribe) with
            coastal Washington Tribes to discuss two unsolicited offshore
            wind lease requests offshore Washington State.

      --Tribal Nations are invited to join Intergovernmental Renewable
            Energy Task Forces with Federal, State, and local agencies,
            which help inform the process and timing of offshore renewable
            energy planning from the very beginning.

      --BOEM sends letters to individual Tribes inviting them to consider
            becoming cooperating Tribal Nations in BOEM's environmental
            review processes. This invitation is included in BOEM's notice
            of intent to conduct an environmental review of offshore wind
            lease sales.

      --BOEM partners with Tribal Nations on studies and research to inform
            offshore renewable energy development, including working with
            interested West Coast Tribal Nations to develop cultural
            landscape assessments near areas of potential offshore wind
            energy development.

      --BOEM and NOAA collaborated with the Yurok Tribe of California,
            Grand Ronde Tribe of Oregon, and Makah Tribe of Washington to
            develop best practices for consultation through a cultural
            landscape approach in 2017.

      --Recently, BOEM invited coastal Washington Tribes to participate in
            the Tribal Cultural Landscapes effort that is currently
            underway through the Udall Foundation.

      --BOEM is also working through Oregon State University with the
            Quinault Indian Nation's Tribal Historic Preservation Office to
            study Ancient Landforms off the Washington Coast: Ancient
            Landforms off the Washington Coast (boem.gov).

        BOEM is not engaged in any active planning for wind energy
    development offshore Washington at this time. However, coastal
    Washington Tribes have stated interest in wind energy activities
    offshore California and Oregon due to potential effects to migratory
    species and the California Current Ecosystem. Therefore, BOEM regularly
    invites consultation and engagement with coastal Washington Tribes for
    any wind energy activities off the west coast.
        For the five existing California offshore wind leases, BOEM
    informed lessees to include coastal Washington Tribes in their
    engagement efforts and outreach on their Native American Tribes
    Communications Plans. BOEM's decision to remove a portion along the
    bottom of the Brookings Wind Energy Area offshore Oregon from final
    leasing consideration was due, in part, to concerns expressed by
    coastal Washington Tribes through consultation.

        Senator Murray. Okay. Thank you.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you.
        Senator Murray. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Chair. Senator Van Hollen.

                                 CHESAPEAKE BAY

        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Senator Murkowski. And
    welcome Madam Secretary. It is great to see you.
        And I want to start by thanking you and your team at the
    National Park Service, especially Director ``Chuck'' Sams, and
    the head of your Chesapeake Bay Office, Wendy O'Sullivan, for
    the technical assistance that they provided to us as we worked
    on establishing a Chesapeake National Recreation Area.
        We have had a long process of public feedback on how to
    highlight the cultural and ecological significance of the
    Chesapeake Bay, and increase of Public Access through the
    creation of a recreation area within the National Park Service.
    We will have a hearing. I am very excited we are going to have
    a hearing on this legislation to create CRNA (ph.) in the
    Energy and National Natural Resources Subcommittee on National
    Parks in just two weeks. And we have had a lot of excitement
    and support from around the state.
        So my question to you is pretty simple and straightforward.
    I just ask for your continued commitment to work with us to get
    this bill passed, and make the Chesapeake Bay Recreation Area a
    reality?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. I appreciate that. Let me
    turn to another program that is very important to protection of
    the Chesapeake Bay and its ecosystem. That is the Chesapeake
    Wild Program. This was a bipartisan initiative at the Fish and
    Wildlife Service launched by Senator Capito and I, a number of
    years ago. We got it passed, the authorizing bill, and
    Congress' provided funds on an ongoing and bipartisan basis.
        It is to protect habitat and water quality around the Bay.
    It has been very successful. Just this last summer, I visited
    Waterloo Farm to see an example of this conservation program at
    work in coordination with the Eastern Shore Land Conservancy.
    The National Aquarium is also building a floating wetland in
    Baltimore Harbor. These are just some examples of the good uses
    to which these funds have been put.
        You described this program, I think, in last year's
    testimony as I quote, ``Wonderful program''. It is not in the
    President's budget. I recognize that that, in addition to the
    Department of Interior, you have got OMB there. So my question
    to you, Madam Secretary is, I will work with this committee to
    do what we have done in the past to provide funding, and I just
    want, you know, your assurance that you continue to be
    supportive of the Subcommittee's efforts with respect to this
    program.
        Secretary Haaland. Yes, of course, we will.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
        Secretary Haaland. We will be supportive of, yes.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
        Secretary Haaland. And Senator, I could just say that the
    budget does include $38 million for work in the Chesapeake Bay
    through the USGS, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
    National Park Service.
        Senator Van Hollen. Yes.
        Secretary Haaland. I know it is not the same thing.
        Senator Van Hollen. No. I appreciate that. Look, the
    funding for the Bay comes through a number of different streams
    and agencies, all of it is important, and I do thank you for
    what you have in here, and for your commitment to work with us
    as we continue to move this important program forward.

                  OFFSHORE WIND ENERGY IN THE CENTRAL ATLANTIC

        Turning to offshore wind, the administration, as you know,
    has a critical target of 30 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity
    by the year 2030. As of last month, the Department had approved
    eight offshore wind projects generating an anticipated 10
    gigawatts of clean energy. A simple question again: Are you
    committed to staying on track to hit the 30 gigawatt target in
    the next five-and-a-half years?
        Secretary Haaland. Yes.
        Senator Van Hollen. And as you know, and BOEM has come up a
    couple times here, identifying and leasing suitable offshore
    wind areas requires a lot of coordination, and it requires
    coordination among Federal agencies. In my view, we need both
    BOEM, and frankly, also the White House, to play a stronger
    role in coordinating these efforts if we are going to achieve
    the administration's own goals, including Maryland's
    contribution to that. We also have a very ambitious offshore
    wind target, and during the recent process, we had a lot of
    issues with BOEM, and lack of coordination among Federal
    agencies.
        As a result of that, we did get a statement from the Biden
    Administration to Senator Cardin, and myself, and others, where
    the administration says, and I quote, ``The Administration has
    preliminarily identified acreage off of Maryland's offshore
    coast of a similar size and wind energy generation capacity to
    B-1.'' It goes on to pledge, ``Coordination for inclusion in a
    subsequent offshore wind lease sale as early as 2025.''
        Madam Secretary, I just want to confirm that you, and your
    Agency, and the administration are committed to working with us
    to make that commitment a reality?
        Secretary Haaland. Yes, Senator. Yes. This summer BOEM will
    proceed with the proposed lease sale for the Central Atlantic,
    which does include Maryland.
        Senator Van Hollen. Right. Just there is--those are some
    leases in Maryland that are going forward. The area I am
    talking about, which is called B-1, actually is not part of
    that sale. There were issues that arose which is why we got
    this commitment from the administration to work with us to make
    it available for leasing in 2025. And so my question is do we
    have your commitment to continue our work together on that?
        Secretary Haaland. Yes. Yes, we will continue to always
    work together with whoever we need to for our clean energy
    transition. Thank you.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. Senator Britt.
        Senator Britt. Thank you, Madam Vice Chairwoman.

                                WARRIOR MET COAL

        Thank you for being here today, Madam Secretary, I
    appreciate you testifying in front of this committee. Last
    year, we discussed how good stewardship of public lands
    includes using our resources effectively and sustainably. We
    discuss the pending lease application of Warrior Met Coal, one
    of the many of our Nation's companies who are working hard in
    conjunction with their community and the Federal Government to
    steward the Nation's resources effectively.
        As I noted last year, Warrior Met is an important economic
    driver in the Great State of Alabama. They employ close to a
    thousand people in Alabama and are the largest customer for our
    Port of Mobile. In questioning last year, you noted that the
    Bureau of Land Management has made you aware of the importance
    of this lease to the State of Alabama, and the Department
    committed to working with me to free their application from the
    red tape it was stuck in.
        Sadly, that progress has been slowed over the last year.
    After an initial conversation with my team, the Department
    resorted to what seemed to be slow-walking it, and so most of
    the calls and emails from my office seemed to have entirely
    been misplaced.
        Madam Secretary, I expect and hope that this will not be
    the case in the coming months. As you know, the Department
    completed a draft EA and FONSI for Warrior Met Coal in 2019.
    With no other issues, the Department of Interior should have
    approved the lease application, but in June 2022, the
    Department informed Warrior Met Coal that all coal leases were,
    quote, ``frozen'' due to the Ninth Circuit Court decision, even
    though Met Coal was obviously not targeted by the decision.
        Now, after years of unresponsiveness and unnecessary legal
    hurdles from the Agency, the company has agreed, at the
    Agency's request, to do a full environmental impact statement.
    In the Notice of Intent published in April, the Department
    included a time line of publishing a draft EIS this fall, the
    final EIS next summer, and a Record of Decision in early 2026.
        Madam Secretary, it is my expectation that given the amount
    of work already put into this application, the Agency's
    requests to move through the full EIS, and the familiarity that
    the Department has with Warrior Met Coal, that the Department
    could easily move faster than this time line.
        However, what I would like to have from you today is a
    commitment that to the very best of your ability, that you will
    at least hit the Agency's own published time line.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much for the question,
    Senator. And yes, just to make sure that you know, we issued
    the Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS on April 30th. BLM will
    accept public comments through May 30th, so for the rest of
    this month. And we are absolutely aware of the interest in the
    timely completion of this review process. It will continue.
        We don't have any plans to slow walk, or whatever, and I
    apologize if our staff hasn't been back in touch with your
    office, I will make sure that they are in touch with you when
    you call, and we are happy to keep you updated.
        Senator Britt. Thank you. I really appreciate it. And just
    so that I make sure that we are on the same page, that you just
    mentioned, obviously, the Notice of Intent that was published
    in April, you talked about the draft EIS this fall, I mentioned
    the final EIS next summer, and the Record of Decision in early
    2026. So you are committed to maintaining that time line. I
    have that commitment from you today?
        Secretary Haaland. If that is the time line. I will make
    sure that is what my staff has put out, and we will be in touch
    with your office, certainly.
        Senator Britt. I greatly appreciate that, because
    currently, as you know, Warrior Met Mine is right next to a
    Federal coal, and they mine their land more than about 1,500
    feet under the earth, and they will run into that Federal
    border that shifts that ownership to the U.S. Government, and
    the coal across that boundary is obviously the exact same coal.
    It is the same chemically. It is the same mine, and it leaves
    the ground the exact same way and goes to the same place.
        So Warrior Met wants the opportunity to continue to do
    that, to do what they do, and to do it well. So I appreciate
    your commitment to maintaining that time line, and obviously, I
    am hopeful that it can be done even quicker than that. The
    process has clearly taken entirely too long, and it is really
    put a number of Alabama jobs, not to mention a $1.2 billion
    revenue stream, at risk.
        And so I am glad to hear the Agency has a time line. I look
    forward to working with your team. I appreciate your commitment
    to continue to be responsive, and I look forward to getting
    this resolved in a positive manner. Thank you, Madam Secretary.

                             KLAMATH FISH HATCHERY

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator Britt.
        I want to turn to the Klamath ``Gone Fishing'' Hatchery. We
    had a situation on the Klamath Lake where two species of
    suckers, the c'waam and the koptu, which have been critical to
    the tribal culture and tribal nutrition in the Klamath Basin,
    were on the edge of extinction. And we set up a number of years
    ago I held a gathering to bring all the experts together, and
    out of that came this plan to have this hatchery. And actually,
    ``hatchery'' isn't quite accurate. It is more rearing ponds.
    The small fry are harvested after they hatch, and brought in.
        We now have discovered that the younger fish die when they
    return to the lake because of the levels of toxins from algae
    blooms, but that the older fish have a chance of surviving,
    those 5 years or older. This process continues to build this so
    that we will save these two species, save that ecosystem. In
    February, Fish and Wildlife Service announced that it would
    send $20 million in infrastructure funding to complete the
    hatchery. So this is good, and I use ``hatchery'' in quotes.
        Do you have an update on the progress of that expansion?
    And the sooner we get this hatchery completed the sooner we
    will be able to say that this vital piece of restoration of the
    Klamath Basin has been achieved.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Chairman, for your ongoing
    support on so many things. Construction of the hatchery
    maintenance buildings is started and is projected to be
    completed in spring or summer of 2025. Construction is underway
    for a 14 tier two ponds, with tentative completion in the
    summer of 2025. Effluent retention pond and six brood stock
    ponds are targeted for a summer 2025 completion, and the Fish
    and Wildlife Service expects all phases of construction will be
    completed no later than the first quarter of fiscal year 2027.
        Senator Merkley. Well, it does seem like things are
    steadily progressing. My last visit, I was so impressed by how
    much had been built, and that how many, now, three-year-olds
    were there. And they said by age five, actually, the fish in
    the system will be able to start reproducing. So there is real
    hope that we are saving them from extinction.

                         WESTERN OREGON OPERATING PLAN

        I want to turn to the Western Oregon Operating Plan, or
    WOOP. A few weeks ago, I led a letter, without objection I
    would like to enter it into the record, the letter dated April
    22nd. And there was a parallel letter from the Douglas County
    Commissioner, Tim Freeman, on April 29th, without objection I
    enter both those into the record.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. The effort here is cooperation to be
    deeply engaged in wildfire preparation. One of the most
    important tools we have are firefighters, engines, equipment on
    the ground, ready to act. This agreement, the WOOP, has been a
    model for this sort of interagency collaboration.
        I am very concerned that the negotiations have stalled out
    on this. I would like your commitment, Madam Secretary, to
    finish this negotiation before the current agreement expires,
    and to get a replacement five-year agreement in place. Can I
    have your support and commitment to get the WOOP negotiation
    completed?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, yes, the BLM is committed t0o
    continue the interagency Wildland Fire Partnership with the
    Oregon Department of Forestry, and you have our ongoing
    commitment to work together to meet the requirements of both
    partners for the financial oversight and accountability,
    firefighter, safety, and industry risk management.
        Senator Merkley. Very highly important we get this done.
        Secretary Haaland. Yes. Thank you.

                         WILDLAND FIRE-HAZARDOUS FUELS

        Senator Merkley. Thank you. Turning to hazardous fuels. We
    have increased hazardous fuels funding from less than 500
    million 10 years ago to more than a billion today, so that is
    great. But we have to recognize that expansion is from one-time
    investments from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill. The amount
    of forest that we can treat, whether it is prescribed burns, or
    thinning, or mowing, is microscopic compared to the amount of
    forest we have.
        Secretary Haaland. Yes.
        Senator Merkley. So I am I am trying to get focused on the
    highest risk fire sheds, Rogue Valley is one of those highest
    risk fire sheds, so I have been working with Director Stone-
    Manning and her team at BLM to get multiyear fuel treatments on
    the ground there in the Rogue Valley to reduce the potential
    for catastrophic wildfire.
        At our fiscal year 2024 hearing, it seems like a long time
    ago now, you committed to make sure the Rogue Valley would
    receive hazardous fuels funding either through annual
    appropriations, or the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. How is
    that going? Are we going to see that investment in the Rogue
    Valley?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, what I can say is that fuels
    management is obviously incredibly important to us. For fiscal
    year 2023, nearly 1 million of fuels management work was
    completed by the BLM in Southern Oregon, and in fiscal year
    2024 the BLM plans to conduct 1.5 million of fuels management
    work in Southern Oregon. Does that answer your question?
        Senator Merkley. No. Not quite. No, because Rogue Valley is
    a specific part, and we have got a lot of fires in different
    parts of Oregon, a lot of forest, so can we simply agree to
    follow up on this and address Rogue Valley, specifically?
        Secretary Haaland. Yes, we will be back in touch with you.
    I apologize I don't have that specific information right now on
    Rogue Valley, but we will be in touch with your office.
        [The information follows:]
          fuels management--rogue valley--jackson & josephine counties
        The info in the table below includes base and BIL funds planned and
    completed in fiscal year 2023 as well as work funded in fiscal year
    2024. In fiscal year 2023, only the BLM funded work in both counties,
    but in fiscal year 2024 the BLM and the National Park Service are
    funding work in the counties.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Annual Fuels
                 Year Planned and Completed                   BIL Funding     Management Funding     Total Funding
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    2023--Planned.......................................            $217,000            $953,000          $1,170,000
    2023--Completed.....................................            $217,000            $953,000          $1,170,000
    2024 - Planned......................................          $1,974,000                  $0          $1,974,000
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Senator Merkley. Great. Thank you. Senator Hoeven.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you Mr. Chair.

                        TRIBAL LAW ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS

        Secretary Haaland, I know you are well aware of the very
    serious problem of missing and murdered indigenous women on
    reservations across the country, and you know, the challenges
    that we face in Indian Country with crime. Obviously there is
    an incredible need for more BIA law enforcement officers out
    there. For example in the Upper Great Plains, like where I
    live, I think we are at something like 50 percent of our
    staffing capacity for BIA law enforcement officers.
        And I think perhaps the greatest solution that we can bring
    to help solve the problem of crime on the reservation, the
    problem of missing and murdered indigenous women and children,
    is to have more BIA law enforcement officers out there. So we
    worked to create the Advanced Training Center at Camp Grafton,
    which is our Army--our National Guard Base which is right near
    Spirit Lake, in North Dakota, and near the Spirit Lake Tribe--
    near Devils Lake, and near the Spirit Lake Tribe. To work along
    with Artesia, which is from your state, obviously, but you have
    got this issue of recruiting people to become BIA law
    enforcement officers, and it is hard to get folks from up in
    the North to go down to the South, and from South up, you know,
    vice versa.
        And so now we actually have some balance there, in terms of
    where individuals can go to be trained as BIA law enforcement
    officers. Last year, there were 5,429 personnel that went
    through those programs, would it surprise you to know that
    3,000 of those went through the Advanced Training Center at
    Camp Grafton. So about 5,500 roughly, and 3,000 went through
    our training center.
        So I guess I would like to know, one, are you aware of what
    we are doing here? And two, how can you help us do more?
    Because we still have incredible vacancy rates in our BIA law
    enforcement officers, and we need to do more.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Senator. And of course we all
    agree with you, we need more people out there, and I
    experienced that as a tribal administrator in New Mexico. So we
    would love to continue this conversation with you, if possible.
    I appreciate your efforts in that area, and want you to know
    that along with the training that you were talking about, we
    are working hard for things like pay parity, you know, the
    initiative to bring BIA law enforcement pay in line with other
    Federal law enforcement, we know that once you train these
    folks, you want them to stay put and not be lured away by
    higher pay in another agency.
        So we appreciate that. We would love to have a further
    conversation with you about this particular training center,
    and would be happy to talk more about it.
        Senator Hoeven. So we have your commitment to do more with
    these training centers, to do more recruitment--to do more to
    recruit these--recruit people to be BIA law enforcement, and
    remember we also provide ongoing training as well.
        Secretary Haaland. Yes.
        Senator Hoeven. To get more of these personnel out on the
    reservation to combat crime. You are committed to working with
    us to do that?
        Secretary Haaland. Yes. And when I get back to my office I
    will ask Assistant Secretary Newland, to have someone reach out
    to your office.
        Senator Hoeven. Thank you, Secretary. I appreciate it.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much. Thank you, sir.

                                  CRATER LAKE

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator Hoeven. And I
    want to turn to Crater Lake. You and I had the chance to visit
    Crater Lake. In fact, it was there where the ranger came out
    and displayed the sign showing decade-by-decade how much the
    snowpack, average snowpack had reduced. And it was stunning for
    me to see that, 240 inches of average loss of snowpack over 90
    years, roughly cutting the snowpack in half.
        But on a different issue for Crater Lake, this last year
    the National Park Service terminated the concessions contract
    at Crater Lake; it was held by a subsidiary of Aramark. My
    understanding is that a new concessionaire has been contracted
    with, and the transition is underway. Will there be any
    interruption or decrease service over the summer, or will the
    transition be fully complete before then? And will the new
    concessionaire honor all reservations and deposits that
    visitors have made for visiting Crater Lake?
        Secretary Haaland. Chairman, thank you so much. The
    hospitality company, ExplorUS, has taken over the concession
    contract at Crater Lake. ExplorUS is optimistic they will be
    able to provide a full suite of visitor services at the park
    this summer. There is nothing that I have heard that they would
    not honor any and all existing reservations, but I will make
    sure that we check on that, and get back with you to confirm.
        Senator Merkley. So smooth sailing in Crater Lake this
    summer?
        Secretary Haaland. All our fingers are crossed for smooth
    sailing, Chairman. Thank you.
        Secretary Haaland. Okay. Great.
        Secretary Haaland. And we hope that it will be a seamless
    transition.
        Senator Merkley. It is one of the truly extraordinary
    places on Earth. And as I travel throughout Oregon people say
    one of biggest moments of my life was visiting.
        Secretary Haaland. Yes. It is. I will never forget my trip
    there. And thank you so much for showing me Crater Lake.

                      RECLASSIFICATION OF TRIBAL PAYMENTS

        Senator Merkley. You are welcome. Let us visit it again. I
    want to turn to tribal sovereignty payments. The President's
    budget requests that we reclassify these tribal sovereignty
    payments, which are also known as contract support costs and
    105(l) building leases, as mandatory funding. This is
    important. The twin Supreme Court decisions have affirmed that
    the Federal Government is required to pay tribes for these
    administrative overhead and leasing costs as the tribes
    exercise their rights to self-government. In fiscal year 2024,
    these ate up $1.6 billion of the $38.5 billion allocation, and
    had increased by 12 percent compared to the previous year. That
    is tripling since 2010.
        And we have another pending Supreme Court case related to
    third-party bill with IHS, and in Health Service programs that
    could increase that cost further. These are mandatory payments
    required by the courts and that is why I am happy to see that
    you are proposing to reclassify them as mandatory payments,
    otherwise they just kind of eat up our efforts to fund every
    other program.
        Can you confirm that these payments are required by law?
    And do you think BIA and BIE, Bureau of Indian Education,
    programs will suffer if they are forced to continue
    accommodating these ballooning costs.
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Chairman. Yes, recent court
    decisions have affirmed the Government is required to cover
    these costs, which are called for in the Indian Self-
    Determination Act. The funding covers the tribal costs
    associated with managing Federal programs on behalf of the
    Government. They are necessary and important for Tribes, and we
    will follow the law.

                         MONARCHS AND OTHER POLLINATORS

        Senator Merkley. Great. Thank you. I want to turn to one
    feature of the impact on species in the last few decades. Our
    western monarchs are a treasured symbol, and almost anytime you
    see a butterfly on anything, it is often a monarch. And the
    population crashed a couple years ago to less than 1 percent of
    its historic numbers just 30 years ago. It was down to about
    2,000 butterflies.
        It has since rebounded. So that is good, but we are still
    somewhere around 95 percent decline. So one of the areas that
    we have been working on is to have this monarch and pollinator
    highway, to make road side tracks that are pollinator-friendly
    tracks. It was in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Now,
    different groups can add to this. It is a Department of
    Transportation program, but the Act allows other Federal
    agencies to receive funding for these activities, such as the
    Department of Interior.
        Given the large land area managed by DOI, countless roads
    across the landscape, is the Department aware of this
    opportunity? And is it planning to apply for funds to create
    and improve pollinator habitat on our Nation's roadways?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much. Great idea, and
    yes, the Fish and Wildlife Service would like to partner with
    the Department of Transportation on this really innovative
    issue. And we will let them know about the current funding
    announcement.
        Senator Merkley. Terrific, because this is an opportunity
    for various approaches, including clubs adopting a piece of
    highway and planting pollinator-friendly plants. And since that
    creates a lot of north-south corridors that are important to
    the monarchs, there are many other opportunities for other
    pollinators.
        I promised not to ask a question after my time had expired,
    and my time has expired. So I am going to turn to Senator
    Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                       NATIONAL PETROLEUM RESERVE ALASKA

        Madam Secretary, I want to ask about NPRA Rule. As I
    mentioned, you are closing off 13 million of our 23 million
    acre preserve. We absolutely believe that this conflicts with
    the law, which calls for expedited leasing and development. And
    what we are effectively looking at is something that is
    designed to cut off access across the reserve.
        Now, I appreciated the issue that was raised by the Senator
    from Rhode Island, in noting that here in the United States we
    have seen increased oil production. I think it is great. I
    think it is fabulous for this country. I just wish Alaska were
    able to participate in it more, as other states are. Certainly,
    the State of New Mexico's oil production has increased by about
    900,000 barrels per day in this administration. In Alaska, our
    production has been flat. It has even declined a little bit
    here, your production, the production in your home state, in
    New Mexico, literally four times ours on a daily basis.
        And this is where I just don't get it. We are the ones that
    are the carbon bomb, so to speak. We are the ones that are
    targeted, in Alaska. It is only our lands that are being closed
    down, access denied. Somehow it seems like our emissions are a
    lot worse than anybody else's, in New Mexico or somewhere else.
        So I have to keep coming back to this because it is such a
    double standard. And this is where Alaskans are like: We are
    part of the United States, and yet we are treated in a very,
    very, very different manner. When you announced the NPRA Rule,
    you stated that, quote, ``The steps we are taking today are
    based on the best available science and in recognition of the
    indigenous knowledge of the original stewards of this area to
    safeguard our public lands for future generations.''
        But the question that I have for you is, how can you state
    that this rule is based on the best science, when Interior did
    not conduct a NEPA analysis, or any economic analysis, and made
    no attempt to understand how it would impact the subsistence,
    and the communities that, again, these are the original
    stewards of the land here? I have heard from them. The press
    has recounted time and time again, that eight times, eight
    separate occasions the Alaskan Native people who lived in the
    area asked to meet with you and your office to speak to this.

                            FINAL RULE ON THE NPR-A

        You said earlier in a response to one of my colleagues here
    today, I think you were referring to the Avi Kwa Ame, I am
    probably mispronouncing it, I am sorry, but you said, and I
    wrote it down because it struck me, you said, ``When tribes
    come to us to ask to conserve certain lands, we listen.''
        So the question is, when tribes want to come to you to ask
    to develop certain lands, do you also listen, because what they
    share with me is that you refuse them that opportunity. So I
    guess my question is, how can you claim the rule is based on
    the science, the best science when there is no NEPA analysis,
    there is no economic analysis, and the consultation with the
    people who live there, has failed?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you, Senator, for the question. I
    just have to say, with respect to New Mexico, there is a lot of
    private land there that is developed that is not under the
    Federal Government's purview.
        Senator Murkowski. I understand.
        Secretary Haaland. And we don't have any, you know----
        Senator Murkowski. And we have less than 1 percent of
    private lands. But what we do have are public lands, we have
    public lands.
        Secretary Haaland. Yes. And we take those lands seriously.
    And I also do want to say how much we have been engaged with
    Alaska on so many things. The Gravel-To-Gravel Initiative, for
    example, salmon crashes in the Yukon-Kuskokwim River delta. We
    are listening, we are working on those issues. So I don't want
    to lose sight of the good things that we have done in Alaska.
        Senator Murkowski. No. And I don't lose sight of that. I
    don't lose sight of that. But what I am trying to understand
    from this administration is, it seems that the actions that are
    being taken from the administration when it comes to the
    opportunity for economic activity, for people to be able to
    make a living, for people to be able to stay in their region,
    for people to have better life expectancies, and health
    outcomes, and education, and public safety, when we ask for
    that it seems that if it is on public lands, it is a no-go. It
    is a no-go.
        Can you give me your ironclad commitment that the Final
    Rule on the NPRA will have no impact on operators' ability to
    develop their existing leases, and not only on the leases
    themselves, but for the roads and the connective infrastructure
    as well, because this was the promise from the administration.
    This was the promise that we had, was that those existing
    leases would not be impacted. And I can tell you right now, the
    operators up there, are very, very, very concerned that they
    will be impacted, they will not be able to develop fully their
    leases, as the promise. Can you give me the commitment that
    they will be able to develop their existing leases?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, the rule includes specific
    protections for valid existing rights.
        Senator Murkowski. Um-hum.
        Secretary Haaland. And we encourage people to call us. We
    are happy to have conversations with anyone, and we have
    engaged more--I know people like to say we didn't consult, we
    didn't do this, we really have had many, many conversations,
    over a 100,000 public comments were received during this
    period. So the rule does include specific protections for valid
    existing rights. If anyone in particular has a specific
    question to ask us, we are happy to engage in a conversation.
        Senator Murkowski. I don't think anybody wants more
    conversation. They want the valid existing leases to be
    respected, to be respected in full, and that includes not only
    the leases themselves but the roads and the connective
    infrastructure as well.
        Mr. Chairman.

                      PESTICIDES ON WILDLIFE REFUGE AREAS

        Senator Merkley. Thank you. I wanted to turn to wildlife
    refuges. We have a number of them in my home state, and often
    the wildlife refuges are farmed. And one of the issues that
    folks have raised is that the pesticides that are used on the
    refuges have a big impact on the insect population, but also on
    the bird populations that are passing through and migrating.
        I want to enter into the record a study published in 2020
    in ``Nature Sustainability''.
        [The information follows:]
        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. And it basically lays out how one
    particular pesticide, neonicotinoids, have affected a decline
    in bird diversity in the United States. When people hear
    ``refuge'', they assume we are managing the refuge in a fashion
    that is good for the ecosystem on the refuge. But that is the
    issue that has been raised as a point of concern.
        Are you aware of this point of concern? Is there any sort
    of dialogue underway in terms of trying to make sure that the
    refuges are indeed refuges and not poisoning the insects, the
    animals, and the birds?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you very much, Chairman. And you
    might know that the Fish and Wildlife Service recently proposed
    updated regulations for its Biological Integrity, Diversity,
    and Environmental Health Policy, we call it BIDEH. The proposal
    will strengthen the Refuge System's ability to achieve its
    conservation mission. It would give refuge managers a framework
    to evaluate and implement management actions to protect
    species, restore habitats, and increase climate resilience.
        An example of how the framework would apply would be
    consideration of pesticide use on refuge lands. We completely
    understand what you are saying, and I hope that--if that
    doesn't answer your question, we are happy to engage with your
    office more specifically, if that would be helpful, and
    specifically for refuges in your state.
        Senator Merkley. Yeah, I think it is worth continuing to
    examine the science around this, and since they are a public
    trust, and we do have a variety of farming practices that do
    not involve using these pesticides, so maybe they are not
    compatible with the ecosystem on the refuge. That is, I think
    it is worth wrestling with that question.
        Secretary Haaland. Yes.

                             ABANDONED MINE CLEANUP

        Senator Merkley. I want to turn to a challenge we have had
    in the past, which is when coal mining occurs, and when oil
    drilling occurs, there is a process that sometimes results in
    the companies declaring bankruptcy and leaving the cleanup of
    those mines, or the cleanup of those drilling sites, the
    plugging of the wells if you will, to the public to pay for.
        And the issue really is whether the bonding requirements to
    be set aside for cleaning up when one abandons a well or a
    mine, are sufficient. I know the administration has taken a
    recent action to try to address this. Could you describe that,
    and do we have confidence that the costs of cleaning up newly
    abandoned wells, will not continue to be foisted on to the
    American taxpayer?
        Secretary Haaland. Thank you so much, Senator. Yes, we
    understand that and agree that the taxpayers shouldn't have to
    foot the bill for someone else's mess. So yes, the rule
    addresses that serious problem. Let us see. Some of the
    benefits of the rule, the rule increases the 1960s minimum
    bonding amounts for Federal onshore oil and gas activities.
    Increase minimums will reduce the risk from future
    bankruptcies. Minimum lease bond amounts increase from 10,000
    to 150,000. Minimum statewide bond amount increases from 25,000
    to 500,000. Now bond amounts provide an incentive for companies
    to meet their reclamation obligations, or cover the actual
    cleanup costs in the event an operator goes out of business, or
    otherwise fails to complete required plugging and reclamation.
        Senator Merkley. For some, what I would call irresponsible
    companies, it has almost become a business model: use
    bankruptcy to toss, if you will, your obligation to clean up,
    and then you reincorporate and continue with other sites. So I
    think that is important.
        I know when I was developing housing, we had to have a bond
    to complete the project, and it was like, you start this
    project, it is going to get completed, and that bond cost us
    some money. But it was very important that half-constructed
    projects, that it not sit there in the public landscape. I
    think the same thing applies here. That as one drills, or as
    one mines, you are fully responsible possible for cleaning up
    that mess.
        There is a phrase that is sometimes used about: Privatize
    the profits, socialize the losses. And that is a phrase that
    refers to, well, we will kind of run up the profit, and then we
    will dump the expenses of cleaning it up onto the public
    taxpayer. So I think this is an important process and applaud
    that you are all wrestling with appropriate bonding to make
    sure that that doesn't continue to happen.
        Let me turn to my colleague.

                       TRIBAL ENGAGEMENT ON THE NPRA RULE

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I ran
    out of time with the last question, we were talking about the
    NPRA Rule, and you had started to detail the consultation that
    had gone on, the numerous meetings. The reason there is such
    frustration over this consultation process is because there
    were multiple individuals that were frustrated over this issue.
    So it required the subcommittee to, basically, call on Interior
    to conduct additional consultation with Alaskan Natives and the
    tribal entities on the slope.
        It not only came here from the committee, it came from the
    Congressional Delegation, from the Legislature, and yet the
    Department announces the publication of the Final NPRA Rule on
    April 19. Not a single effort made to conduct additional
    consultation as we had requested.
        Part of the back and forth in this that, again, leads to
    ongoing frustration, is our comments from your own team, the
    NPRA Working Group met to discuss this issue in August, and one
    of your Deputy Assistant Secretaries, Kathryn Kovacs, stated,
    she says, ``I am happy to regale you with the ins and outs of
    the Congressional Review Act, but unfortunately, we are on a
    schedule with this one, that we don't have any control over. So
    we just don't have that kind of time for a rule. We are on a
    schedule on this one. We don't have any control over this.''
        And so you have got a situation where it has already been
    forecast to people; that look, we have got this clock ticking
    because we have got to--we want to avoid an effective veto
    under the under the CRA. How can this be considered meaningful
    consultation if your own Department is effectively sabotaging
    it before it even begins? I just--I can't believe that it is
    appropriate for somebody within the Department to, basically,
    say: This consultation is just kind of a check-the-box exercise
    that we have to get behind?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, I will just say that following
    all of those meetings that you spoke about, they extended the
    comment period on November 13 for an additional 20 days.
        Senator Murkowski. Twenty days, yeah.
        Secretary Haaland. Also, I want to say that we also
    reaffirmed that nation-to-nation consultation is not restricted
    to a public comment period, and could occur any time, when
    tribal leaders request those consultations. I also would like
    to offert, a fact sheet, which lists for you all of the tribal
    engagements that we had detailing that engagement for the
    record if that would be helpful as well.
        [The information follows:]
           rule alaska native tribes and ancsa corporation engagement
      --On March 13, 2023, the Administration previewed its intent to
            develop a draft rule to maximum protections for significant
            resource values on the more than 13 million acres of Special
            Areas in the western Arctic, while supporting subsistence uses
            and needs for Alaska Native communities.

      --On August 25, 2023, in advance of the publication of the draft
            rule, the BLM mailed a formal offer for consultation to 45
            Tribes and 30 Alaska Native Corporations to engage in
            consultation on the proposal. The BLM did not receive a
            response to these invitations from any of the Tribes or Alaska
            Native Corporations. On September 6, 2023, agency staff called
            state and local governments to ensure they were aware of the
            upcoming publication of the proposed rule and to offer
            opportunities to discuss the rule language.

      --On September 6, 2023, the Department released the draft NPR-A rule
            and launched a 60- day comment period following publication in
            the Federal Register on September 8th. The BLM continued to
            offer consultation via phone, email, and in-person invitations
            to Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations that it determined
            would be most likely to have substantial direct effects from
            the rule, including the Native Village of Atqasuk; Atqasuk
            Corporation; Village of Wainwright; Olgoonik Corporation;
            Native Village of Nuiqsut; Kuupik Corporation; Native Village
            of Barrow; Ukpeagevik Inupiat Corporation (UIC); Arctic Slope
            Regional Corporation (ASRC); and Inupiat Community of the
            Arctic Slope (ICAS).

      --The BLM held three in-person meetings on the proposed rule in
            Anchorage (October 10, 2023), Nuiqsut (November 1, 2023), and
            Utqiagvik (November 2, 2023) to provide an overview of the
            proposed rule and answer questions from the public. The BLM
            also held one hybrid meeting in Wainwright on December 4, 2023.
            A court reporter was present at the Nuiqsut and Utqiagvik
            meetings to transcribe all comments and questions. The hybrid
            meeting in Wainwright was recorded via the Zoom platform, and
            those comments were collected by the BLM on behalf of the
            commenters and submitted as comments to the rulemaking docket
            on regulations.gov. For each meeting in Reserve communities,
            the BLM coordinated with local entities.

      --Based on feedback our team heard in Alaska, the BLM extended the
            comment period on October 17, 2023, for 10 additional days.

      --The BLM met with the Mayor of Atqasuk on October 31, 2023; the
            Native Village of Nuiqsut on November 1, 2023; ICAS on November
            3, 2023, and February 6, 2024; Village of Wainwright on
            November 21, 2023; Olgoonik Corporation on December 19, 2023;
            ASRC on December 21, 2023; and Kuukpik on February 1, 2024.

      --In addition, the agency met with the NPR-A Working Group three
            times during the public comment period and three times since
            its close. The NPR-A Working Group is comprised of
            representatives from North Slope local governments, Alaska
            Native Corporations, and Tribal entities. It is intended to
            provide a forum for North Slope communities to provide input to
            management of the Reserve. ICAS, NSB, Voice of the Arctic
            Inupiat, and ASRC met with representatives of the BLM and the
            Department on September 21, 2023, in Washington DC.

      --Representatives from ICAS, NSB, Voice of the Arctic Inupiat, ASRC,
            Olgoonik Corporation and Anaktuvuk Pass, along with their
            lobbying representation, met with Acting Deputy Secretary Laura
            Daniel-Davis and BLM leadership in Washington DC on November 8,
            2023, in Washington DC, where they were joined by
            Representative Peltola.

      --The Acting Deputy Secretary, BLM Director and BLM Principal Deputy
            Director also met with non-profit, Native Alaskan-led
            organizations who support the rule: Sovereign Inupiat for a
            Living Arctic and Grandmothers Growing Goodness.

      --Following those meetings, the BLM again extended the comment period
            on November 13, 2023, for an additional 20 days, to ensure that
            anyone who wanted to participate had the opportunity. We also
            reaffirmed that nation-to-nation consultation is not restricted
            to a public comment period and could occur anytime Tribal
            leaders requested.

        Senator Murkowski. Is it not correct, though, that eight
    times you were asked by various leaders from the North Slope
    region for meetings, came all the way from Alaska to
    Washington, D.C., to specifically meet with you, only to have
    their request asked. I know that that is a fact because our
    offices tried to get meetings for our constituents when they
    traveled 5,000 miles to come and see you.
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, I know that our Acting Deputy
    Secretary did meet along with Congresswoman Peltola.
        Senator Murkowski. Our Acting Deputy Secretary did meet?
        Secretary Haaland. Yes.
        Senator Murkowski. Our Secretary of the Interior making an
    extraordinarily consequential decision about lands that this
    group of Alaska Native leaders call home and subsist upon, were
    denied meetings eight times. Let me ask about the Department
    took an additional 18 days to publish the Final Rule in the
    Federal Register. I am not sure why. What I really want to know
    is whether or not there were any changes between the unofficial
    pre-publication version of the rule, and the final version?
        Secretary Haaland. I can't answer that for you at the
    moment. But I will absolutely go back to the office and ask the
    BLM to respond to that question.
        Senator Murkowski. I think it is kind of important because
    there is a notable gap there. Your staff had previously
    committed to providing red line of the Draft Rule and the Final
    Rule, so can you share with me as well, the red line of the
    unofficial publication version of the rule?
        Secretary Haaland. Senator, we will absolutely be in touch
    with your office as to those two specific questions.
        Senator Murkowski. Yeah. I would like to get--I would like
    to get that red line by the end of this next week if we can.
        [The information follows:]
     management and protection of the national petroleum reserve in alaska
        A red-line strikeout comparison of the draft and final rules
    provided to the Subcommittee previously, follows.
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Secretary Haaland. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Senator.
        And Secretary Haaland, and your team, thank you for coming,
    and addressing so many different issues. It is a vast swath of
    America that you have responsibility for, and it is so much
    more the case in the western part of the United States. And so
    I am pleased that Senator Murkowski and I both come from the
    West so we can work on these issues together. And we are
    entering another fiscal year in this challenge.
        So I know there will be lots of follow up from many members
    on the topics raised today. And thank you for striving to
    respond to our queries and our concerns.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        If there are no other statements, the hearing record will
    be open until close of business on May 15, 2024.
                    Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
        Question. I am encouraged to see the Administration helping to
    develop offshore wind energy... which is bringing with it thousands of
    jobs and significant investment in our port and grid infrastructure,
    particularly in my home State of Rhode Island.
        As you know, we must make these investments thoughtfully, while
    minimizing interference with other ocean users, including fisheries. In
    2022, the Bureau of Ocean Management (BOEM) proposed guidance for
    mitigation to commercial and recreational fisheries from offshore wind
    development.
        Issuing final guidance will provide clarity for all stakeholders
    during the review process for new offshore wind projects.
        Answer. BOEM is developing guidance for mitigation of potential
    impacts from offshore wind energy projects on commercial and
    recreational fishing communities. The guidance will provide detailed
    processes that offshore wind lessees can follow to avoid, minimize, and
    mitigate impacts to fisheries in the areas of project siting, design,
    navigation, access, safety, and financial compensation.
        As noted, in June 2022, BOEM published the draft guidance document
    for public comment. BOEM received public comments and conducted virtual
    meetings and in April 2023, BOEM expanded engagement with Tribal
    communities to ensure meaningful feedback. The Bureau's goal is to have
    the final guidance available by the end of this year.
        All projects approved to date have included fisheries mitigation
    plans. BOEM is ensuring that lessons learned from implementation of
    those plans are incorporated into the guidance. BOEM intends to have a
    public meeting after the final guidance is issued to explain the
    changes made by the Bureau based on the comments received.

                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Kyrsten Sinema
        Question. Domestically sourced and processed critical minerals and
    metals are essential for U.S. national security and energy
    independence. Do you agree that critical minerals are a key part of our
    National security strategy? What concrete steps has the Department
    taken to streamline the permitting burden on domestic mining projects
    to meet the growing need for critical minerals? What is DOI doing to
    collaborate with the Department of Defense to develop domestic critical
    minerals capabilities by leveraging extraction and processing as a part
    of reclamation activities on Federal lands?
        Answer. The BLM established a pre-planning process to improve the
    efficiency and effectiveness of processing plans of operations under
    the surface management regulations, 43 CFR subparts 3802 and 3809.
    Although pre-plan submittal meetings are voluntary on the part of the
    operator, they have proven beneficial in identifying issues in the
    early stages of a project to help facilitate the permitting process.
    The pre-planning process has demonstrated that this approach leads to
    shorter review and processing times for plans of operations and the
    associated National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis.
        We are committed to working collaboratively with the Department of
    Defense to develop domestic critical minerals capabilities.
        Question. Given that the Department of Energy now considers copper
    as a critical material for the energy transition, and recent analysis
    of the copper market shows copper's supply risk exceeding USGS'
    threshold for inclusion on the Critical Minerals List (CML), why have
    you not exercised your statutory authority to add this critical
    material for the energy transition and national defense to the CML?
        Answer. The USGS appreciates that copper is an essential mineral
    commodity to U.S. economic and national security interests and notes
    that many types of copper deposits can also host several byproduct
    critical minerals. The USGS devotes significant effort within its
    Mineral Resources Program portfolio to the assessment of copper
    resources, the study of copper deposits, the investigation of the
    potential to extract critical and other minerals from copper mine
    waste, and detailed tracking of copper supply chains. Although copper
    did not meet the criteria for inclusion on the 2022 list of critical
    minerals, ongoing supply chain concerns are prompting reasonable
    questions over whether key commodities' supply chain risks should be
    reevaluated before the 3-year update cycle established by the Energy
    Act of 2020.
        In the analysis for the 2022 list of critical minerals, the USGS
    assessed copper as having a relatively high economic vulnerability
    score, indicating that the U.S. manufacturing sector is vulnerable to a
    supply disruption. In the years leading up to the 2022 list, this
    vulnerability was mitigated by a relatively low U.S. net import
    reliance on foreign supplies and a diversity of foreign supply sources.
        The most recent data for copper supply chains show a decrease of
    11% in U.S. copper mine production in 2023 relative to 2022, equivalent
    to a decrease in value of $1.3 billion. The decrease can be ascribed to
    a number of factors, including unusual weather conditions, major
    equipment failures, and declining ore grades and mining rates.
    Similarly, copper production at U.S. refineries decreased by an
    estimated 7% in 2023 compared to 2022 production, due in part to a
    major smelter rebuild. As a result of these changes, net import
    reliance for copper imports to the United States, which are
    predominantly refined copper, increased to 46%.
        This evolving situation will be factored into the analysis which is
    currently in preparation for the 2025 list of critical minerals. The
    criticality analysis requires a comprehensive look across all mineral
    commodities and relevant sectors of the economy. This means that there
    is no simple way to evaluate the critical mineral status of copper in
    isolation, and rerunning the 2022 analysis at this time would delay
    completion of the 2025 list, which is due in less than 1 year and
    incorporates an updated, forward-looking methodology.
        The Department of Energy (DOE) list of critical materials is
    focused on materials needed for energy technologies and categorizes
    energy materials as ``not critical'', ``near critical'', and
    ``critical'' in both the near term (2020-2025) and medium term (2025-
    2035)\1\. The DOE analysis evaluates copper as ``not critical'' in the
    near term and ``near critical'' in the medium term, based on the
    expectation of increasing copper demand associated with the energy
    transition. Although, as mentioned above, there are concerning trends
    in domestic copper production, copper consumption in the U.S. has yet
    to return to its pre-pandemic levels. As a result, it is not yet clear
    when, and to what degree, energy transition demands will have
    significant impacts on the copper market. As with domestic production,
    USGS will continue to monitor both domestic consumption and prices and
    incorporate those data in the evaluation of copper for inclusion in the
    2025 list of critical minerals.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.energy.gov/cmm/what-are-critical-materials-and-
    critical-minerals
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Question. The GAO has examined the impact of low pay on recruitment
    and retention of qualified wildland firefighters. I was proud to secure
    the temporary pay increase in my bipartisan infrastructure law, and to
    introduce a permanent pay fix for wildland firefighters, the Wildland
    Firefighter Paycheck Protection Act. This legislation passed out of the
    Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last year with
    broad bipartisan support, and it is urgent that the Senate consider
    this legislation quickly.
        In your experience, how has the temporary increase in pay impacted
    the ability of the fire services to recruit qualified candidates, and
    how has the promise of Congress working towards a permanent solution
    impacted workforce morale? What would be the impact to our Federal
    wildland firefighting workforce if these much-deserved pay increases
    were to go away?
        Answer. By all accounts, the temporary pay increases authorized and
    funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and continued for Fiscal
    Year 2024 with regular appropriations have had a positive impact within
    the wildland fire workforce. The temporary pay supplements have
    increased our ability to recruit and retain employees. The Department
    of the Interior has been able to increase our workforce capacity over
    the last few years, and these pay supplements are an important reason
    for that. However, wildland firefighters deserve permanent pay
    increases like the reforms and proposed legislation included in the
    President's Fiscal Year 2025 Budget, and authorized in bi-partisan
    legislation similar to the bill you introduced.
        We cannot be certain of the effects of not enacting a permanent pay
    fix, but we hear from many employees that they will look for employment
    elsewhere if the increased pay they are now receiving does not
    continue. Entry-level personnel need permanent pay increases so they
    can be appropriately compensated for this arduous and sometimes
    dangerous line of work without having to worry about whether their pay
    rate will continue every year. Because our wildland firefighters
    develop highly specialized experience and qualifications it is very
    difficult to replace mid-level and senior-level employees. These
    personnel play a significant role in fireline leadership. We cannot
    afford to lose the Federal investment in these employees, which would
    set back ongoing efforts to build the pipeline of the entry-level and
    early-career workforce needed to advance interagency wildland fire
    management.
        Question. Does the Department have adequate resources to, in
    concert with the Department of Agriculture, set up and manage the Baaj
    Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni--Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon
    National Monument? Please provide a timeline of recent administrative
    actions taken, and if there is insufficient funding, an estimate of
    what is needed.
        Answer. Reductions in appropriated dollars and new special areas
    designations impact the BLM's capacity to administer these areas and
    provide for their appropriate care and protection. The BLM is making
    progress on the following administrative actions for Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah
    Kukveni--Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument
    described below. As work continues to advance and the National Monument
    develops, additional resources will be needed. Recent administrative
    actions taken include:

      --The BLM has initiated the development of the Monument Advisory
            Committee (MAC) Charter. We anticipate the MAC will meet up to
            four times annually, and at other times as determined necessary
            to support the development of the monument management plan and
            the subsequent management of the monument.

      --The BLM is collaborating with the U.S. Forest Service and Arizona
            Game and Fish Department on drafting a memorandum of
            understanding with respect to fish and wildlife management, per
            direction in the establishing proclamation.

        The BLM is coordinating with 13 Tribes on the formation of the Baaj
    Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni--Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon
    National Monument Commission. Thus far, the BLM has entered into co-
    stewardship agreements with 9 of the Tribes and is working on co-
    stewardship agreements with the remaining 4 Tribes.
        Going forward, the monument will require resources to support the
    monument planning process and associated environmental review under
    NEPA, additional signage, and maintain dedicated staffing.
        Question. In recent years, Congress expressed concern that 105(l)
    Payments for Tribal Leases have placed the House and Senate Committees
    on Appropriations in the difficult position where rapidly escalating
    requirements for lease costs are negatively impacting the ability to
    use discretionary appropriations to support core Tribal programs,
    including health, education and construction programs, or provide
    essential fixed cost requirements. Congress has acknowledged that both
    the language of the section 105(l) of the Indian Self-Determination Act
    and decisions from litigation appear to create an entitlement to
    compensation for 105(l) leases that is typically not funded through
    discretionary appropriations. Appropriators have directed both the
    Department of the Interior and the Indian Health Service to formulate a
    long-term solution to address the requirement to meet lease payments
    under the 105(l) program, including consideration of whether to
    reclassify 105(l) payments as an appropriated entitlement. As a result,
    this Administration has consisted proposed classifying 105(l) payments
    as mandatory funding. Please respond to the following questions which
    will help describe the impacts of leaving section 105(l) lease payments
    as discretionary appropriations:
        Please explain the impact that increasing 105(l) payments have had
    on discretionary appropriations for the agencies with the Department of
    the Interior (including the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian
    Education and any other impacted agency with the Department).
        Please describe the current status of Tribal requests to enter into
    leases with the Department including the number of leases requested and
    the impact existing and new leases will have on the Department's
    staffing and funding.
        Please project the growth of the 105(l) program over the next 5
    years.
        Answer. The 105(l) program currently has over 1,400 leases in the
    backlog for requests from 2021-2024. We are still receiving new
    requests at a faster rate than we can process them. The program is not
    just growing but growing at an accelerated rate, with requests from
    three Tribes in 2019 to one hundred twenty-eight Tribes as of the end
    of FY 2024. This significant growth underscores the importance of our
    collective efforts to manage it. We have requested additional FTE to
    implement the program through BIA's Operation of Indian Programs
    account in the 2025 President's Budget.
        Discretionary appropriations for the 105(l) program for recent
    years have grown from $21.6 million in 2021 to $36.6 million in 2022,
    to the projected amounts of $82.5 million in 2024, and, $120.0 million
    in 2025. The impact of 105(l) payments will be greater in future years.
    Once initiated, most leases will likely continue into future years, so
    the total program will only increase as new leases are added to the
    program, as existing rents increase, and as existing leases grow in
    scope. Appropriation needs for 105(l) are expected to grow rapidly
    based Tribes' interest expressed in the program and the volume of lease
    applications. BIA is statutorily obligated to pay lease costs.
        As mentioned in the question, recent President's Budgets, including
    for FY 2025, have proposed reclassifying 105(l) lease costs as
    mandatory funding. If 105(l) funding remains on discretionary, the
    expected rapid growth of lease costs will continue to exert pressure on
    topline total for BIA's discretionary appropriations as well as the
    topline discretionary total for all of DOI.
        As stated above, 105(l) leases costs are expected to be $120
    million in FY 2025. Projected costs for 105(l) leases for FY 2026-FY
    2030 are difficult to construct because they depend on Tribes'
    engagement in the program. The total number of leases, and therefore
    total estimated lease costs, are difficult estimate into the out-years.

                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Lisa Murkowski
        Question. The Executive Summary of the Ambler Road FSEIS includes
    just a one sentence explanation on why the No Action Alternative has
    been recommended, saying: ``any of the action alternatives would
    significantly impact resources, including important subsistence
    resources and uses, in ways that cannot be adequately mitigated.'' I
    understand and empathize with the concern from Alaskans who rely upon
    the Western Arctic Herd and have watched the herd size decrease over
    the past few years. However, that isn't the result of a road that
    hasn't been built yet and the Ambler Access Project (AAP) shouldn't be
    penalized as a result.
        The WAH peaked 15 years after construction and operation of the
    Delong Mountain Transportation System, and as we've seen with roads
    like the Dalton Highway or up on the North Slope, caribou populations
    have grown and can thrive alongside responsible resource development.
        Why exactly does the BLM believe that impacts to subsistence
    resources cannot be mitigated?
        How does the SEIS account for the natural, cyclical fluctuations in
    caribou herd population?
        How does the SEIS reconcile the proven mitigation measures that
    other roads throughout Alaska have demonstrated?
        Why exactly does the BLM believe that impacts to subsistence
    resources cannot be mitigated?
        Answer. The Ambler Road Supplemental EIS Appendix N: Potential
    Mitigation identifies and discusses potential measures that could be
    applied to mitigate adverse impacts to natural, social, and cultural
    impacts from the Ambler Road Project. As part of the analysis, the
    effectiveness of each potential mitigation measure is noted, and in
    each resource section or subsection, the expected effectiveness of the
    mitigation measures if collectively applied is discussed. For this
    analysis, it is assumed that the measure would be implemented by Alaska
    Industrial Development and Export Authority (AIDEA) and enforced by the
    BLM. The discussion includes consideration of whether and how the
    effectiveness of mitigation on BLM-managed land would be affected if
    the same mitigation is not applied off BLM-managed land. The landowner
    discussion is necessary because the BLM manages only part of the land
    along each alternative and its authority is limited to mitigating
    impacts to BLM-managed lands and resources.
        For subsistence resources such as caribou, fish, and waterfowl, the
    proposed mitigation was found to be only partially effective at
    reducing impacts. Most importantly, for mammals, including caribou, no
    combination of mitigation measures could substantially reduce the
    potential for behavioral disturbance, displacement, injury, or
    mortality as a result of the Ambler Road. Even with the adoption of
    mitigation measures, the construction and operation of the Ambler Road
    could cause population level impacts to the Western Arctic Caribou Herd
    and a reduction in the abundance of caribou available for residents of
    several communities, as well as population level impacts to fish and a
    reduction in the abundance of harvestable fish and their availability
    for several communities.
        The Record of Decision (p. 24) concludes:

            ``As discussed in Section 4.4 of this ROD, under Section
            1104(g)(2) of ANILCA and implementing regulation 43 CFR 36.7,
            there are nine factors an agency is to consider in making a
            decision on an application for a transportation and utility
            system submitted under Title XI of ANILCA. Having closely
            considered each of these factors (see Section 4.4 above), in
            this Decision the BLM disapproves the application for a ROW
            across BLM-managed lands and terminates the previously issued
            BLM ROW Grant. In doing so, the BLM finds that, even if the
            agency were to adopt all reasonable mitigation measures
            analyzed in the Final Supplemental EIS intended to reduce
            impacts to important resources and subsistence uses (see 43 CFR
            36.7(a)(2)(vii)), under each alternative route analyzed (see 43
            CFR 36.7(a)(2)(ii)) the proposed road's significantly adverse
            short and long term social and environmental impacts, including
            impacts on fish and wildlife and their habitat and on rural,
            traditional lifestyles including subsistence uses, and
            associated adverse impacts to public values in the affected
            communities (see 43 CFR 36.7(a)(2)(iv), (viii) and (ix))
            substantially outweigh other relevant factors including the
            need for and potential economic benefits of the road and
            impacts on national security interests (see 43 CFR
            36.7(a)(2)(i), (iv) and (v)). For the same reasons, approving
            the ROW across BLM-managed lands would not be in the public
            interest.''

        Question. How does the SEIS account for the natural, cyclical
    fluctuations in caribou herd population?
        Answer.The Supplemental EIS contains a detailed discussion of
    natural fluctuations in caribou herd populations, including those of
    the Western Arctic Caribou Herd, as well as long term declining trends
    in many caribou herd populations throughout North America thought to be
    attributable to a warming climate. See Supplemental EIS, Section 3.3.4,
    pages 3-131 through 3-138. The Supplemental EIS analyzes impacts to
    caribou in the context of these fluctuations and trends. See, e.g.,
    Supplemental EIS, Section 3.3.4, pages 3-141 through 3-149.
        Question. How does the SEIS reconcile the proven mitigation
    measures that other roads throughout Alaska have demonstrated?
        Answer. As explained in Section 3.3.4 of the Supplemental EIS,
    notwithstanding the adoption of mitigation measures, other roads in
    Alaska have resulted in significant effects on caribou movements and
    migrations, including delays or refusals to cross roads and route
    deflections. The 211-mile length and geographic orientation of the
    proposed Ambler Road to Western Arctic Caribou Herd migration routes
    makes it particularly likely to result in these impacts.
        Question. One of the reasons that your department voluntarily
    remanded the Record of Decision for the AAP was an alleged deficiency
    with regards to consultation. In the original EIS, the BLM determined
    that 27 communities along the proposed road corridor could be impacted
    by development of the AAP. However, in the SEIS, the BLM expanded that
    scope to 66 communities--including villages that are hundreds of miles
    away or on an island in the Chukchi Sea--that could impacted based on
    their subsistence practices.
      --Did the BLM visit each of those 66 communities and hold government-
            to-government consultation while drafting the SEIS?
      --[If not] Given that consultation was the reason for the voluntary
            remand, why didn't they visit each community?
      --Did the BLM visit each of those 66 communities and hold government-
            to- government consultation while drafting the SEIS?
        Answer. While the original EIS analyzed impacts to 27 primary study
    communities, the Supplemental EIS analyzes impacts on 66 study
    communities, including the original 27 primary subsistence study
    communities, caribou subsistence study communities, and fish
    subsistence study communities.
        These are shown in Appendix F, Table 23 of the Ambler Road
    Supplemental EIS and on Map 1. Primary subsistence study communities
    are those located within 50 miles of the project alternatives, or with
    subsistence use areas documented within 30 miles of the project
    alternatives. In addition to the primary subsistence study communities,
    the Supplemental EIS analyzes communities that may experience indirect
    and/or downstream impacts resulting from changes in caribou and fish
    abundance, distribution/migration, and health. For caribou, these are
    the 42 communities that are members of the Western Arctic Caribou Herd
    Working Group (WACH WG). For fish, these are the 32 communities that
    are located downstream from where the project crosses tributaries in
    the Kobuk, Selawik, Koyukuk, and Yukon River basins.
        The BLM did not visit or hold government to government consultation
    with every one of the 66 study communities. However, through the ANILCA
    810 evaluation process the BLM identified 31 communities that had
    substantial levels of utilization for caribou, fish, moose, vegetation,
    and other subsistence resources that would have been affected by the
    proposed Ambler Road. For these communities, the BLM considered the
    three factors of abundance, availability, and access when determining
    if a significant restriction of subsistence may result from the
    proposed action, alternatives, or the cumulative case. As required by
    ANILCA, after determining that 30 or more communities may experience
    significant restriction of their subsistence use, the BLM held 12
    hearings in the vicinity of these communities.
        Question. [If not] Given that consultation was the reason for the
    voluntary remand, why didn't they visit each community?
        Answer.While consultation was one of the deficiencies identified as
    the basis for voluntary remand, the only consultation deficiency
    identified was inadequate government-to-government consultation prior
    to executing the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
    Programmatic Agreement. In November 2022, 80 letters were sent to
    federally recognized Tribes, Tribal non-profits, and ANCs to reinitiate
    the Section 106 consultation process. Follow-up phone calls occurred
    every 2 weeks for 3 months to all entities, and follow-up emails were
    sent in December and January. As a result of this outreach the BLM held
    21 government to government consultation meetings, 19 that occurred in
    the communities, and two that were virtual.
        Question. As you know economic development in Alaska is a very
    challenging proposition and the Ambler Access Project not only would
    provide access to world class critical minerals needed for the green
    energy transition and defense technologies--like copper, cobalt, and
    germanium--but would provide extraordinarily high paying jobs and tax
    revenue in rural Alaska. We know that responsible resource development
    can positively impact Alaskans for generations. Take the North Slope,
    for example, where the life expectancy for Alaska Natives has grown
    more than any other region of the country thanks to the economic
    opportunity and jobs that have been provided by natural resource
    development and associated improvements to education, healthcare, and
    search and rescue.
        How does Interior view economic development in Alaska?
        Did the BLM consider the health benefits--like expanded access to
    telecom and telehealth--to Alaska's rural residents when the No Action
    Alternative was recommended?
        How about the decreased cost of household goods?
        What alternative economic development initiatives for the Upper
    Kobuk communities will you be pursing in light of this damaging
    recommendation?
        How does Interior view economic development in Alaska?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior views economic development
    in Alaska as part of the BLM's mission to sustain the health,
    diversity, and productivity of public lands for the use and enjoyment
    of future generations. BLM Alaska supports many uses of the public
    lands, such as recreation, nonenergy minerals mining and development,
    oil and gas development, timber/wood product sales, and rights-of-way.
    In Fiscal Year 2022, activities on public lands in Alaska supported
    $1.5 billion in economic output and almost 4,000 jobs (see BLM's
    ``Valuing America's Public Lands 2023'' available on the BLM.gov
    website.
        Question. Did the BLM consider the health benefits--like expanded
    access to telecom and telehealth--to Alaska's rural residents when the
    No Action Alternative was recommended?
        How about the decreased cost of household goods?
        Answer. Yes, and yes. BLM's analysis of the economic and health
    impacts of the proposed road can be found in Section 3.4.5
    (Socioeconomics and Communities) of Volume 1 of the Final EIS available
    on the BLM.gov website.
        Through public meetings, ANILCA 810 hearings, Talking Circles, and
    the public comment period, many commenters discussed the potential
    economic benefits of the road, which are captured in Appendix Q of the
    Supplemental EIS). Many people expressed hope that the road would bring
    jobs for local residents, while at the same time potentially lowering
    the cost of goods such as fuel or groceries and allow for costly items
    like new vehicles or construction materials to be brought to
    communities with a lower shipping charge. This hope was tempered by the
    observation that an influx of new workers in the region comes with an
    influx in substantial social, economic, and environmental harms. Other
    commenters expressed skepticism that the economic benefits touted by
    the project would be realized and the concern that local employment
    could lead to increased outmigration by those employed once they have a
    steady income. Importantly, commenters voiced concerns that economic
    benefits, even if realized, will not outweigh the likely impacts of
    mining and road development.
        On the health front, potential benefits would come from
    socioeconomic improvements in household income and employment during
    active road construction and operation. Increased economic benefits may
    decrease the number of food-insecure households but could also change
    the use of traditional foods. BLM also heard concerns about the impacts
    the proposed road could have on subsistence and public health,
    including stress, subsistence-food insecurity, and potential exposure
    to toxins from the road, which would disproportionately negatively
    affect low-income and minority populations, specifically Alaska Native
    villages in and near the project area that depend on the surrounding
    area for their subsistence lifestyle.
        Question. What alternative economic development initiatives for the
    Upper Kobuk communities will you be pursing in light of this damaging
    recommendation?
        Answer. The Department of the Interior will continue to support
    economic development opportunities for the Upper Kobuk Region and
    throughout Alaska through our various bureaus and offices as funding
    from Congress allows.
        Question. A programmatic agreement was signed to execute the work
    under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. This was
    intended to streamline and avoid duplicative work, but is instead being
    used to prevent any of the cultural work from moving forward.
        Interior is preventing AIDEA from doing work on private [State,
    NANA, and Doyon] lands--how is it ok for Interior to prevent a State
    agency from doing work on private lands? Do you expect that work
    prohibition to continue this summer?
        In the draft revision to the area of potential effect released
    earlier this year, the area that could potentially be impacted is
    growing from a 1-mile buffer on either side of the road to 10 miles.
    Why is there such a significant change? When do you expect the new
    programmatic agreement to be finalized?
        Interior is preventing AIDEA from doing work on private [State,
    NANA, and Doyon] lands--how is it ok for Interior to prevent a State
    agency from doing work on private lands? Do you expect that work
    prohibition to continue this summer?
        Answer. On July 11, 2024, the BLM sent a letter to Ambler Access
    Programmatic Agreement (PA) Signatories and Consulting Parties
    providing notice that the PA would be terminated in 30 days in light of
    the June 28, 2024, Record of Decision, which terminated the Federal
    undertaking.
        Question. In the draft revision to the area of potential effect
    released earlier this year, the area that could potentially be impacted
    is growing from a 1-mile buffer on either side of the road to 10 miles.
    Why is there such a significant change? When do you expect the new
    programmatic agreement to be finalized?
        Answer. The BLM reconsidered the project area of potential effects
    (APE) based on consulting party input, which included public and Tribal
    concerns. The proposed changes to the APE account for potential visual
    impacts to traditional cultural properties and other ethnographic
    resources not identified during the initial Section 106 review. The
    visual impact modeling takes into consideration a maximum 10 mile
    viewshed. The one-mile APE would remain for direct impacts to historic
    properties. AIDEA recently requested the BLM to suspend work on
    modifications to the PA, and thus it is unknown when those changes
    might be finalized. However, as noted above, the BLM has provided
    notice of termination for the PA.
        Question. Your Department has taken multiple actions that have a
    negative impact upon Inupiat people of the North Slope of Alaska. Has
    the Department conducted a full economic analysis of the cumulative
    impacts of those actions and the direct and indirect costs to the
    communities, Tribes and other Inupiat organizations? This includes
    working through the NEPA processes, consultations, and legal bills.
        Have you considered the cumulative negative impacts to providing
    basic infrastructure to communities of the North Slope Inupiat?
        How much taxpayer funding have you expended to deny economic
    stability, community infrastructure and limited access to subsistence
    resources for the North Slope Inupiat people?
        In the 1976 National Petroleum Reserve Production Act of 1976
    (NPRPA), did Congress intend for an oil and gas leasing program in the
    National Petroleum Reserve- Alaska (NPR-A)?
        When the NPRPA was passed was the land status for the Inupiat
    people of the Arctic Slope of Alaska and the State of Alaska settled
    and lands conveyed?
        Since you control the Bureau of Land Management, please provide the
    land status in the NPR-A at the time of passage of the NPRPA. In the
    report language for the NPRPA, did Congress recognize that the land
    pattern in the NPR-A was not settled and therefore, that the surface
    lands should be protected until the lands were conveyed to the
    appropriate indigenous people?
        Does it make sense that Congress would use language in the NPRPA
    for ``maximum surface protections'' until such time as the leasing
    program began and lands were conveyed?
        Did the Bureau of Land Management fail to conduct timely survey and
    conveyance of lands and stall the leasing program in the NPR-A,
    culminating in multiple laws to force the BLM to convey lands instead
    of creating de-facto wilderness? (i.e. 1981 Omnibus Appropriations Act,
    ANILCA, ALTAA, Tax Act of 2017)?
        Did Congress exempt the NPR-A from sections 203 and 602 of the
    Federal Land Management Policy Act (FLMPA)? Please explain how the
    Integrated Activity Plan process is different from sections 203 and 602
    of FLPMA as well as the process being used in the NPR-A rule.
        Given that there was an oil embargo when the NPRPA was passed and
    Congress was attempting to provide for national security, do you
    believe that Congress exempted FLPMA in the NPR-A to efficiently begin
    an oil exploration program anticipating as much production as soon as
    possible or to turn the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska into a de-
    facto wilderness area?
        Is the Department of the Interior (DOI) using a few words in report
    language to completely change the intent of Congress for the NPR-A?
        Please describe the view of the Department regarding Congressional
    Intent for the NPR- A in the 1981 Omnibus Appropriations Act.
        Will all of the above considerations, how does the Department
    expect for the NPR-A rule to hold up to a legal challenge? Is the rule
    legally sufficient and do you have the legal opinion that supports it?
        Has the Department considered the totality of all the rule-makings,
    Environmental Impact Statements, Integrated Activity Plans, Biological
    Integrity and Environmental Health policies, wildlife connectivity
    corridors, on the Inupiat people of the Arctic Slope?
        Answer. Yes, the BLM conducted economic analyses for the proposed
    rule and the final rule. The analyses examined the incremental effect
    that the rule would have relative to the current management framework.
        The Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 (NPRPA), as
    amended, gives the Secretary three overarching mandates for managing
    the Reserve: (1) conduct an expeditious oil and gas exploration,
    leasing, and production program; (2) mitigate reasonably foreseeable
    and significantly adverse effects from those activities to the surface
    resources of the NPR-A; and (3) assure maximum protection for
    significant subsistence, recreational, fish and wildlife, historical,
    or scenic values in identified special areas of the NPR-A, to the
    extent consistent with the requirements for oil and gas exploration and
    development in the Reserve. Our team ensured the rulemaking process was
    robust, legal, and defensible.
        In 1976, when the NPRPA was passed, the processes established in
    the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) and the Alaska
    Statehood Act for settling land status for the Inupiat people of the
    Arctic Slope of Alaska was well underway. Under ANCSA Section 12(a)(1),
    Village Corporations for each Native Village were required to identify
    their initial land selections by December 18, 1974. Similarly, under
    the Statehood Act, the State of Alaska was in the process of selecting
    its entitlement lands. Additionally, the BLM had begun to convey lands
    to the Alaska Native Village and Regional Corporations.
        Additionally, in the mid-1970s the ANCSA corporations were amending
    their selection applications and BLM was adjudicating the selection
    applications, identifying 17(b) easements to be reserved, and issuing
    decisions approving approximately 264,000 acres for conveyance.
        Within 9 months after the NPRPA was enacted, the BLM had conveyed
    approximately 3,224,000 acres. Details below:

      --11 June 1974--BIA issued final decision declaring Atqasuk to be
            eligible for land and benefits under ANCSA.

      --11 June 1974--BIA issued final decision declaring Nuiqsut to be
            eligible for land and benefits under ANCSA.

      --25 March 1975--Patent 50-75-0153 issued to Barrow/Utqiagvik for
            2.80 acres.

      --18 March 1976--Decision issued approving approximately 154,000
            acres for conveyance to Barrow/Utqiagvik.

      --18 March 1976--Decision issued approving approximately 110,000
            acres for conveyance to Wainwright.

      --25 March 1976--Wainwright decision modified to delete approximately
            5,000 acres.

      --05 April 1976--NPRPA enacted.

      --26 April 1976--Wainwright decision appealed.

      --12 May 1976--Wainwright appeal dismissed.

      --20 May 1976--Interim Conveyance No. 042 issued for approximately
            105,000 acres to Wainwright.

      --27 August 1976--Decision issued approving approximately 1.5 million
            acres for conveyance to the Arctic Slope Regional Commission
            (ASRC).

      --17 September 1976--Decision approving approximately 1.4 million
            acres for conveyance to ASRC.

      --16 November 1976--Decision issued approving approximately 66,000
            acres for conveyance to Atqasuk.

      --19 November 1976--Interim Conveyance No. 045 issued for
            approximately 153,000 acres to Barrow/Utqiagvik.

      --29 November 1976--Interim Conveyance Nos. 47 and 48 issued for a
            combined total of 12.9 million acres to ASRC.

      --10 January 1977--Interim Conveyance No. 49 issued for approximately
            66,000 acres to Atqasuk.

        The BLM is required by law to fulfill an approximately 105-million-
    acre entitlement to the State of Alaska and an approximately 45-
    million-acre entitlement to ANCSA corporations across the entire State
    of Alaska and is unaware of any intent within NPRPA to only provide for
    maximum surface protections of special areas until all entitlements
    have been fulfilled.
        As you can see from the above timeline, the BLM conducted the
    timely survey and conveyances to the Native Corporations within NPR-A
    under the legal constraints and processes created by ANCSA. The BLM has
    never intentionally held up the conveyance of those lands to prevent
    leasing or other activities within NPR-A.
        Question. The House Natural Resources Committee asked you Questions
    for the Record during a hearing in November 2023. You responded to the
    QFRs in February 2024 without providing specific details of your
    engagement with Tribes and communities. You simply stated that: ``the
    BLM presented project summaries- including renewing the invitation for
    Tribal consultation-twice to the NPR-A Working Group.
        Is the NPR-A Working Group a Tribe or an ANC?
        Answer. The NPR-A Working Group is neither a federally recognized
    Tribe nor an ANC. The NPR-A Working Group is an advisory body to the
    BLM established pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5
    U.S.C. Appendix 1), the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976
    (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), as amended, and Section 2 of the
    Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1950 (5 U.S.C. Appendix, as amended; 64
    Stat. 1262). The Working Group consists of representatives from North
    Slope local governments, Native corporations, and Tribal entities. The
    NPR-A Working Group provides a forum for North Slope communities to
    provide meaningful, regular input to on-going management decisions,
    proposed activities, and developments in the NPR-A. In response to
    comments and in consultation with local governments, Native
    corporations, and Tribal entities, the group was established by the
    February 2013 NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact
    Statement (IAP/EIS) Record of Decision.
        Question. Why would you use the NPR-A Working Group, as government
    to government engagement with Tribes and ANCs?
        Answer. We never characterized interactions with the NPR-A Working
    Group as meeting the requirements of government-to-government Tribal
    consultation or ANC consultation. We have used interactions with the
    group as an example of one of the many different ways we reach out to
    Tribes and ANCs for their input.
        Question. Are you attempting to cover your lack of engagement with
    the Inupiat Tribes and ANCs?
        To the contrary, there has been an abundance of engagement by the
    BLM and the Department with North Slope communities throughout this
    process. The Department is committed to strengthening relationships
    with Tribes and honoring our trust responsibilities. My team engaged
    extensively with Alaska North Slope communities prior to issuing the
    final NPR-A Rule. The following list of engagements was provided in
    that same February 2024 QFR response that you reference in your
    question--with the addition of two Working Group meetings, where we
    continued to invite Tribes and ANCs to consult.
        Before publishing the proposed NPR-A Rule, on August 25, 2023, the
    BLM invited 45 Tribes and 30 Alaska Native Corporations to engage in
    consultation via mail. Since the announcement of the proposed rule, we
    have continued to offer consultation via phone, email, and in-person
    invitations to the following: Native Village of Atqasuk; Atqasuk
    Corporation; Village of Wainwright; Olgoonik Corporation; Native
    Village of Nuiqsut; Kuukpik Corporation; Native Village of Barrow;
    Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation; Arctic Slope Regional Corporation
    (ASRC); and Inupiat Community of the Arctic Slope (ICAS).
        The BLM held the following consultation meetings on the NPR-A Rule:

      --November 1, 2023, in Nuiqsut: Native Village of Nuiqsut

      --November 3, 2023, in Utqiagvik: ICAS

      --November 21, 2023 (virtually via videoconference): Village of
            Wainwright

      --December 19, 2023, in Anchorage: Olgoonik Corporation

      --December 21, 2023, in Anchorage: ASRC

      --February 6, 2024, (virtually via videoconference) ICAS

        The BLM held the following public meetings on the NPR-A Rule:

      --October 6, 2023--Public Information Session (virtually via
            videoconference)

      --October 10, 2023--Public Information Session in Anchorage, Alaska

      --November 1, 2023--Public Comment Meeting in Nuiqsut (originally
            scheduled for October 13, rescheduled due to weather)

      --November 2, 2023--Public Comment Meeting in Utqiagvik

      --Monday, November 6, 2023--Public Information Session (virtually via
            videoconference)

      --December 4, 2023--Public Comment Meeting in Wainwright (originally
            scheduled for November 3, rescheduled due to a death in the
            community)

        In addition, BLM staff met with the NPR-A Working Group, consisting
    of representatives from North Slope local governments and Alaska Native
    Corporations and Tribes (intended to provide a forum for North Slope
    communities to provide input to management of the Reserve), to discuss
    the NPR-A Rule on the following dates:

      --September 26, 2023

      --October 17, 2023

      --December 1, 2023

      --February 13, 2024

      --March 14, 2024

      --April 9, 2024

        Finally, BLM and Department staff met with ICAS, the North Slope
    Borough (NSB), Voice of the Arctic Inupiat, and ASRC on September 21,
    2023 in Washington D.C. Acting Deputy Secretary Laura Daniel-Davis and
    BLM leadership met with representatives from ICAS, NSB, Voice of the
    Arctic Inupiat, ASRC, Olgoonik Corporation and Anaktuvuk Pass, and
    their lobbying representation in Washington D.C. on November 8, 2023,
    where they were joined by Representative Peltola.
        Question. You also stated: ``More recently, on August 25, 2023, the
    BLM invited 45 Tribes and 30 ANCs to engage in Tribal consultation
    regarding the proposed NPR-A rule''.
        You purport that a letter was mailed through the United States
    Postal Service on Friday August 25, 2023 to the Tribes and ANCs. The
    proposed rule was published on Wednesday, September 6, 2023. A total of
    8 working days.
        Your own Secretarial Order which was placed in Departmental Manual
    Part 512 Chapter 4 States: ``4.4 Policy. It is the policy of the
    Department to recognize and fulfill its legal obligations to identify,
    protect, and conserve Tribal trust resources; carry out its trust
    relationship with Federally recognized Tribes and Tribal members; and
    invite Tribes to consult on a government-to-government basis whenever
    there is a Departmental Action with Tribal Implications. All Bureaus
    and Offices shall make good-faith efforts to invite Tribes to consult
    early in the planning process and throughout the decision-making
    process and engage in robust, interactive, predecisional, informative,
    and transparent consultation when planning actions with Tribal
    implications. It is the policy of the Department to seek consensus with
    impacted Tribes in accordance with the Consensus- Seeking Model.
        Please share with us whether you believe that 8 working days is
    sufficient engagement with Tribes and ANCs in accordance with Executive
    Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal
    Governments) and Departmental Manual 512 Chapter 4 which you signed on
    November 30, 2022.
        Answer. As noted in the responses to a-c, we have engaged with
    Tribes and ANCs within the NPR-A consistently and continuously since
    the August 25, 2023, letter--and we continue that engagement today. We
    have not declined any requests for consultation from a federally
    recognized Tribe or ANC. Further, while it is the Department's policy
    to engage in robust consultation with Alaska Native Tribes and ANCs and
    to seek consensus, it is not always possible to achieve consensus given
    the often-differing viewpoints involved.
        Question. You have stated under oath that the economic impact of
    the NPR-A is less than $100 million and therefore ``not significant''
    nor will it affect current leases.
        With the expansion areas of ``Surface Occupancy'' for
    infrastructure, please explain how it is possible current leases will
    not be affected.
        Answer.The NPR-A Rule does not change any management provisions in
    the April 2022 NPR-A Integrated Activity Plan (IAP), which provides the
    current management direction for the Reserve, including for management
    of infrastructure. The rule recognizes valid existing rights and will
    be implemented in a manner that is consistent with the terms of current
    oil and gas leases in the NPR-A. Areas closed to leasing and new
    infrastructure under the current IAP remain closed, and conversely,
    areas open to leasing and new infrastructure under the current IAP
    remain open.
        Question. You included Mitigation Measure #27 in the Willow
    Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Willow SDEIS). The NPR-A
    rule will negate that mitigation impacting existing leases and
    projects. Did you consider this in the economic analysis?
        Answer. Mitigation Measure #27 would preclude new oil and gas
    leasing and development in an area comprising Teshekpuk Lake and a band
    of land surrounding it, in a manner consistent with land use
    designations in the current IAP. The NPR-A Rule does not affect
    implementation of Measure #27.
        Question. Did the economic analysis include the Inupiat people and
    their communities in the Arctic Slope of Alaska?
        Answer. The BLM conducted an economic analysis for the proposed
    rule and made it available for public review and comment, along with
    the proposed rule. We received approximately 69 comments associated
    with the economic analysis--and addressed any issues raised in the
    preamble of the final rule. The economic analysis explains that the
    welfare effects of the rule include the increased protection of the
    ecological, subsistence, cultural, and other significant resource
    values. Additionally, the final rule establishes a framework that will
    protect and enhance access for subsistence activities throughout the
    Reserve.
        Question. On March 5, 12, 27, 28, and April 3, 2024, the Office of
    Regulatory Affairs heard from Tribes and Alaska Native Claims
    Settlement Act Corporations and Communities about the economic, social
    and cultural impacts to Inupiat people. In spite of that, you finalized
    the NPR-A rule, why didn't OIRA or the Department listen to their
    concerns?
        Answer. My team listened to their concerns--as well as feedback
    from the other organizations and industry who met with OIRA, from the
    consultation and public meetings listed in the response above, as well
    as from the more than 100,000 written comments we received during the
    robust 90-day public comment period.
        To reiterate, the NPR-A Rule does not change any management
    provisions in the April 2022 IAP. Areas closed to leasing and new
    infrastructure under the 2022 IAP Record of Decision remain closed, and
    conversely, areas open to leasing and new infrastructure under the
    current IAP remain open. The rule recognizes valid existing rights and
    will be implemented in a manner consistent with the terms of current
    oil and gas leases in the NPR-A. Under the rule, oil and gas leasing
    and development can still proceed, consistent with the 2022 IAP Record
    of Decision.
        Question. You have touted the NPR-A rule as a win for the 30X30
    initiative, in the America the Beautiful Report, a counter action to
    the approval of the Willow Master Development Plan, and a win for the
    environment. You stated under oath that the Department granted itself a
    categorical exclusion for the NPR-A rule under 43 CFR 46.210(i). The
    CFR reads as follows: on referrals of legislative proposals. (i)
    Policies, directives, regulations, and guidelines: that are of an
    administrative, financial, legal, technical, or procedural nature; or
    whose environmental effects are too broad, speculative, or conjectural
    to lend themselves to meaningful analysis and will later be subject to
    the NEPA process, either collectively or case-by-case.
        By giving yourself a categorical exclusion to the NEPA process for
    the NPR-A rule, but touting it as a major win for the environment, how
    can you cite the CFR stating that the rule is speculative, conjectural
    and too broad to lend itself to meaningful analysis?
        Answer. An action can have potentially beneficial environmental
    effects and still be categorically excluded. The Department often
    relies on the categorical exclusion listed at 43 CFR 46.210(i) for NEPA
    compliance when promulgating regulations that set forth procedures for
    taking action rather than regulations that approve specific management
    actions. The final NPR-A Rule is not self-executing, in that it does
    not result in immediate changes to management of any public lands, does
    not itself authorize any on-the-ground actions, and does not restrict
    the BLM's discretion to undertake or authorize future on-the-ground
    actions. The rule only modifies the standards and procedures for
    managing and protecting surface resources and Special Areas in the NPR-
    A. It does not implement any management activities or alter any
    existing Special Areas within the NPR-A.
        The current IAP is the instrument that allocates land uses in the
    Reserve and includes oil and gas lease stipulations and infrastructure
    restrictions that apply to BLM authorizations in Special Areas and
    other areas throughout the Reserve. The rule codifies those current
    allocations, requires the BLM to maintain an IAP on an ongoing basis,
    and outlines a process for establishing, managing, and protecting the
    NPR-A's Special Areas. Any future change in management or authorization
    of on-the-ground activities would be subject to a separate decision-
    making process.
        Further, the rule would not directly result in any environmental
    effects. Any environmental impacts from this rulemaking would depend on
    BLM decisions implementing the rule, which would be fact-specific,
    making them too speculative or conjectural to lend themselves to
    meaningful analysis at the time the rule was issued. NEPA and other
    applicable environmental laws will apply on a case-by-case basis to
    those future Integrated Activity Plan level decisions and individual
    project-level decisions made pursuant to the processes established by
    the rule. As such, the rule is administrative and procedural in nature
    within the meaning of the Department's categorical exclusion, and no
    extraordinary circumstances are present that would prevent reliance on
    that categorical exclusion.
        Question. How does BLM have authority to manage or regulate lands
    in the NPR-A under the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA)?
    Where in the law is Interior--or BLM--authorized to manage NPR-A under
    FLPMA?
        Answer. FLPMA applies to all lands managed by the BLM unless
    otherwise provided by law. (see 43 U.S.C. 1702(e); 43 U.S.C. 1732). The
    1980 amendment [Sec. 6506a(c)] to the NPRPA States only that FLPMA
    sections 202 and 603 (43 U.S.C sections 1712 and 1782) shall not be
    applicable to the Reserve, meaning that the NPR-A is exempt from the
    land use planning and wilderness study provisions in FLPMA. The
    remainder of FLPMA applies to the BLM's management of NPR-A. See, for
    example, Pub. L. 98-366, Sec. 4(a), July 17, 1984, 98 Stat. 470--which
    specifically directs the BLM to manage rights-of-way within the NPR-A
    under Title V of FLPMA.
        Question. When is BLM going to hold the next lease sale in the NPR-
    A? Will BLM offer lease blocks in Special Areas?
        Answer. There are no lease sales currently planned for the NPR-A.
    For future lease sales the BLM could offer lease tracts in those
    portions of Special Areas that are available for leasing under the
    then-applicable IAP. The BLM would determine which tracts to offer in
    future lease sales based on tract nominations from industry and public
    comments submitted during the call for nominations and comment process
    for specific sales.
        Question. The new NPR-A rule adds new processes and decisions that
    BLM must undertake and make when permitting activity in the NPR-A. Did
    BLM perform any analysis of the added time and cost for permitting
    activities in the NPR-A as a consequence of the new rule?
        Answer. Yes, as detailed in the economic analysis for the final
    NPR-A Rule, while the rule alters the procedural steps needed to change
    management of oil and gas activity within Special Areas in the future,
    it does not substantially affect the permitting requirements, including
    a public process, consultation, and appropriate NEPA analysis.
        Question. If an existing leaseholder proposes a new development in
    a Special Area, does the new rule's presumption against new
    infrastructure in Special Areas apply?
        Answer. The presumption will apply. However, the rule recognizes
    valid existing rights and will be implemented in a manner that is
    consistent with the terms of current oil and gas leases in the NPR-A.
    The current IAP allocates land uses in the Reserve and includes oil and
    gas lease stipulations and infrastructure restrictions that apply to
    BLM authorizations in Special Areas and other areas throughout the
    Reserve. The rule only codified these allocations, and it did not
    change the management allocations outlined in the current IAP or change
    them going forward.
        Similarly, the rule did not modify the terms of existing leases.
    The application of the presumption must be consistent with the terms of
    an existing lease.
        Question. Does BLM believe there will be no socio-economic
    consequences to Alaska Native communities as a result of this new rule?
        Answer. As described in the economic analysis for the final NPR-A
    Rule, this rule incorporates aspects of the 2022 IAP, which is the
    current management framework for the NPR- A and forms the baseline for
    the economic analysis. Compared to the baseline, there is either no, or
    minimal, change in oil and gas management or projected socio-economic
    impacts as a result of the rule. The rule will not alter the terms of
    existing leases and will have no effect on currently authorized oil and
    gas operations in the NPR-A, or future operations authorized consistent
    with the terms of valid existing leases. The rule establishes a
    framework for future decision-making processes that would result in
    management changes, such as requiring the BLM to maintain an IAP, which
    guides on-the-ground management and which could be updated in the
    future through a NEPA process, and establishing the process by which
    Special Areas would be designated, de- designated, or modified in the
    future. These future decision-making processes will require a public
    process, consultation, and appropriate NEPA analysis at that time.
        Question. The new rule purports to give BLM new authority to deny
    or delay activities when there is ``uncertainty'' about the effects?
    Please define and clarify the types of ``uncertainty'' that could cause
    BLM to delay or deny an action under the new rule? Does
    ``uncertainty,'' as used in the new rule, include uncertainty about
    potential climate change impacts
        Answer. Considering uncertainty is a standard practice for any
    Federal agency that completes NEPA analysis. Agencies are required to
    use high quality information and science and data when conducting their
    analysis. To the extent there are uncertainties, current regulations in
    40 CFR 1502.21(a) address incomplete or unavailable information and
    state, ``When an agency is evaluating reasonably foreseeable
    significant adverse effects on the human environment in an
    environmental impact statement, and there is incomplete or unavailable
    information, the agency shall make clear that such information is
    lacking.'' The text in the regulation builds on the language in the
    NEPA regulations to require more specific discussion of how the BLM is
    taking uncertainties into account in making decisions, which is within
    the BLM's authority and beneficial in light of the rapidly changing
    conditions in the Arctic.
        Question. Under what statutory authority does BLM believe it can
    require compensatory mitigation for permitted activities in the NPR-A?
        Answer. The BLM Mitigation Policy establishes consistent principles
    and procedures for considering and implementing mitigation early in its
    decision-making processes to address reasonably foreseeable impacts to
    resources and their values, services and/or functions. The BLM takes a
    landscape-scale approach to mitigation, utilizing best management
    practices, ensuring that mitigation measures are durable, monitoring
    mitigation measures for compliance and effectiveness, and adaptively
    managing mitigation measures. Principal authorities that relate to or
    authorize mitigation by the BLM include: the Federal Land Policy and
    Management Act (FLPMA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
    and the Endangered Species Act, among others. For activities in the
    NPR-A, the NPRPA, as amended, provides additional authority to require
    mitigation, both within and outside Special Areas. Depending on the
    type of permitted activity within the NPR-A and potential impacts,
    FLPMA, the NPRPA, and ESA may potentially authorize compensatory
    mitigation.
        Question. Under the rule, could BLM require compensatory mitigation
    for the estimated GHG-emissions associated with a new activity? Could
    mitigation or restoration leases be required as forms of compensatory
    mitigation for projects within the NPR-A. If so, would those mitigation
    or restoration leases required to also be within the NPR-A?
        Answer. Compensatory mitigation for residual impacts is warranted
    when required to (1) comply with law, regulation, and policy, (2)
    achieve objectives in a resource management plan--or for the NPR-A in
    an IAP, or (3) conserve important, scarce, or sensitive resources. The
    BLM generally considers compensatory mitigation measures only after
    considering and seeking to address impacts through avoidance and
    minimization measures.
        Under the rule and applicable policy, the BLM will identify the
    impacts to which mitigation measures relate and explain how the
    measures avoid, minimize, or compensate for these impacts.
        Neither this rule nor the Public Lands Rule contemplate the BLM
    requiring use of mitigation or restoration leases.
        Question. Please provide this committee with a list of meetings in
    which staff from either the Office of the Secretary, the Office of the
    Deputy Secretary, the office of the Assistant Secretary for Land and
    Minerals Management, or the Office of the Bureau of Land Management met
    with groups not affiliated with the Department of the Interior, or the
    Federal Government, excluding federally recognized Tribes or Alaska
    Native Corporations, in which this rule was discussed.
        Answer. The BLM held an extensive 90-day comment period on the
    proposed NPR-A Rule which included 6 public meetings and generated
    100,000 public comments from citizens, non- governmental organizations,
    advocacy groups, government including States and local governments,
    industry, recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations. The
    Department did respond to public comments received on the proposed rule
    (88 FR 62025) and those comment responses can be found in the published
    final rule (89 FR 38712). The Department did not track or compile a
    list of meetings in which the rule was or may have been discussed and
    would have difficulty supplying such information.
        Question. President Biden stated that the new NPR-A rule was issued
    ``to honor the culture, history, and enduring wisdom of Alaska Natives
    who have lived on and stewarded these lands since time immemorial.''
    How do you reconcile that statement with the fact that almost all
    Tribal governments, villages, and other entities representing Alaska
    Natives on Alaska's North Slope vigorously opposed the rule?
        Answer. We are listening to all voices across the North Slope. For
    these projects, we have met with Tribes, ANCs, and local governments as
    well as with members of these communities. There are multiple
    perspectives and multiple voices in the region. Our directive under the
    NPRPA is to manage the NPR-A in a manner that will balance exploration
    for and development of oil and gas resources with protecting
    subsistence, recreational, fish and wildlife, historical, scenic, and
    other values that are important to subsistence users and Native
    communities in the Arctic. That is what we are doing.
        Question. Did BLM perform any analysis of how reduced leasing and
    development caused by the new NPR-A rule will affect the critical tax
    bases of the communities on Alaska's North Slope?
        Answer. As described in the economic analysis, the final NPR-A Rule
    incorporates aspects of the 2022 IAP, which is the current management
    framework for the NPR-A and forms the baseline for the economic
    analysis. Compared to the baseline, the economic analysis demonstrates
    that there is either no, or minimal, change in oil and gas management
    or projected tax bases as a result of the rule. The rule will not alter
    the terms of existing leases and will have no effect on currently
    authorized oil and gas operations in the NPR-A. The rule establishes a
    framework for future decision-making processes that would result in
    management changes, such as requiring the BLM to maintain an IAP, which
    guides on-the-ground management and which could be updated in the
    future through a NEPA process, and establishing the process by which
    Special Areas would be designated, de-designated, or modified in the
    future. These future decision- making processes will require a public
    process, consultation, and appropriate NEPA analysis at that time.
        Question. BLM recently announced its final Conservation and
    Landscape Health rule. This rule is remarkably similar to the BLM 2.0
    regulation I helped nullify in 2017: it upends decades of BLM precedent
    by administratively elevating conservation and mitigation into the
    definitions of multiple use under FLPMA. While I find this rule
    misguided for multiple reasons, I'm also concerned that BLM did not
    adequately understand the budgetary impacts that this rule will require
    on Departmental offices, in particular from the Appraisal and Valuation
    Services Office, and that it will cause all land management conveyances
    across land management agencies to slow to a crawl.
        The rule States that ``informed planning, permitting, and program
    decisions rest on the agency's ability to assess land health conditions
    and consider those conditions when making decisions.'' To gather
    landscape health assessments, the rule requires BLM to conduct
    watershed condition assessments and land health evaluations at least
    every 10 years.
        Question. Do you have any idea of the cost or the amount of time it
    would take BLM to conduct a landscape health assessment for all BLM
    lands in Alaska?
        Answer. The BLM envisions that watershed condition assessments will
    be completed using existing assessment, inventory, and monitoring (AIM)
    and remotely sensed data. This assessment would be supplemented with
    locally relevant data by field offices in Alaska to conduct land health
    evaluations on BLM managed lands. Implementing these requirements of
    the Public Lands Rule will occur over the course of several years, and
    the BLM anticipates that it can be done with existing resources.
        Question. Does BLM have this data on record, or would they be
    starting from scratch in Alaska?
        Answer. Much of this data already exists, and the BLM would not be
    starting from scratch in Alaska.
        Question. If this information is not available and BLM is unable to
    incorporate watershed condition assessments or land health evaluations
    in their decision making, is a BLM resource office compelled to get
    that information before they are able to make a decision on a project?
        Answer.43 CFR 6103.1.2(c) provides that the BLM must consider
    available watershed condition assessments and land health evaluations
    when it makes land management and use decisions; there is no
    requirement to complete additional assessments or evaluations prior to
    making a land use decision.
        Question. How is the value of a restoration lease calculated?
        Answer.43 CFR 6102.4(j) provides that rent for restoration and
    mitigation leases will be calculated in the same manner as for land use
    authorizations issued under 43 CFR part 2920. That provision also
    provides that restoration leases are eligible for a rent or fee waiver
    if they are not used to generate revenue or satisfy the requirements of
    a mitigation program and the restoration lease will enhance ecological
    or cultural resources or provide a benefit to the public.
        Question. According to a congressional staff briefing, the
    Department will rely on the AVSO office to determine the value of a
    restoration or mitigation lease. Do you have any idea of the current
    backlog of the AVSO?
        Answer. The BLM does not anticipate needing to consult AVSO on a
    regular basis to determine fair market value of a restoration or
    mitigation lease, and so has not evaluated a potential backlog.
        Question. Does your FY2025 budget request incorporate additional
    funding for the AVSO in anticipation of its increased expected
    workloads as a result of this rule?
        Answer. No, the BLM does not anticipate a significant increase in
    workload for AVSO as a result of this rule.
        Question. Can you commit to me that BLM will not delay a single
    decision in Alaska due to a lack of information regarding watershed
    condition assessments or land health evaluations or funding for the
    offices responsible for carrying out this burdensome rule?
        Answer. The BLM does not expect that implementation of the rule
    will be unduly burdensome or result in delays of decisions. The BLM has
    prioritized its data collection efforts in ways that ensure decisions
    are made in a timely manner and based on the best available science and
    information. The Public Lands Rule is consistent with and improves upon
    this approach, supporting the BLM's continued development of tools,
    like watershed condition assessments, that support informed management
    decisions.
        Question. Public Law 108-452; the Alaska Land Transfer Acceleration
    Act required the Secretary of the Interior to provide congress a report
    to reviewing the remaining withdrawals pursuant to section 17(d)(1) of
    ANCSA and determine if their withdrawal is still needed to protect the
    public interest in those lands. This report was provided in 2006 and
    refreshed again in 2019. The report notes that was prepared with public
    notice and its recommendations are to be ``consistent with the
    protection of the public interest in these lands,'' and concludes that
    ``there are a total of 158,958,000 acres of d-1 withdrawals in Alaska.
    Approximately 152,181,400 acres or 95% of these withdrawals could be
    lifted consistent with the protection of the public's interest.''
        Why after more than a decade's worth of work from the Alaska BLM
    team going back to 2013, when this process kicked off, did the Bureau
    of Land Management publish a final SEIS that did not recommend lifting
    any of the public land orders?
        Answer. After careful consideration, final SEIS recommends a
    partial revocation of the ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals within the Central
    Yukon Planning Area for the limited purpose of allowing Alaska Native
    Vietnam-era veterans to select allotments under Section 1119 of the
    Dingell Act, but to otherwise stay withdrawn. The Proposed RMP/FEIS
    determined that it is in the public interest to continue the protection
    afforded by the ANCSA 17(d)(1) withdrawals for the majority of the
    lands in the planning area, particularly with regards to ensuring
    subsistence access and maintenance of subsistence resources.
        Question. What is necessary in your view to lift the remaining
    17(d)(1) withdrawals and why was it not done in the Central Yukon RMP?
        Answer. Per the previous answer, revoking the 17(d)(1) withdrawals
    has the potential for significant social, economic, and environmental
    impacts--including impacts to Federal subsistence users who would lose
    their Federal subsistence priority if State top-filings become
    effective State selections.
        Question. Year after year, we hear testimony about strained budgets
    and how that impacts the agency's ability to undertake certain work. In
    2020 the cost of the Draft SEIS was estimated to be $5.1 million. So,
    on top of that investment, an additional three and a half years of work
    under this administration produced a product that still failed to meet
    the basic intent of a 20 year-old law.
        Answer. The Central Yukon Proposed RMP and Final EIS, released on
    April 19, 2024, reflects public input and discussion and input from
    Tribes, cooperating agencies, and stakeholders collected over more than
    a decade, and balances development, recreational access, and resource
    protection, with an emphasis on landscape connectivity and protection
    of subsistence resources. After being informed by additional input
    received during the 30- day protest period and 60-day Governor's
    consistency review, the BLM anticipates issuing a Record of Decision
    later this year that fully complies with all applicable laws.
        Question. I have heard that BLM intends to restart this process as
    soon as it's finished because this past summer progress has been made
    with the state of Alaska on the PLO 5150. Is this correct?
        Answer. Over the last year, the BLM and DNR have been engaged in
    regular conversations about the State's request to partially revoke PLO
    5150 and the public process BLM would use to consider the DNR's
    request. BLM appreciates the collaborative spirit that DNR has brought
    to those discussions and the commitment they have shown to negotiating
    a solution that works for all stakeholders.
        The BLM is taking the time we need to thoughtfully develop the
    5150-project proposal. The effort's success depends upon taking the
    time needed to engage Tribes, subsistence users and stakeholders in
    that work. It will also require deep engagement of the Bureau and the
    Department.
        Question. Please provide an accounting of the total cost to produce
    the Central Yukon RMP and an estimate for the future work associated
    with restarting the process, if applicable.
        Answer. The total cost of the Central Yukon RMP EIS process to date
    is $6.7 million dollars, with an estimated cost of $87,000 to publish
    the Record of Decision. Any additional effort aimed at analyzing a
    recommendation to revoke or partially revoke a withdrawal would involve
    a separate NEPA process tiered to a Final RMP/EIS. The BLM does not yet
    have a cost estimate for this additional process, but that will be
    evaluated along with considerations of schedules and workload
    priorities, among other variables.
        Question. The additional ACECs in this plan are extremely
    problematic in the way that they are purposely intended to block off
    huge swaths of land that will create additional land management
    challenges, issues for subsistence access, and make regional economic
    development plans challenging and more expensive. How did your
    department coordinate with the State and regional entities to ensure
    that this proposed RMP does not interfere with state or regional
    infrastructure development projects, most notably broadband?
        Answer. Areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) are public
    lands where special management is needed to protect important resources
    and unique scenic landscapes, or to protect people and property from
    hazards. The designation is unique to FLPMA and allows the BLM to
    conserve important and relevant resource values through tailored, site-
    specific management. The purpose of the ACECs in the Central Yukon
    Proposed RMP is to provide management prescriptions for lands and
    resources that are critical to the existence or health of various
    natural and cultural resources. There are very limited circumstances in
    which designation of an ACEC would prevent subsistence use and none
    exist in the Central Yukon planning area. In fact, most of the ACECs in
    the proposed RMP are associated with preserving critical subsistence
    resource habitat. In some cases, ACECs contain ROW or mineral
    development avoidance or exclusion zones that would need to be
    accounted for while analyzing future land use applications, but the
    Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act section 1323(b)
    guarantees reasonable access to non-federally owned land surrounded by
    public lands. As most implementation-level decisions are discretionary,
    the BLM works with applicants to identify locations and means of access
    that accommodate the applicants' needs while protecting ACEC values.
        Question. According to DOI's website, ``the DOI International
    Technical Assistance Program works with partners around the world to
    build technical capacity on energy and minerals governance"-and,
    through the Mineral Security Partnership, among other activities, it is
    no secret that this administration is pushing other nations to produce
    minerals for the U.S. to import.
        Answer. Since 2010, the U.S. Department of State's (DOS) Bureau of
    Energy Resources (ENR) has paid the Department of the Interior's
    International Technical Assistance Program (DOI-ITAP) to provide
    procurement services and technical expertise to counterparts in foreign
    governments on issues particular to DOI's areas of expertise, including
    oversight of mineral resource extraction.
        Under these contracted work agreements, State identifies countries
    that currently extract or plan to extract mineral resources to receive
    DOI technical assistance. Projects aim to help develop governmental
    capacity to effectively regulate and manage the extractive activity. In
    some cases, a DOI contractor provided economic or geologic analyses to
    inform resource development decision-making and support the
    implementation of sound, effective regulations. Such support ensures
    that recipient countries will develop rules that encourage
    participation by responsible operators, thus levelling the playing
    field for mineral-producing countries.
        Question. Please list all foreign governments DOI is currently
    engaged with, or has previously engaged with during this
    administration, on mining or mineral development-including engagement
    on best practices and methods to attract investment in those nations'
    resource sectors.
        Answer. At the direction of State, DOI's ITAP has engaged with
    Argentina, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Fiji, Greenland,
    Indonesia, Mongolia, Philippines, Vietnam, Zambia. DOI employees
    participate(d) in projects with Argentina, Greenland, and Indonesia.
        Question. Please list all minerals that DOI has sought to help
    develop, or provided guidance on, in foreign nations during this
    administration.
        Answer. At the direction of State, DOI provided guidance regarding
    lithium and contracted with commercial vendors to address topics
    related to nickel, rare earth elements, and copper.
        Question. Please describe how DOI has worked with Indonesia on to
    help develop foreign supplies of nickel that could be imported into the
    United States. Please provide specific topics and areas of engagement.
        Answer. At the direction of State, the ITAP procured technical
    consulting services in 2021 to advise Indonesia's Ministry of Energy
    and Mineral Resources (MEMR) on topics related to mineral exploration,
    extraction, tailings disposal, mine closure, and land reclamation. A
    contractor provided this expertise, and the project concluded in
    September 2023. The information was included in a contractor-drafted
    report detailing best practices for mining oversight from various
    jurisdictions around the world.
        Question. Why is DOI proactively encouraging the growth and
    development of other countries' mining sectors instead of addressing
    inefficiencies in U.S. permitting processes for domestic mines, which
    would produce the same minerals under higher environmental and labor
    standards?
        Answer. The work directed by the Department of State's Bureau of
    Energy Resources prioritizes engagements according to foreign policy
    considerations, consultation with embassies, and decision-making
    processes internal to the agency.
        Question. Why is DOI prioritizing engagement with countries that
    take non-market actions- including, in the case of Indonesia, export
    bans-to undermine U.S. competitiveness and risk our supply chain
    security? Are you aware that some of these countries DOI is engaged
    with, like Indonesia, have documented deep connections with the Chinese
    Communist Party (CCP), which exerts control over their mining sector?
        Answer. DOI continues its efforts to implement the recommendations
    published by the Interior-led Interagency Working Group on Mining Laws,
    Regulations, and Permitting (IWG) to improve the way mining is
    conducted on U.S. public lands. The IWG's final report is informing
    efforts to modernize the Mining Law of 1872 and related Federal
    permitting processes to increase domestic supplies of critical minerals
    and uphold the strongest environmental, labor, and community engagement
    standards. To further support timely permitting and development of
    these minerals in an environmentally responsible manner, the 2025 BLM
    budget request also proposes a $3.0 million increase (fully offset by
    mine claim holding fees) to enhance BLM's capacity to review notices
    and review and approve mining plans of operations, as well as to
    implement recommendations from the IWG.
        Question. Is DOI as actively engaged in prioritizing efficient
    development and permitting at home for copper, cobalt, nickel,
    graphite, and other mining projects across the U.S. as it is overseas?
        Answer. All work related to minerals carried out by ITAP is funded
    by the State Department through Interagency Agreements and includes
    occasional limited time from DOI bureaus to describe U.S. oversight
    practices, for example. This State Department funded work leverages the
    U.S. experience to illustrate how other countries can involve local
    communities in developing mining plans, and implement high labor and
    environmental standards and is separate from work accomplished by DOI
    bureaus domestically with DOI appropriations.
        Earlier this year, the United State Geological Survey (USGS)
    launched CriticalMinerals.gov on behalf of the White House Office of
    Science and Technology Policy-led National Science and Technology
    Council's Critical Minerals subcommittee. The USGS leads the
    development of a list of critical minerals that are essential to the
    U.S. economy and national security, conducts assessment of the
    potential for critical minerals in the ground, and conducts critical
    minerals supply chain forecasting. Most recently, USGS announced $4.25
    million of Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL) funding for geospatial
    mapping projects across the Kuskokwim Mountains (Alaska) and $10.0
    million of BIL funding for State geologic, geochemical mapping projects
    through the Earth Mapping Resources Initiative to locate critical
    minerals.
        Question. On May 6, my delegation colleagues and I sent a letter
    urging DOI to reconsider the Fish and Wildlife Service's (FWS) proposed
    BIDEH rule. I do not believe any one-size-fits- all rule is appropriate
    for Alaska, expect this rule to impact virtually every refuge in
    Alaska, and believe it is unlawful under multiple Federal statutes. As
    part of our letter, we urged FWS to engage in consultation with both
    the State of Alaska as well as Tribes and Alaska Natives on the impacts
    of this rule prior to moving forward with it.
        Why did FWS not engage in consultation with Alaska Native and
    American Indian Tribes and State governments that are affected by the
    proposed rule, which would alter refuge management and introduce new
    restrictions on permissible refuge uses?
        Answer. Before publishing the proposed Biological Integrity,
    Diversity, and Environmental Health (BIDEH) regulations and policy
    updates (BIDEH proposal) in the Federal Register, the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS) conducted proactive outreach to State and Tribal
    partners.
        In accordance with 601 FW 7, Coordination and Cooperative Work with
    State Fish and Wildlife Agencies, FWS proactively sought the input of
    State fish and wildlife agency representatives. Over the past year, the
    FWS met multiple times with State agency representatives, including
    from the States of Alaska, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Florida, as well as
    the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, to engage on pre-
    publication drafts. This engagement process generated robust discussion
    of the proposed policy updates and regulations, included question and
    answer sessions, and resulted in FWS' incorporation of pertinent
    comments on the draft proposal.
        In accordance with 510 FW 1, the FWS' Native American Policy, and
    Director's Order 227, Fulfilling Trust Responsibility to Tribes and the
    Native Hawaiian Community (NHC) and Other obligations to Alaska Native
    Corporations (ANC) and Alaska Native Organizations (ANO), in the
    Stewardship of Federal Lands and Waters, the FWS also sought the input
    of Tribes, ANCs, ANOs and the NHC. Comments received from Tribal
    partners were incorporated into the draft, as appropriate.
        During the 90-day public comment period on the proposed rule and
    policy updates, the FWS provided two government-to-government
    consultation opportunities specifically for Alaska Tribal Governments
    and Alaska Native Corporations and offered additional opportunities for
    one-on-one consultations. The FWS will consider the input from these
    Tribal consultations, as well as all feedback received during the
    public comment period, in considering any next steps.
        Question. We also urged FWS to complete an analysis of applicable
    Federal laws implicated by this rule and to assess whether the
    prohibition on predator control in Alaska refuges is barred by a prior
    act of Congress (Pub. Law No. 115-20).
        Answer. In consultation with the Department of the Interior's
    Office of the Solicitor prior to drafting the BIDEH proposal, the FWS
    determined there was no conflict with Public Law 115-20.
        Question. How is the proposed rule's prohibition of ``predator
    control'' on national refuges not in conflict with Pub. Law 115-20,
    which Congress passed in 2017 abrogating a prior FWS rule prohibiting
    ``predator control'' in all national wildlife refuges in Alaska?
        Answer. The predator control provisions in the BIDEH proposal do
    not conflict with Public Law 115- 20, which nullified the 2016 rule
    entitled ``Non-Subsistence Take of Wildlife, and Public Participation
    and Closure Procedures on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska'' under
    the Congressional Review Act (CRA). Rather, the predator control
    provisions in the BIDEH rule accord with CRA requirements that prohibit
    reissuance of any rule in substantially the same form or issuance of a
    new rule that is substantially the same in the future. The predator
    control provisions under the BIDEH proposal are substantially different
    from the rescinded 2016 rule in a variety of ways, including scope,
    framework, standard and process for application, as well as definition,
    exceptions, evaluation requirements, and potential effects.
        Question. Does the proposed rule conform with the unique Federal
    laws governing refuges in Alaska, such as the Alaska National Interest
    Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA)?
        Answer. The proposed BIDEH rule was reviewed by the Office of the
    Solicitor for sufficiency and conformity with Federal laws governing
    national wildlife refuges in Alaska, including the Alaska National
    Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA).
        Question. Has FWS conducted an evaluation assessing the Proposed
    Rule's compliance with ANILCA, the Alaska Statehood Act, and the
    Congressional Review Act? If not, please conduct such a review and
    provide it to my office prior to taking any further action on this
    rule.
        Answer. Yes. During this rulemaking process, FWS coordinated with
    the DOI Office of the Solicitor to evaluate the proposed rule's
    compliance with ANILCA, the CRA, and other pertinent State and Federal
    laws.
        Question. Why does this rulemaking not trigger NEPA and require
    analysis under that statute?
        Answer. As indicated in the Federal Register notice for the BIDEH
    proposal, FWS has determined that the proposal is covered by a
    categorical exclusion in compliance with the National Environmental
    Policy Act (NEPA). Under the proposed rule, FWS actions would be
    determined at the individual refuge level and their environmental
    impacts assessed on a case- by-case basis. Therefore, the environmental
    impacts of the proposal are too speculative to lead to meaningful
    analysis at this time, qualifying the proposal for a categorical
    exclusion. FWS would assess the environmental impact of any potential
    management action mentioned in the proposed regulations prior to taking
    that action on National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System) lands
    and waters.
        Question. I am also seeking to understand how this rulemaking will
    impact the status quo for recreational hunting programs in Alaska and
    throughout the United States.
        Answer. FWS anticipates the BIDEH proposal will benefit
    recreational hunting opportunities on national wildlife refuges by
    improving ecosystem health, increasing climate resilience, and support
    robust wildlife populations across the Refuge System, thereby
    contributing to higher quality recreational experiences.
        Question. How will refuge managers apply the exception excluding
    subsistence and recreational hunting or fishing from the rule's
    definition of ``predator control''?
        Answer. The predator control provisions in the BIDEH proposal
    contain explicit sideboards to ensure compatible recreational hunting
    and fishing opportunities and subsistence uses continue on national
    wildlife refuges. The evaluation of whether actions or programs qualify
    as predator control would continue to occur through context specific
    analysis during refuge management planning, NEPA, and compatibility
    determinations, as appropriate and consistent with the current,
    existing process that all refuges should follow. The definition of, and
    exceptions to, predator control would assist refuge managers in guiding
    such analysis. For example, the proposed predator control provisions
    specifically exempt compatible, refuge-approved taking of fish and
    wildlife for subsistence uses under Federal or State subsistence
    regulations, as well as compatible, refuge-approved recreational
    hunting and fishing opportunities on the refuge. In this manner, refuge
    managers will continue to provide for hunting, fishing, wildlife
    observation, photography, environmental education, interpretation, and
    subsistence, which are priority public uses enshrined in Refuge System
    law.
        Question. Are state-authorized hunting or fishing opportunities
    entirely outside the definition of ``predator control'' or will refuge
    managers conduct a preliminary evaluation to assess if such
    opportunities are ``disguised'' forms of predator control?
        Answer. Please see the response to question 23h above.
        Question. In determining whether hunting or fishing opportunities
    are ``compatible uses,'' will refuge managers need to first assess if
    those activities are forms of predator control?
        Answer. No. Under the BIDEH proposal, refuge managers would not
    conduct a separate assessment of hunting and fishing opportunities to
    determine whether they qualify as predator control.
        Question. Under the Inflation Reduction Act, the Department of
    Interior received $150 million to accelerate environmental reviews and
    authorizations by the Department's bureaus. (see IRA section 50303).
    The Department has obligated $58 million in funds through FY24, with at
    least $90 million in remaining budget authority that must be used
    before the funds expire in FY2026.
        Has the $62 million in obligated funds by the Department improved
    permitting timelines in any meaningful way for project applicants?
        Answer. Section 50303 of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) provides
    funding to facilitate timely and efficient environmental reviews and
    authorizations by the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land
    Management, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the Bureau of
    Reclamation, the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, and
    the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. Under Section
    50303, the Department allocated roughly $43.0 million to the U.S. Fish
    and Wildlife Service (FWS), primarily to facilitate consultation under
    the Endangered Species Act and permitting under migratory bird
    statutes. These funds have enabled the bureau to hire dedicated staff
    to facilitate environmental reviews for Department of the Interior
    (DOI) bureaus.
        Supported by the IRA 50303 funds, FWS is developing Offshore Wind
    Development Guidance, best management practices guidance for the
    improvement of broadband services, and a geographic information system
    and web map tracker for wind energy development projects in California.
    The Service hired dedicated positions in high workload offices around
    the country, including West Virginia, to facilitate consultations.
    Examples of larger projects the Service has completed include complex
    reviews related to Abandoned Mine Land reclamation grants provided
    through the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement; and
    the Department's significant efforts to address ongoing drought
    conditions and protect the Colorado River System
        A portion of the Section 50303 funding provided to the FWS is
    dedicated to enhance and modernize the FWS' Information for Planning
    and Consultation (IPaC) system to expedite environmental reviews for
    DOI bureaus. IPaC serves an external user base that is growing by about
    1,000 users a month (82,000 users as of May 2024). DOI partners are
    increasing their users of the IPaC system and expediting their
    consultations as a result. Current trends are on track to outpace the
    165,582 streamlined consultation documents IPaC delivered in fiscal
    year 2023 and the reviews of DOI bureau projects have similarly
    increased. Section 50303 funding is being used to improve IPaC's
    functionality to reduce the time to complete consultation for
    qualifying projects. Bureaus and other partners using IPaC have saved a
    substantial amount of time by being able to obtain documents directly
    in a matter of minutes. FWS conservatively estimates that in generating
    the more than 600,000 documents issued by IPaC in the last 5 fiscal
    years, the system saved over 200,000 hours (100 FTE) work of staff
    time. FWS expects further improvements once the new IPaC functionality
    is in place.
        In May, the FWS implemented its first 'automated' or 'self-service'
    permit in ePermits which was a general eagle incidental take permit
    resulting from recent rulemaking. With this new permit, applicants can
    apply, pay fees, and receive their permits fully online and in real
    time, without any up-front review by a FWS permit specialist. In the
    first month that the general eagle permit was available to the public,
    the FWS issued nearly 50 wind energy permits, far more than are
    typically issued in a month. The FWS used IRA 50303 funding to develop
    the necessary system requirements for ePermits to implement this
    innovative and expeditious approach to permitting.
        Question. Notably, FWS was not included in the IRA legislative text
    even though FWS can be a severe bottleneck for permit approvals. Has
    the department transferred any funds to FWS to accelerate permits? If
    so, what is the status of these funds?
        Answer. FWS received $42.9 million in IRA funds transferred from
    the bureaus identified in the legislation to work on projects. Of these
    funds, FWS receivied $19.9 million to support regional ESA section 7
    consultations for DOI projects. These funds will support dedicated
    staff to improve the environmental review process on DOI's IRA
    projects, including dedicated positions to support the heavy
    environmental review workload in West Virginia and work associated with
    the Colorado River initiative.
        The bureau transferred IRA funds included $11.9 million to enable
    FWS to improve the IPaC System to better support the permitting needs
    of the bureaus specified in Section 50303. As described earlier, this
    includes modernizing and improving IPaCto expand consultation
    streamlining, including features such as the ability to interact with a
    FWS biologist and request consultation directly through IPaC.
        FWS also received $10.9 million of the transferred IRA section
    50303 funds to address migratory bird permitting and reviews. As of
    May, FWS had obligated $3.0 million for these activities. Funding is
    also being usedto implement new incidental take permitting of eagles,
    and hire regional biologists focused on renewable energy and improving
    environmental reviews.
        Question. What is the department's plan to spend the remaining
    unobligated $92 million in funding between FY25 and FY26?
        Answer. The Department is on track to obligate the remaining $80.7
    million by the end of fiscal year 2026.
        The Department was appropriated $150 million Section 50303 of the
    Inflation Reduction Act. Of that funding $69.3 million is obligated.
    Funding was allocated to several bureaus to support timely and
    efficient environmental reviews and authorizations. As of the middle of
    September 2024:

      --BLM received $41.1 million and has obligated $24.8 million

      --BOEM received $40.8 million and has obligated $18.9 million

      --FWS received $42.9 million and has obligated $14.8 million

      --NPS received $5.0 million and has obligated $0.9 million

        The remaining funds, about $20.2 million, will support crosscutting
    projects in support of timely and efficient environmental reviews and
    authorizations, and program administration.

                                     ______

                   Questions Submitted by Senator Katie Britt
        Question. Please describe the anticipated impact a ban on
    traditional ammunition and fishing tackle would have on Pittman-
    Robertson revenue that is apportioned to States and provide any
    supporting analysis.
        Answer. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has not banned the
    use of lead ammunition and tackle across FWS lands and waters and is
    not developing a rule to do so.
        Question. Can the FWS please discuss which studies have been
    considered showing causal linkages between human health outcomes and
    consuming wild game harvested with lead component ammunition?
        Answer. Consistent with its wildlife conservation mission, the FWS'
    primary basis for any decisions regarding the use of lead ammunition
    and tackle on FWS lands and waters is the impact of lead on fish and
    wildlife health, based on the best available science. At the few
    stations where the FWS has implemented phase-outs of lead ammunition
    and/or tackle, it made those decisions to reduce a known threat to a
    wildlife species while still providing access to hunters and anglers.
        Question. The US Department of Agriculture, Customs and Border
    Protection, and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) are jointly
    responsible for overseeing processes with respect to clearing imported
    wood products at U.S. ports of entry. In recent years, coordination
    across the three agencies on allowing or declining imports has led to
    delays for U.S. importers and additional storage costs.
    What is FWS doing to better coordinate on the importation process with
            respect to the wood importation process with the two other
            agencies?
    What steps has FWS considered implementing to provide a clear process
            and procedures for agency coordination?
        Answer. The broadening of the Lacey Act in 2008 extended
    protections to a broad range of plants and plant products, making it
    unlawful to import into the United States any plant or plant product
    that was illegally harvested. It also makes it unlawful to import
    certain products without a declaration to the appropriate Federal
    agency.
        The FWS is responsible for implementation of the Convention on
    International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora
    (CITES) on behalf of the U.S. Under the Endangered Species Act (ESA),
    the Secretary of the Interior, specifically the FWS, is designated as
    the primary CITES wildlife enforcement agency while the U.S. Department
    of Agriculture (USDA) is designated as the primary CITES plant
    enforcement agency. After agency consolidation in 2002, the USDA
    delegated CITES plant importation regulatory authority to the U.S.
    Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Agriculture Specialists.
        The FWS does not have the authority to collect plant declaration
    data and is generally advised of timber shipments entering the U.S.
    upon consultation by a partner government agency on a possible CITES,
    ESA, or Lacey Act violation. FWS wildlife inspectors, who have
    authority to hold and inspect imports under the ESA and Lacey Act,
    currently have limited access to the CBP Automated Commercial
    Environment, International Trade Data Systems, Automated Targeting
    System, and Automated Export System databases. These systems contain
    the import, export, and entry data that the brokers, freight
    forwarders, and commercial carriers use to enter information for
    shipments. With limited access to these databases, FWS wildlife
    inspectors are restricted in their ability to obtain information about
    shipments, identify shipments for inspection, and coordinate with CBP
    on the movement of shipments.
        The FWS is working to optimize interagency communication by
    developing a Memorandum of Understanding with CBP that defines
    responsibilities and communication channels for each agency. The FWS
    also regularly participates in the Border Interagency Executive Council
    (BIEC) meetings and working groups. The BIEC is tasked with innovating
    and implementing enhanced cooperation between partner government
    agencies to measurably improve supply chain processes and the
    identification of illicit and non-compliant shipments.
        The FWS has also met with representatives from the timber industry
    to discuss ways to improve import processing and communication. The FWS
    sends wildlife inspectors to timber industry trade events to provide
    outreach and education on CITES regulations, enforcement, and the
    permitting process. Additionally, the FWS' National Fish and Wildlife
    Forensics Laboratory established a mobile forensics lab that can be
    positioned at key ports of entry to reduce the time required to
    identify species in timber shipments to allow for faster processing of
    those shipments. The FWS' Office of Law Enforcement can deploy the
    mobile forensics lab in a limited capacity given the operational costs
    and logistics required to deploy it.
        The FWS is also working with timber industry representatives to
    analyze instances where communication and notification issues have
    occurred and to audit the process and identify procedures that could be
    improved. The FWS is also looking to incorporate further training of
    CBP Agriculture Specialist officers on CITES regulations during their
    basic training as well as attending subsequent in-service trainings
    that may arise.
        Question. On May 9, 2024, the updated OSMRE Ten Day Notice rule
    took effect. This new rule is an update to the 2020 Ten Day Notice rule
    that all participants, State, Tribes and OSMRE, worked together to
    agree upon. OSMRE's preamble reports that it is proposing ``non-
    substantive'' changes and changes to ``improve'' readability. However,
    this new rule fundamentally alters the nature of state primacy under
    SMCRA whereby States are given exclusive rights over its regulatory
    program, and instead, the rule provides OSMRE with expanded powers over
    regulation of State programs not envisioned under SMCRA.
        Why does OSMRE believe this rule is necessary? How does the
    Department believe this new rule is in compliance with SMCRA when it
    comes to state primacy over regulatory matters?
        Answer. After evaluating the rule as prescribed by the President in
    Executive Order 13990, OSMRE determined that revising the Ten-Day
    Notice (TDN) rule was necessary to reduce burdens for citizens to
    report potential violations under SMCRA and establish procedures to
    more swiftly evaluate and process citizen allegations about those SMCRA
    violations, while continuing to minimize duplication of inspections,
    enforcement, and administration of SMCRA.
        As discussed in the Response to Comments in the final rule, because
    SMCRA specifically exempts the TDN process from States' exclusive
    jurisdiction at 30 U.S.C. 1271 and 1273, this rule is not inconsistent
    with SMCRA or any binding legal precedent on this topic. OSMRE will
    continue to honor state primacy and perform its statutorily mandated
    oversight under SMCRA to ensure appropriate SMCRA implementation in the
    primacy States.
        Question. Please describe the process by which States are informed
    of their Title V funding levels under SMCRA, how the timeline relates
    to the Department's known funding levels, and any impediments to
    communicating funding levels and actually allocating those funds.
        Answer. The States and Tribes are generally informed of their Title
    V funding levels around March of the fiscal year in which those funds
    are to be awarded, although that can be earlier depending on the date a
    full year appropriations bill for OSMRE is enacted. Once the
    appropriations bill is enacted, States and Tribes are informed of their
    Title V funding levels via issuance of the Regulatory Grant Notice of
    Funding Opportunity.
        When OSMRE is operating under a continuing resolution, contingent
    on the availability of previous years' appropriations, OSMRE provides
    States and Tribes with 25% of their previous year's funding level per
    quarter, at the start of a State's fiscal year.
        The timing of the enactment of an appropriation is the key factor
    driving the funding level, and how quickly OSMRE can inform the States
    and Tribes of their allocations.
        Question. Throughout last year, the Department ignored calls and
    emails from Congressional staff related to questions the Department
    chose not to answer. What is the average time and median time it takes
    the Department to respond to Congressional inquiries? Does the
    Department have a policy related to performance of individuals or
    offices that choose to ignore Congressional inquiry? If the Department
    lacks a policy, what authorizations or appropriations are needed to
    help the Department respond to Congress and create staffing policies
    related to ignoring Congressional inquiries?
        Answer. The Department is committed to providing timely and
    responsive service to not only Congress but to States, local
    governments, Tribes, stakeholders, and the general public. It is
    integral to the success of our agency and is a factor considered in
    employee performance reviews as it relates to the performance of their
    duties.
        Question. The Department has made clear in conversations with
    Congressional staff that it views court cases as requiring the Social
    Cost of Carbon (SCC) to be used in Environmental Assessments (EA) and
    Environmental Impact Statements (EIS), even for leases and minerals not
    relating to fossil fuels burned for energy. Further, a full EIS will be
    needed to properly take the SCC into account. In conversations at the
    staff level, the Department has noted that it reviews all lease
    applications and other reviews on a ``case by case'' basis but also
    acknowledged that the policies the Department was pursuing would
    require all leases to go through a full EIS.
        Does the Department continue to have the understanding that it will
    need to require a full EIS for all mineral and mining leases? If the
    Department has a policy of evaluating mineral and mining leases on a
    case by case basis, what is the framework that would result in a lease
    not requiring an EIS?
        Has the Department approved any leases in the last year without
    doing a full EIS?
        Has the Department approved any leases in the last 5 years without
    doing a full EIS?
        Answer. The BLM analyzes projects on a case-by-case basis to
    determine the level of NEPA analysis necessary for each project. The
    framework used to determine if an action requires an EA or an EIS is
    the Department's NEPA implementing procedures at 43 CFR Part 46, as
    well as the Departmental Manual part 516 that addresses NEPA
    compliance. NEPA procedures specifically applicable to the BLM are at
    516 DM 11. Sections 516 DM 11.7 and 11.8 address when an EA or EIS is
    to be prepared.
        Mineral development projects approved by the BLM that did not
    require an EIS in the last year include 622 mineral materials disposal
    contracts and free use permits and 11 mining plans of operation for
    locatable minerals.
        Leases or other mineral development projects approved by the BLM
    that did not require an EIS in the past 5 years (fiscal year 2019
    through fiscal year 2023) include:

      --5,901 mineral materials disposal contracts and free use permits;

      --Five non-energy leasable materials leases;

      --29 mining plans of operation for locatable minerals; and

      --72 Oil and Gas Lease sales.

                                     ______

                   Question Submitted by Senator Deb Fischer
        Question. The Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) has proposed to
    construct a 226-mile, 345-kilovolt transmission line in Nebraska. This
    project will cross the habitat of the American burying beetle, so NPPD
    has applied to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for an
    Incidental Take Permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act. NPPD
    started the process of obtaining an ITP in 2012, which it initially
    received in 2019. But, due to a court remand, additional analysis is
    required for USFWS to issue a revised ITP. NPPD has previously sent
    correspondence on this matter to Acting Deputy Secretary Laura Daniel-
    Davis. Can you please provide an updated timeframe for the USFWS to
    complete the National Historic Preservation Act process so that it can
    issue the ITP expeditiously?
        Answer. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) anticipates
    completing a programmatic agreement under Section 106 of the National
    Historic Preservation Act by August 2025. Based on this timeline, the
    Incidental Take Permit (ITP) decision is anticipated in late 2025. The
    timeline and next steps towards an ITP decision were conveyed to the
    Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) in late May 2024. FWS is
    currently working with NPPD on actions necessary to be able to issue an
    ITP decision by late 2025.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Merkley. This hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., Wednesday, May 8, the
    subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
    the Chair.]

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 23, 2024

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., in Room SD-138, Dirksen
    Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Merkley (chairman) presiding.
        Present: Senators Merkley, Tester, Van Hollen, Heinrich,
    Peters, Sinema, Murkowski, Hoeven, and Fischer.

                             INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

    STATEMENT OF THE HON. BRYAN NEWLAND, ASSISTANT
                SECRETARY FOR INDIAN AFFAIRS
    ACCOMPANIED BY ROSELYN TSO, DIRECTOR

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JEFF MERKLEY

        Senator Merkley. Good morning, and welcome to the last
    hearing on the Interior Environment Appropriations Subcommittee
    on the fiscal year 2025 President's budget.
        Director Tso and Assistant Secretary Newland, welcome to
    today's appropriations hearing. I am happy to have you both
    here. Your presence underscores the significance of our
    collaborative efforts in support of Indian Country. Also,
    welcome to Jillian Curtis from the Indian Health Service and
    Jason Freihage from the Department of the Interior who are
    accompanying today's witnesses and bringing their expertise to
    bear. Working together is paramount for the benefit of our
    tribal communities.
        The challenges faced by Native Americans and Alaska Natives
    are multifaceted, spanning healthcare, education, and economic
    stability. Therefore, our solutions must also be multifaceted
    and coordinated across various agencies. Your two agencies are
    inextricably linked. The social determinants of good health
    involve good education, a thriving community, a sense of
    belonging for Native-American youth, safety and security, and
    access to good roads, clean air, and safe drinking water. By
    aligning our efforts, we can amplify the impact of our
    initiatives and address the root causes of the systemic
    disparities that tribal communities face.
        The Indian Health Service request for fiscal year 2025 is
    $7.9 billion, which is a 14-percent increase. The request would
    make up for losses that flat funding in fiscal year 2024 have
    stressed the Agency given the required pay increases and
    medical inflation. The considerable increase requested for
    fiscal year 2025 also would make strides in reducing health
    disparities by expanding services such as primary care, disease
    prevention, drug treatment, dental care, pharmacy, and the list
    goes on. Another cost driver in the request is an electronic
    health records modernization effort, which proposed to be
    increased by $213 million to keep that important effort on
    track.
        The Indian Health Service serves a population with unique
    and pressing healthcare needs. Native-American and Alaska-
    Native populations are facing health outcome disparities as
    compared to the cross-section of the American population,
    higher rates of diabetes, maternal mortality, cancer, and
    overdoses not seen elsewhere. Over the last 5 years, the IHS
    Service's account increased just 19 percent. That is not enough
    over a 5-year period to address the rising healthcare costs and
    the health disparities that I noted. For comparison, the VHA
    account, the Veterans Health Account, increased 42 percent over
    the same time period. The VA also has greater flexibility to
    hire, to retain, to recruit healthcare professionals,
    authorities that IHS does not have.
        Director Tso, I am pleased to see that your request
    includes several legislative proposals to improve on the status
    quo, such as a request to provide tax exemption for IHS health
    professions scholarships and loan repayment programs. The
    budget also proposes to make IHS funding exempt from
    sequestration, which the VA has already gained under the Fiscal
    Responsibility Act, while IHS was forgotten. I strongly support
    the critical funding needed to take care of our Nation's
    veterans. We should adopt a number of the VA reforms, afford
    the same dignity to Native Americans and Alaska Natives. As
    Supreme Court justice, Sonya Sotomayor, said in March at oral
    argument for an IHS-related case, ``The amount spent on tribal
    healthcare is about a third of what is spent on the average
    American. We need to do better.''
        Turning to the Department of Interior's tribal programs,
    the request includes $2.9 billion for the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, a $485 million increase, and $1.5 billion for the
    Bureau of Indian Education, a $154 million increase. These
    investments are the building blocks of continued economic
    development and the well-being of tribal communities. This
    funding will help improve student academic outcomes, address
    maintenance needs, and expand native language revitalization
    efforts. Teachers across the country dedicate each day to their
    students and provide them with the tools to succeed. It is only
    fitting that we give the teachers the tools to be successful in
    their often thankless work.
        I want to also touch today on the in-lieu and treaty
    fishing sites along the Columbia River. Thank you, Assistant
    Secretary Newland, for your continued attention to these sites
    and providing maintenance, law enforcement services, and
    repairs. It is vitally important that we make these sites
    operable and safe for tribal members to exercise their treaty
    rights along the Columbia River. I have visited a number of
    those sites and was appalled at what I found a few years ago,
    and greatly appreciate our efforts to do better.
        And speaking of the Columbia River, as I told Secretary
    Haaland, I am pleased to see the administration has pledged a
    billion dollars in new Federal investments as part of the
    Columbia River Basin Initiative in partnership with the six
    sovereigns. We have long sought a resolution to the destruction
    of homelands, disruption of salmon runs, loss of traditional
    subsistence practices, and a loss of culture that will never be
    replaced. I hope you will continue to work closely with the
    tribes to ensure that their needs are met as part of this
    initiative.
        For the second year in a row, both budgets propose to
    reclassify tribal sovereignty payments to the mandatory side of
    the budget. These are the payments necessary to exercise tribal
    self-governance and are the reasonable overhead costs to
    administer essential government services. As Chair Murray said
    in our hearing with Secretary Haaland last week, we are adamant
    that we must reclassify these funds to the mandatory side of
    the budget where they legally belong. This is even more
    pressing given the pending Supreme Court case that could
    substantially increase contract support costs by $800 million
    to $2 billion or more per year. That is like an asteroid aimed
    at the Interior budget. These escalating costs limit our
    ability to increase investments in tribal programs.
        Finally, I want to repeat that I am calling for significant
    increases to the Fiscal Responsibility Act budget caps. These
    caps are not at all responsible, and, as I am sure we will hear
    today in this very room, that they are harming Indian Country.
    They are limiting our ability to meet the needs of tribal
    communities, which means we are falling short of fulfilling our
    treaty and trust responsibilities. I look forward to our
    discussions and the opportunity to work together towards
    comprehensive solutions. And we are going to now turn to your
    comments, Assistant Secretary Newland, but I will defer, when
    Senator Murkowski arrives, if she wants to hold her opening
    statement or to pause in order to present it.

                    SUMMARY STATEMENT OF HON. BRYAN NEWLAND

        Mr. Newland. [Speaking native language.] Good morning,
    Chairman Merkley and members of the committee. I appreciate the
    opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the
    Department of the Interior to provide a statement on the
    President's budget request for fiscal year 2025 for Indian
    Affairs. And before I begin, Mr. Chairman, I just want to
    acknowledge our deputy assistant secretary, Jason Freihage, who
    is here with us today to help fill in the details if we get
    down that far, but I will do my best to answer any questions
    members of the committee have.
        The President's fiscal year 2025 budget request for Indian
    Affairs totals $4.6 billion, an increase of $651 million over
    the fiscal year 2024-enacted level of funding. This represents
    funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Bureau of
    Indian Education (BIE), and the Bureau of Trust Funds
    Administration (BTFA), as well as funding for the Office of the
    Assistant Secretary, which includes a number of program
    offices.
        The funding requested is an important step forward to meet
    our obligation to Tribes and supports the President's Executive
    Order to reform Federal funding and promote the next era of
    tribal self-determination. I have submitted a written statement
    for the record, and I want to use my limited time here today to
    focus on important areas of the budget: mandatory funding for
    legally-required payments, funding for public safety programs,
    Indian water rights settlements, and funding for Bureau of
    Indian Education and management improvements.
        First, as you just noted, Mr. Chairman, we have proposed
    reclassifying Tribal contract support costs and 105(l) lease
    payments as mandatory funding beginning in 2026. We are
    required by law to provide these payments to tribes upon their
    request, and in recent years, those costs have grown
    significantly. In fiscal year 2025, the Department will need an
    additional $232 million just to cover those costs in addition
    to water settlement costs to avoid cutting funding for existing
    programs, like public safety, transportation, and education.
    Reclassifying these funds as mandatory aligns our
    appropriations with our legal obligations, and it protects
    funding for other programs that are essential for Indian
    Country.
        I also want to speak directly to funding necessary to meet
    our trust obligations to protect people across Indian Country.
    In fiscal year 2022 and 2023, we were able to work with
    Congress to secure an additional $131.2 million for public
    safety programs for Indian Country, and I want to thank
    Congress and this Committee for working with the Administration
    on those increases. But even with those increases, our most
    recent report to Congress under the Tribal Law and Order Act
    shows that the United States funds public safety and justice
    programs at only 13 percent of the total need and obligation to
    Indian Country. In addition, the appropriations directed 52
    percent of that increased funding to just 16 tribes. That left
    only $11.5 million in additional funding to distribute to 182
    tribes across the country.
        The President's fiscal year 2025 request would increase
    public safety and justice funding by 17 percent over the fiscal
    year 2024-enacted amount. That would include a $33.5 million
    program increase in criminal investigations and police
    services--boots on the ground. Those are specifically targeted
    to increase the number of officers and investigators all across
    Indian Country. That would fund an additional 222 Federal and
    Tribal officers in Tribal communities across the Nation. The
    proposed budget would also fund an additional 120 Federal and
    Tribal corrections staff at detention and corrections
    facilities. The 2025 request would get us from 13 percent to 19
    percent of the overall public safety and justice need reported
    in the Tribal Law Order Act report. Without this requested
    increase, the Department will not be able to afford as many law
    enforcement officers, will not be able to meet court-ordered
    requirements to the Navajo Nation, and would delay maintenance
    and operating requirements at Tribal courts.
        The Administration is interested in working with Congress
    to find a solution to meet Federal commitments regarding
    current and future Indian water rights settlements, including
    the Hualapai settlement. The 2025 budget proposes legislation
    to provide mandatory funding for Indian Water Rights
    settlements, building on the Indian Water Rights Settlement
    Completion Fund, established in the Bipartisan Infrastructure
    Law. That settlement completion fund went a long way in
    clearing the backlog of settlement obligation. The Department
    has allocated over $2.4 billion of the $2.5 billion
    appropriated, however, more remains to be done.
        At this time, there are four Indian water rights
    settlements pending before Congress, and a number of other
    water rights settlements are in negotiations and likely to be
    introduced soon. The proposal would provide the Fund additional
    $2.8 billion: $250 million annually over 10 years for existing
    and future water right settlements and $34 million per year
    over 10 years for ongoing requirements implemented by the
    Bureau of Reclamation associated with the operation maintenance
    and repair costs of settlements.
        The 2025 budget for the BIE is $1.5 billion in current
    appropriations, a $154.6 million increase from the fiscal year
    2024 enacted. This increase is critical to improving BIE school
    operations and modernizing facilities. For example, the
    requested increase of $36.5 million for Indian School
    Equalization Program (ISEP) formula funds is critical for
    helping schools achieve competitive teacher salaries, which is
    a top priority of our schools, and the Tribal Interior Budget
    Council. To improve school facilities, the budget includes a
    $5.5 million increase for facility operations and maintenance
    and an additional $75.5 million for school construction. These
    facility increases are critical to continuing progress toward
    ensuring our BIE students are in modernizing, inspiring, and
    culturally-appropriate schools.
        I also want to note the importance of reauthorizing, the
    Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA) and the National Parks and
    Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund. BIE currently receives
    about $95 million a year from GAOA funds, which is less than
    the average cost of completion of the most recent schools being
    built. Given these costs, replacing BIE schools in poor
    conditions will take decades, about 30 years at our current
    pace, so securing the fiscal year 2025 budget increases and
    GAOA reauthorization will help ensure the timeline is not
    extended further.
        I want to highlight the work our Indian Affairs leadership
    team is doing to improve operations. We are prioritizing
    recruitment and retention of staff in critical areas like law
    enforcement, awarding officials who move money from the BIA to
    tribal governments, as well as realty staff. Within law
    enforcement programs, we have worked to ensure BIA officer
    salaries are in line with their counterparts at other DOI
    bureaus to help improve our retention rates and to be
    competitive in recruitment. We are focused on infrastructure
    investment by exploring opportunities to address the growing
    number of 105(l) leases and needed data improvements related to
    facilities. We are also improving timelines for land into Trust
    and other realty activities, and we approach these issues from
    multiple angles, including resource and staffing levels,
    process improvements, and making better use of technology.
        Finally, the increased funding requested in this budget is
    an important step to meeting our trust obligations to Tribes.
    To support fully meeting our obligations, the President has
    signed Executive Order 14112, which directs Federal agencies to
    increase their deference to Tribal decisionmaking, streamline
    application processes for Tribes to obtain funding, and
    removing restrictions and cost-sharing requirements consistent
    with the law. The Executive Order also directs the
    establishment of a one-stop Tribal funding clearinghouse and
    requires agencies to measure and report annually on Tribe-
    related funding shortfalls. I look forward to reporting to you,
    Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Murkowski, on further progress
    to meet the requirements of the EO.
        Mr. Chairman, I have submitted a written statement for the
    record highlighting how the fiscal year 2025 budget request
    continues to focus on these priorities. I want to thank you
    again for the opportunity to testify and look forward to
    answering any questions you have.
        [The statement follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Hon. Bryan Newland
        Good afternoon, Chair Merkley and members of the subcommittee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide a Statement on the President's
    Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2025 (FY 2025) for Indian Affairs. The
    FY 2025 budget request for Indian Affairs programs totals $4.6 billion,
    which is an increase of $651 million over the FY 2024 Enacted level of
    funding.
        As the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, I oversee the
    numerous programs within the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Bureau
    of Indian Education (BIE), and the Bureau of Trust Funds Administration
    (BTFA) along with other programs within the immediate Office of the
    Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs (IA or Indian Affairs). All of
    these programs play important roles in carrying out Federal trust,
    treaty, and other responsibilities to 574 federally recognized Indian
    Tribes. Programs serve more than two million American Indians and
    Alaska Natives in Tribal and Native communities. The BIA provides
    direct services and funding for compacts and contracts for Tribes to
    provide Federal programs for a wide range of activities necessary for
    strong Tribal communities, including natural resource and land
    management, public safety, and social service programs, among many
    others in Indian Country. BIE manages and serves a school system of 183
    schools, funds 29 Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs) and two
    Technical Colleges, delivering educational services and resources to
    approximately 40,000 K-12 students, as well as thousands of pre-school
    children and post-secondary college students. The BIE also operates two
    post-secondary schools. The BTFA is responsible for the financial
    management of approximately $8.8 billion of Indian trust funds held in
    about 4,200 Tribal accounts (approximately $7.2 billion) and about
    411,000 Individual Indian Money (IIM) Accounts (approximately $1.5
    billion). Indian Affairs programs are built on strong and productive
    government-to-government relations with Tribes.
        The FY 2025 budget request continues to invest in programs that are
    a foundation of Indian Country's strength. The request for the
    individual organizations is as follows: IA/BIA--$2.9 billion, an
    increase of $485.1 million above FY 2024 Enacted; BIE--$1.5 billion, an
    increase of $154.6 million above FY 2024 Enacted; and BTFA--$111.3
    million, an increase of $11.3 million above FY 2024 Enacted.
        The funding requested is an important step forward to meet our
    obligation to Tribes. To support fully meeting our obligation to
    Tribes, the President signed Executive Order 14112 (EO), Reforming
    Federal Funding and Support for Tribal Nations to Better Embrace Our
    Trust Responsibilities and Promote the Next Era of Tribal Self-
    Determination. The EO directs Federal agencies to increase their
    deference to Tribal decision-making, streamline application processes
    for Tribes to obtain funding, and remove some restrictions and cost-
    sharing requirements, consistent with applicable law or to recommend
    changes to existing law. The EO also directs the establishment of a
    one-stop Tribal funding clearinghouse and requires agencies to measure
    and report annually on Tribe-related funding need shortfalls. We have
    already established an initial clearinghouse and will continue to
    expand its contents and make it more user friendly to utilize for
    Tribes. I look forward to reporting to you on our further progress to
    meet the requirements of the EO.
        Before I dive into the details of the budget, I want to stress the
    importance of mandatory funding proposals for Indian Affairs and
    underline my focus on management improvements. Regarding mandatory
    funding, Contract Support Costs, payments for 105(l) Tribal leases and
    Water Rights Settlements costs are growing, legally required payments.
    These three programs should have mandatory funding to align with the
    mandatory legal requirements associated with each. If the funding
    associated with these programs is not transitioned to mandatory
    funding, it could force cuts to other critical operations such as law
    enforcement and school operations.
        Regarding continual management improvements, I want to let you know
    that our Indian Affairs leadership team is focused on operational
    improvements. One key area of focus is on improving recruitment and
    retention of staff in critical areas such as law enforcement, awarding
    officials and realty staff. Another area is infrastructure investment,
    this includes exploring opportunities to address the growing number of
    105(l) leases to process and data improvements related to facility
    improvement and repair and construction. We have also focused on
    improving timelines for land into trust status and other realty
    activities. In each of these areas, we are looking at these issues from
    multiple angles, including appropriate resources and staffing levels,
    process improvement and better use of technology. Now I will turn to
    highlights for the FY 2025 budget.
                         strengthen tribal communities
        Tiwahe means family in the Lakota language and symbolizes the
    interconnected-ness of all living things and one's personal
    responsibility to protect family, community, and the environment. To
    empower federally recognized Tribes to realize this potential, IA
    launched the Tiwahe Initiative in FY 2015. The Tiwahe Initiative is an
    extensive and bold approach to furthering Indian self-determination.
    The Tiwahe Initiative fosters systemic change in the delivery of
    services to children and families through the integration of Tribal
    practices, customs, values, and traditions. Each participating site's
    Tiwahe Initiative plan offers Tribes the flexibility to design
    programming and services to address the gaps and needs of their
    individual communities. To date, the Tiwahe Initiative has focused on
    improving collaboration and coordination across core programs like
    social services, Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA), recidivism, housing,
    and job placement and training. The 2025 Budget requests an increase of
    $28.6 million to expand the Tiwahe program by extending that
    coordination to include Healing to Wellness Courts and economic
    development needs as well as supporting the participation of new Tribes
    while sustaining the existing 10 Tiwahe Tribes.
                       federal boarding school initiative
        The BIA is uniquely positioned to assist in the effort to recover
    the histories of Federal Indian boarding schools. In 2023, as part of
    the Secretary's Federal Boarding School Initiative (BSI), Secretary
    Haaland and I completed a 12-stop Road to Healing tour, during which we
    traveled to locations across the country giving Indigenous boarding
    school survivors the opportunity to share their stories and connect
    with trauma-informed support. The 2025 budget includes $7.0 million to
    continue the Secretary's BSI and its comprehensive review of Federal
    boarding school policies. This funding will continue to implement
    recommendations laid out in the May 2022 Federal Boarding School
    Initiative Investigative Report Volume 1, including continued
    historical research and documentation, and work to identify and protect
    the remains of those identified. The funding will also support an oral
    history project to document and make accessible the experience of the
    generations of Indigenous children who attended the Federal boarding
    school system. Through the BSI, the Department is seeking to work with
    Tribal Nations to begin the long healing process through transparency
    and accountability.
                             protect indian country
        The BIA Office of Justice Services (OJS)-administered public safety
    and justice programs fund law enforcement, corrections, and court
    services to support safe Tribal communities and schools serving Indian
    Country youth. These programs safeguard life and property, enforce
    laws, maintain justice and order, and ensure detained American Indian
    and Alaska Native offenders are held in safe, secure, and humane
    environments. These programs also directly support the Administration's
    commitments to Indian Country, by increasing safety on Tribal lands and
    tackling the crisis of violence against Native women, children, and the
    elderly.
        The 2025 budget includes $651.2 million for Public Safety and
    Justice (PS&J) operations, an increase of $95.7 million above the 2024
    Enacted level. Operational funding supports the expanding Tribal needs
    in policing, detention, and Tribal courts. The budget includes a $33.5
    million program increase in Criminal Investigations and Police
    Services, specifically targeted to increase the number of officers and
    investigators on the ground in Indian Country. A program increase of
    $2.0 million is also requested to enhance functions within the OJS
    Professional Standards Directorate, including recruitment and retention
    initiatives, development and evaluation of law enforcement policies,
    program reviews, and training.
        The 2025 budget also includes $16.5 million to address the crisis
    of Missing and Murdered Indigenous People. The Missing and Murdered
    Unit engages in cross-departmental and interagency collaboration to
    identify gaps in information sharing and data collection to more
    effectively investigate these cases. As part of the proposed expansion
    to the Tiwahe Initiative, the budget includes a program increase of
    $1.9 million for the Office of Tribal Justice Support to provide
    technical assistance to Tribes looking to develop and operate Healing
    to Wellness courts. These courts serve as alternatives to incarceration
    and provide a culturally appropriate forum to support those within the
    criminal justice system by assisting in addressing underlying
    behavioral health and substance abuse issues.
        The recently released 2021 Tribal Law and Order Act report
    identified a total funding need of $3.5 billion for law enforcement,
    detention/corrections, and Tribal Court needs. (see: https://
    www.bia.gov/sites/default/files/media_document/
    2021_tloa_report_final_508_compliant. pdf). The total requested
    increase for law enforcement is an important step forward.
                             economic opportunities
        The 2025 budget funds the Community and Economic Development
    activity at $43.0 million, a $12.5 million increase above the 2024
    Enacted level, to advance economic opportunities in Indian Country. Job
    Placement and Training is funded at $13.9 million to assist Tribal
    members in obtaining job skills and finding and retaining jobs.
    Economic Development projects are funded at $24.5 million and include a
    request for an additional $11.5 million investment in Native language
    revitalization, which is crucial to preserve endangered languages,
    promote self- determination, and strengthen Tribal communities. A $1.2
    million program increase in Community Development Oversight is
    requested to support the implementation of Native language activities,
    the administration of the Native American Business Incubators program,
    and oversight of other grant programs.
                        manage trust resources and lands
        Tribal sovereignty and economic development cannot be achieved
    without addressing land needs. The FY 2025 budget continues to invest
    in Indian Land Consolidation with a request of $11 million to address
    fractionation and incorporate lessons learned from previous programs.
    This program has been especially important since the Land Buy-Back
    Program for Tribal Nations (LBBP), established as part of the Cobell
    Settlement, ended in November 2022. If the land consolidation program
    is not funded at a sufficient funding level, all the gains from
    reducing fractionation from LBBP funding could be lost by 2038, and we
    project that Indian Country will be back to the same level of
    fractionated interests as of 2012, preventing Tribes from effectively
    using large land areas. (see: U.S. Department of the Interior, ``Ten
    Years of Restoring Land and Building Trust 2012-2022, Land Buy-Buy Back
    Program for Tribal Nations,'' pg. 1 (December 2023)) The Land
    Consolidation program continues to be complimented by the $2 million
    provided for land acquisitions within Trust Real Estate Services
    through the Operation of Indian Programs account in FY 2024 enacted.
                       trust natural resource management
        The budget includes $359.3 million, a $37.0 million increase over
    the 2024 Enacted amount, for critical trust natural resources
    activities and investing in climate resilience and environmental
    justice. Of that amount, $48.8 million is provided for the Tribal
    Climate Resilience program. This program includes the Climate
    Relocation Grant program, which is funded at $13.5 million, $4.0
    million more than the 2024 Enacted amount, to provide relocation,
    managed retreat, and protect-in-place support for critically vulnerable
    communities. Also included in the request is$26.8 million for the
    Tribal Climate Adaptation Grant program, which helps Tribes better
    assess and address their growing adaptation needs. The Tribal Climate
    Resilience program also includes $7.8 million for Tribal youth corps
    programs. The Tribal youth corps program is an important jobs
    initiative to tackle climate change on the ground, ensure a living
    wage, and provide skills and a pathway to employment. These funds will
    also support Tribes in developing science, obtaining tools, training,
    planning, and implementing actions to build resilience into resource
    management, infrastructure, and community development activities. The
    budget supports the America the Beautiful initiative by honoring Tribal
    sovereignty and supporting the Trust Natural Resources priorities of
    Tribal Nations.
        Included in the budget request are two new elements of the Tribal
    Climate Adaptation program. First, it includes a $500,000 increase to
    fund the BIA's role in the National Seed Strategy. This funding will
    advance critical scientific requirements by supporting botanists and
    ethnologists who will seek out Indigenous knowledge to incorporate into
    restoration practices. The funding will also support co-developed
    climate adaptation and resilience best management practices for seed
    production and use in restoration. Second, in support of the White
    House national strategy to prioritize nature-based solutions (NBS) that
    benefit people and nature, advance equity, are evidence informed,
    integrate continuous improvement, and advance collaboration/co-
    stewardship opportunities, the BIA is requesting $250,000 to establish
    a Resource NBS expert to implement the NBS roadmap and strategies. The
    BIA will develop and maintain a tool for Tribes and decision makers
    that allows access to data needed to invest in protecting, sustainably
    managing, and restoring natural ecosystems.
        The budget also includes $41.0 million to support Agriculture and
    Range efforts and $33.6 million for Energy and Minerals activities,
    which includes investment in the deployment of clean energy in Tribal
    communities. IA views renewable energy as one of many tools available
    to American Indians and Alaska Natives to create sustainable economies
    on Indian land; many Indian reservations are well positioned to access
    or provide a stable source of competitively priced, low-carbon clean
    energy. These efforts also support the Justice40 Initiative, ensuring
    that at least 40 percent of the overall benefits from certain Federal
    investments are delivered to disadvantaged communities.
                                  construction
        The 2025 budget includes $154.8 million for BIA Construction
    activities. The funding supports replacement and deferred maintenance
    projects to address needs at PS&J facilities. It also includes the
    irrigation rehabilitation program, which addresses critical deferred
    maintenance and construction needs at BIA-owned and operated irrigation
    facilities, including 17 Indian irrigation projects. The Safety of Dams
    program is responsible for 141 high-hazard dams on 42 Indian
    reservations. The Construction program also addresses needs at regional
    and agency offices serving Tribal programs and operations in Indian
    Country.
        Within Construction activities, the budget includes $10.0 million
    to address water-quality issues at BIA-owned water infrastructure,
    including systems of concern identified by EPA. In addition, $1.4
    million is included to support the Administration's governmentwide goal
    to accelerate the 0use of zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) to enable a
    clean transportation future. Funds will be used to acquire ZEVs,
    install solar panels and related charging infrastructure, and perform
    planning and integration to support the initiative across Indian
    Affairs.
             contract support costs and tribal grant support costs
        Contract Support Costs funding is critical for Tribal sovereignty,
    enabling Tribes to assume responsibility for operating Federal programs
    by covering the costs to administer the programs. The budget proposes
    to reclassify Tribal Contract Support Costs from discretionary to
    mandatory funding beginning in 2026 while estimating $426.2 million in
    discretionary funding needs in 2025 to fully cover projected
    requirements.
        The BIE 2025 request includes $100.7 million in Tribal Grant
    Support Costs. These funds provide operating and staffing resources to
    Tribes who choose to operate BIE-funded schools. Nearly 70 percent of
    all BIE-funded K-12 schools are operated by Tribes.
                           payments for tribal leases
        Section 105(l) of the Indian Self Determination and Education
    Assistance Act (ISDEAA) provides that Tribes and Tribal organizations
    carrying out Federal functions under a self- determination contract or
    self-governance compact may enter into a lease agreement with the
    Department for the Tribally owned or rented facility used to carry out
    those functions. This critical Tribal sovereignty payment is allowing
    IA to get Tribes closer to meeting the full cost of program
    implementation and improving their facilities. The 2025 budget proposes
    to reclassify 105(l) lease agreement requirements from discretionary to
    mandatory funding beginning in 2026 while estimating $120.0 million in
    discretionary funding needs in 2025 to fully cover projected
    requirements. The budget also includes an increase of $2.2 million in
    Executive Direction which will help fund additional staff to meet the
    growing level of requests of Tribes. The annual number of Tribal lease
    requests currently exceeds 600. This funding for additional staff is
    critical to meet this demand in a timely manner.
                       land and water claims settlements
        Tribal land and water rights settlements ensure that Tribes have
    access to land and water to meet domestic, economic, and cultural
    needs. The 2025 budget proposes $45.9 million for the Settlements
    account. The 2025 funding request covers the continuing implementation
    of the White Earth Reservation Land Settlement Act (Public Law 99-264)
    and Truckee River Operating Agreement (Public Law 101-618). The request
    also includes initial funding of $45.0 million for Federal payments
    authorized in the Hualapai Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act of 2022
    (Public Law 117-419). The Hualapai settlement authorizes discretionary
    appropriations of $317.0 million plus indexing to the Tribe for the
    construction of the Hualapai Water Project and other domestic water
    supply infrastructure on the Hualapai Reservation. Payments to satisfy
    the settlement must be made by April 15, 2029.
        The Administration is interested in working with Congress to find a
    solution to meet Federal commitments regarding current and future
    Indian water rights settlements, including the Hualapai settlement. The
    2025 President's Budget proposes legislation to provide robust
    mandatory funding for Indian Water Rights Settlements, building on the
    Indian Water Rights Settlement Completion Fund (IWRSC), established in
    the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (Public Law 117-58). The IWRSC went a
    long way in clearing the backlog of settlement obligations and the
    Department has allocated over $2.4 billion of the $2.5 billion
    appropriated. However, more remains to be done. At this time, there are
    four Indian water settlements pending before Congress and a number of
    other water settlements are in negotiation and may be introduced soon.
    The proposal would provide the fund $2.8 billion: $250.0 million
    annually over 10 years for existing and future water rights settlements
    and $34.0 million a year over 10 years for on-going requirements
    implemented by the Bureau of Reclamation associated with the operation,
    maintenance, and repair costs of the Ak Chin Indian Water Rights
    Settlement Project, the Animas-La Plata Project (Colorado Ute
    Settlement), the Navajo Gallup Water Supply Project, and annual
    responsibilities under the Columbia and Snake River Salmon Recovery
    Project (Nez Perce Settlement).
                         foster tribal student success
        The 2025 budget for the BIE is $1.5 billion in current
    appropriations, a $154.6 million increase from the 2024 Enacted level.
    The budget includes key investments to strengthen the BIE's autonomy as
    a Federal agency and improve local services for Tribally controlled and
    bureau- operated schools while also advancing equity for historically
    underserved Tribal communities.
        The United States has a trust and treaty responsibility to provide
    eligible Indian students with a quality education. The BIE serves as a
    capacity builder and service provider to support Tribes in delivering
    culturally appropriate education with high academic standards to allow
    students across Indian Country to achieve success. Funding for the BIE
    supports classroom instruction, student transportation, Native language
    development programs, cultural enrichment, gifted and talented
    programs, behavioral health and wellness services, school safety,
    security, and education technology investments. The BIE operates two
    postsecondary institutions, administers grants for 29 Tribally
    controlled colleges and universities, funds two Tribal technical
    colleges, and supports multiple scholarship programs for highly
    qualified Native American students.
        The 2025 budget invests in improved educational opportunities and
    service delivery for Native American students from their earliest years
    through college. Under the BIE, the FY 2025 budget includes $310
    million for Education Construction activities, supporting critical
    school construction, deferred maintenance for schools and TCUs, and new
    employee housing and repair to support teacher recruitment and
    retention in underserved communities. With the 2025 budget request and
    Great American Outdoors Act Funding anticipated through 2025, the BIE
    expects to support the planning, design, and construction work at four
    BIE schools and address inflationary cost increases at schools funded
    in prior years. As the BIE continues to strengthen delivery of services
    to underserved communities as an independent bureau, the 2025 request
    includes a $6.3 million program increase in Education Program
    Management, which includes additional support for critical grant
    specialists, facilities specialists, and education information
    technology specialists. To ensure current and additional resources are
    well targeted, the BIE has developed and recently completed Tribal
    consultation across Indian Country regarding its 2024-2029 strategic
    plan, which will be published this summer. The BIE strategic plan
    creates a roadmap for the future to support Tribes in educating their
    youth and to deliver a world-class and culturally appropriate
    education.
                             trust fund management
        The 2025 budget includes $111.3 million, an $11.3 million increase
    from 2024 Enacted, to support Tribal and Individual Indian Money
    financial functions managed by the Bureau of Trust Funds Administration
    (BTFA). The BTFA was established within the Office of the Assistant
    Secretary--Indian Affairs in 2020 to house the ongoing financial trust
    management functions of the Office of the Special Trustee for American
    Indians. Trust funds include payments from judgment awards, settlements
    of claims, land-use agreements, royalties on natural resource use,
    other proceeds derived directly from trust resources, and financial
    investment income. Trust financial management functions include
    receipting, investing, disbursing, reconciling, and reporting of trust
    funds on behalf of individual Indians. We appreciate Congress's full
    recognition of BTFA as a bureau in the FY 2024 Enacted Appropriation,
    which will allow the organization to focus on its mission of serving
    Indian Country.
                                   conclusion
        This FY 2025 budget request maintains strong and meaningful
    relationships with Native communities, strengthens government-to-
    government relationships with federally recognized Tribes, promotes
    efficient and effective governance, and supports nation-building and
    self- determination. The request delivers community services, restores
    Tribal homelands, fulfills commitments related to water and other
    resource rights, executes fiduciary trust responsibilities, supports
    the stewardship of energy and other natural resources, creates economic
    opportunity, expands access to early childhood, K-12, and post-
    secondary education, and assists in supporting community resilience in
    the face of a changing climate.
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I am
    happy to answer any questions the subcommittee may have.

        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Secretary Newland,
    and we are going to turn now to ranking member, Senator
    Murkowski.

                      STATEMENT OF SENATOR LISA MURKOWSKI

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My apologies
    for being tardy here this morning. Thank you for your presence
    here, for your leadership at both BIA and in the Department of
    Interior, to welcome Director Tso, Assistant Secretary Newland.
    It has been a busy couple of weeks in the Approps Committee
    with the focus on the 2025 budget. I think this hearing marks
    the last one before we start to write a bill for the next
    fiscal year, and with the two agencies responsible for tribal
    programs under the subcommittee's jurisdiction. So we got a lot
    to do here, but I think one of the things that we have seen is
    a commitment, a priority to work together to fund essential
    programs that serve tribes and native communities.
        It is no secret that fiscal year 2024 was a lean year for
    the agencies that were funded by this subcommittee. We had to
    make a lot of tough choices, but we did our best to maintain
    funding for the programs that are critical to Indian Country
    and Alaska, including health, economic development, education,
    and workforce development, as well as water and sanitation
    infrastructure. And as we work to uphold the Federal
    Government's trust responsibilities, we have made great
    progress on the challenging issues related to contract support
    costs and 105 tribal lease payments. But the challenges keep
    coming, so Director Tso, we are going to need to keep in close
    touch on this, given the pending Supreme Court case regarding
    contract support costs and responsibilities related to third-
    party payments.
        The President's proposal for IHS is roughly $8 billion,
    which represents an increase of over $1 billion above enacted
    and, again, proposes to shift the entire Agency to mandatory
    funding beginning in fiscal year 2025. And while I agree that
    there is far more need than funding levels can meet and have
    supported advanced appropriations for the Agency, I am not sure
    how the constraints of the Fiscal Responsibility Act would
    provide for that level of increase now or how we pay for a
    shift to mandatory funding in the out-years.
        A couple Alaska-specific issues with IHS that I have raised
    with you previously, Director Tso, and the first is IHS'
    consultation policy and the definition of ``Indian tribe'' in
    that policy. I think you know IHS has been using the ISDEA
    definition of ``Indian tribe'' for many years now. It allows
    Alaska's entire tribal health system to participate in
    consultation. You well know the unique structure that we have
    for delivery of healthcare that involves Alaska tribes, tribal
    organizations, and intertribal consortia. We have heard no
    clear reason to change from the definition of ``Indian tribe''
    after years of productive tribal relations with IHS under the
    current policy, so I would urge IHS to not undermine the
    existing robust tribal consultation process. Just do not do it.
    I am going to mention the Alaska Native Medical Center, but we
    will do that in questions.
        Then turning to the Department of Interior, the proposed
    fiscal year 2025 funding for Indian Affairs, about $4.5
    billion, close to $588 million above enacted. I also recognize
    the importance and the need for the resources for activities
    funded by DOI, but, again, do not see how current law provides
    a path to that level of funding. The only promise that I can
    make as we look to write this bill is that we will continue our
    bipartisan tradition to prioritize the needs of native
    communities.
        Sitting as the ranking member on Indian Affairs, I am proud
    of all that we have been able to achieve together for missing
    and murdered indigenous people, but as we mentioned yesterday
    at the hearing, Assistant Secretary, I think we are just
    scratching the surface right now. As I talk with native
    communities in Alaska and across the country, public safety and
    justice investments are a top priority. And again, the hearings
    that we have had there in Indian Affairs have been important,
    talking about everything from adequate funding for PL 280
    States to address the inequities with respect to public safety
    and justice with non PL 280 States. This is a top concern. I
    have included funding for tribal courts in PL 280 States in the
    Interior bill for the last 10 years. I think we are making some
    progress there.
        We also mentioned the VAWA 2022, which established the
    Alaska Pilot Program and an Alaska Intertribal Technical
    Assistance Working Group. I am not quite sure if we are going
    to have a good acronym for that, but we are hoping to see DOI
    actively participate in those programs, too. And we are going
    to continue to support sufficient funding for the small and
    needy tribe supplement, subsistence, and programs that support
    native languages. It is also important to me that tribal
    management programs are effectively contributing towards
    economic development while meeting natural resource goals.
        A lot of ground to cover. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the
    good work of the committee and our staffs as we work to build
    out the budget in this subcommittee for these important
    priorities.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator Murkowski.
    Now we are going to turn to the director of the Indian Health
    Services, Roselyn Tso. Welcome.
    STATEMENT OF ROSELYN TSO, DIRECTOR, INDIAN HEALTH
                SERVICE
        Dr. Tso. Good morning, Chairman Merkley, and Ranking Member
    Murkowski, and members of the committee. Thank you for the
    opportunity to testify on the President's fiscal year 2025
    budget request for the Indian Health Service.
        Before I turn to the budget, I want to first acknowledge
    and thank you for your work over the years to grow the IHS
    budget, as well as prioritize Indian healthcare across Indian
    Country. We are especially grateful for the IHS advanced
    appropriations in fiscal year 2024, this historic achievement
    that has greatly improved the lives of American Indians and
    Alaska natives across Indian Country. I am happy to report that
    because of the fiscal year 2024 advanced appropriations, IHS
    has made a hundred percent of payments to eligible tribes
    through compacts and contracts within the first 2 weeks of the
    fiscal year.
        I also appreciate the opportunity to share with you the
    steps I have taken as the IHS director to improve transparency,
    accountability, and oversight at the Indian Health Service. As
    we seek additional funding and new funding authorities, it is
    critical that the Indian Health Service improve its internal
    operations to ensure safe and high-quality healthcare, and
    protect and support the relationships that we have with tribes
    and urban organizations. To ensure that I fully understand the
    challenges and successes throughout Indian Country, I
    appreciate the opportunity to visit with tribal leaders across
    the country in their space to better understand and also gain
    their input and perspective. In support of building a high-
    performing organization, I implemented the first Agency work
    plan in January of 2023 that achieved three major
    accomplishments, including total system safety strategy, the
    IHS patient safety policy, and improvements to our purchase and
    referred care program, such as updating the medical priority
    levels, building a financial monitoring tool system, and
    training staff to obligate PRC funding in a timely manner.
        Building on the work plan, our 2024 Agency work plan
    outlines steps that the Agency is taking to address priorities
    as well as mitigate risk. The Agency work plan addresses a wide
    range of issues, but also incorporates the recommendation and
    principles identified by the GAO with the goal of being removed
    from the GAO High-Risk List. With your support, the IHS budget
    has grown by 69 percent in the last decade. We know that this
    type of growth is challenging to accomplish in a constrained
    discretionary funding environment. Over the years, the work
    with our tribes and urban partners underscore our shared goal
    to improve health outcomes for all American Indians and Alaska
    Natives. It is with this shared goal in mind that the
    administrative approach to the 2025 budget request for IHS.
        We know that despite our shared efforts, IHS is still
    underfunded. This underfunding of the Indian health system
    directly contributes to the stark health disparities in our
    tribal communities. For example, American Indians and Alaska
    Natives born today have an average life expectancy that is 10.9
    years fewer than U.S. all-race population. Longstanding health
    disparities were compounded by the pandemic, with American
    Indians and Alaska Natives experiencing disproportionate rates
    of COVID-19 infections, hospitalizations, and death. Addressing
    these inequities is a moral imperative for our Nation, and it
    will require bold steps from all of us to ensure we are
    upholding our commitment to Indian Country. That is why the
    budget proposes to build on the enactment of advanced
    appropriations for funding the IHS as discretionary in 2025.
    Beginning in 2026, the budget will move all funding to
    mandatory.
        The administration continues to stand behind mandatory
    funding as the most appropriate long-term funding solution for
    Indian Health Service, and we know it is a significant change
    that will take time and collaboration with Congress and tribes
    to accomplish. We believe that this change of this magnitude is
    overdue, and we must deliver to Indian Country. As we work
    together towards securing a stable, predictable, adequate
    funding to meet the needs of Indian Country, we are committed
    to working closely with our stakeholders. Thank you again for
    the opportunity to speak with you today, and I am happy to
    answer any questions that committee may have.
        [The statement follows:]
                     Prepared Statement of Hon. Roselyn Tso
        Good morning Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski, and
    Members of the Committee. Thank you for your support and for inviting
    me to speak with you about the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 Budget
    Request for the IHS.
        The Indian Health Service (IHS) is an agency within the Department
    of Health and Human Services (HHS) and our mission is to raise the
    physical, mental, social, and spiritual health of American Indians and
    Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) to the highest level. This mission is carried
    out in partnership with AI/AN Tribal communities through a network of
    over 600 Federal and Tribal health facilities and 41 Urban Indian
    Organizations (UIOs) that are located across 37 States and provide
    health care services to approximately 2.8 million AI/AN people
    annually.
        On March 11, 2024, the White House released the President's FY 2025
    Budget, which builds on the historic enactment of advance
    appropriations for the IHS by taking a two-pronged approach. In FY
    2025, the Budget proposes to fund all IHS accounts (other than the
    Special Diabetes Program for Indians) as discretionary, building on the
    advance appropriations already enacted. Beginning in FY 2026, the
    Budget would make all funding for IHS mandatory. The action taken in
    the FY 2025 President's Budget demonstrates the Administration's
    continued commitment to strengthening the Nation-to-nation
    relationship. This historic proposal addresses long-standing challenges
    that have impacted communities across Indian Country for decades.
        The Indian Health system is chronically underfunded compared to
    other healthcare systems in the U.S.\1, 2\ Despite substantial growth
    in the IHS discretionary budget over the last decade, 69 percent from
    FY 2013 to the current FY 2024 enacted level, the growth has not been
    sufficient to address the well documented funding gaps in Indian
    Country. These deficiencies directly contribute to stark health
    disparities faced by Tribal communities. AI/ANs born today have an
    average life expectancy that is 10.9 years fewer than the U.S. all-
    races population. AI/AN life expectancy dropped from an estimated 71.8
    years in 2019 to 65.2 years in 2021--the same life expectancy as the
    general United States population in 1944.\3\ They experience
    disproportionate rates of mortality from most major health issues,
    including chronic liver disease and cirrhosis, diabetes, unintentional
    injuries, assault and homicide, and suicide. AI/AN people also have
    higher rates of colorectal, kidney, liver, lung, and stomach cancers
    than non-Hispanic White people.\4\ The pandemic compounded the impact
    of these disparities in Tribal communities, with AI/ANs experiencing
    disproportionate rates of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and
    death.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Government Accountability Office Report--Indian Health Service:
    Spending Levels and Characteristics of IHS and Three Other Federal
    Health Care Programs https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-19-74r.pdf
        \2\ U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Report--Broken Promises:
    Continuing Federal Funding Shortfall for Native Americanshttps://
    www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2018/12-20-Broken-Promises.pdf
        \3\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Report--Life
    Expectancy in the U.S. Dropped for the Second Year in a Row in 2021
    https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/
    20220831.htm#::text=AIAN%20people%20had%20a%20life,total%20 U.S.%20
    population%20in%201944
        \4\ CDC--Cancer Within American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN)
    Populations https://www.cdc.gov/healthyTribes/native-american-
    cancer.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             leadership priorities
        In January, the IHS implemented the 2024 Agency Work plan \5\ and
    closed out the 2023 plan. The 2023 Agency Work Plan produced remarkable
    achievements across the Agency, including implementing the Total System
    Safety Strategy, the IHS Patient Safety Policy in November 2023 to
    support system level safety for the IHS workforce and patients, and
    improvements to the Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) program, such as new
    medical priority levels, a financial monitoring tool, and staff
    training to obligate PRC funding in a timely way.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Indian Health Service--FY 2024 Agency Work Plan https://
    www.ihs.gov/sites/newsroom/themes/responsive2017/display_objects/
    documents/factsheets/2024_Agency_Work_Plan_Update.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The 2024 Agency Work Plan outlines steps the IHS is taking to
    address priorities as well as mitigate risks. The plan details critical
    actions that will ensure safe, quality, and patient-centered care, as
    well as improve IHS operations and communication. The IHS will achieve
    these goals through rigorous management and oversight of resources to
    ensure the health care needs of AI/ANs are met. The 2024 Agency Work
    Plan also includes actions that are necessary to meet the U.S.
    Government Accountability Office's criteria for being removed from
    their high-risk list \6\.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Government Accountability Office- Key Practices to Successfully
    Address High-Risk Areas and Remove Them from the List https://
    www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-105184
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As I travel across Indian Country, I see the consequences of
    decades-long underfunding of the Indian health system. I see the
    promise of what could be accomplished with appropriate funding for the
    IHS in the achievements of IHS-operated hospitals and health clinics,
    Tribal Health Programs, and Urban Indian Organizations, despite
    resource limitations. I also see the immediate impact of predictable
    and timely funding through advance appropriations, including the IHS's
    fastest-ever distribution of annually appropriated funds and the
    continued focus on patient care uninterrupted by delays or potential
    lapses in appropriations. The FY 2025 President's Budget moves the
    Federal Government closer to meeting its responsibilities to Indian
    Country than ever before.
             advance appropriations and long-term funding solutions
        The FY 2025 President's Budget builds on the historic enactment of
    advance appropriations. For FY 2025, the Budget includes $8.2 billion
    in total funding for the IHS, which includes $8.0 billion in
    discretionary funding, and $260 million in proposed mandatory funding
    for the Special Diabetes Program for Indians. This is an increase of
    $1.1 billion above the FY 2024 Enacted level.
        Advance appropriations represent an important step towards securing
    stable and predictable funding to improve the overall health status of
    AI/ANs and ensuring that the disproportionate impacts experienced by
    Tribal communities during government shutdowns and continuing
    resolutions are never repeated. While the progress achieved through the
    enactment of advance appropriations will have a lasting impact on
    Indian Country, funding growth beyond what can be accomplished through
    discretionary spending is needed to fulfill the Federal Government's
    commitments to AI/AN communities. Funding for IHS has grown
    substantially in the last decade, but this growth is not sufficient to
    address the historic underinvestment and persistent health disparities
    in AI/AN communities.
        The Budget proposes to fully shift the IHS budget to mandatory
    funding in FY 2026. Under the mandatory proposal, IHS funding would
    grow automatically to address the growing cost of providing direct
    health care services, including pay costs, medical and non-medical
    inflation, population growth, key operational needs, and existing
    backlogs in both healthcare services and facilities infrastructure.
    This mandatory formula culminates in a total funding level of
    approximately $42 billion in FY 2034. In total, the mandatory formula
    would provide approximately $289 billion for the IHS over the budget
    window. When accounting for the discretionary baseline, the net cost of
    the proposal is approximately $208 billion over the budget window.
        The Administration continues to support mandatory funding for IHS
    as the most appropriate long-term funding solution for the agency and
    will continue to work collaboratively with Tribes and Congress to move
    toward sustainable mandatory funding. Until this solution is enacted,
    it is critical that Congress continue to provide advance appropriations
    for IHS through the discretionary appropriations process to ensure
    funding for healthcare services and facilities activities are not
    disrupted.
        Mandatory funding for the IHS provides the opportunity for
    significant funding increases that would be difficult to achieve within
    the limitations of the discretionary appropriations process. Further,
    this mandatory funding proposal would ensure greater predictability
    that would allow IHS, Tribal, and urban Indian health programs the
    opportunity for long-term and strategic planning. This increased
    stability and ability to conduct longer-term planning will improve the
    quality of healthcare, promote recruitment and retention of health
    professionals, and enhance management efficiencies for individual
    health programs and the Indian Health system at large. The request also
    responds to the long-standing recommendations of Tribal leaders shared
    in consultation with HHS and IHS to make IHS funding mandatory.
        The Budget also exempts all IHS funding from sequestration, which
    is the legislatively mandated process of budget control consisting of
    automatic, across-the-board spending reductions to enforce budget
    targets to limit Federal spending. Exempting the IHS budget from
    sequestration ensures funding for direct health care services for AI/
    ANs is not reduced and is consistent with the treatment of other
    critical programs such as veterans' health care benefits.
        Lastly, the Budget proposes to reauthorize mandatory funding for
    the Special Diabetes Program for Indians and increase funding to $260
    million in FY 2025 and $270 million in FY 2026. This program has proven
    to be effective at reducing the prevalence of diabetes among AI/AN
    adults.\7\ Potential net savings to Medicare due to averted cases of
    diabetes-related end-stage renal disease were estimated to be up to
    $520 million over 10 years.\8\ The budget's proposed increases will
    enable the program to expand to additional grantees and allow local
    recipients to plan for larger and longer-term interventions more
    effectively.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ 4 British Medical Journal- Prevalence of diagnosed diabetes in
    American Indian and Alaska Native adults, 2006-2017https://drc.bmj.com/
    content/8/1/e001218
        \8\ HHS Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation Issue
    Brief- The Special Diabetes Program for Indians Estimates of Medicare
    Savings https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/pdf/261741/
    SDPI_Paper_Final.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     prioritizing high quality health care
        The Budget prioritizes investments that advance high quality health
    care and tackle the stark healthcare inequities 2.8 million Americans
    in the country who are AI/AN face every day.
        In FY 2025, the Budget provides $345 million to offset the rising
    costs of providing direct health care services. These resources will
    help the IHS to maintain medical care levels and address increasing
    costs affecting the operating budgets of IHS, Tribal, and urban Indian
    health programs.
        Similarly, the Budget includes $153 million to fully fund staffing
    and operating costs at 10 newly-constructed or expanded health care
    facilities opening in FY 2024 and FY 2025.\9\ These funds will expand
    the availability of direct health care services in areas where existing
    health care capacity is overextended. Beginning in FY 2026, the
    mandatory funding formula fully funds current services and staffing and
    operating costs for newly opening facilities in the out-years, which
    ensure that health care services are maintained and/or expanded.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ As the budget was developed before Congress completed action on
    full year FY 2024 appropriations, the request includes $61 million to
    fully- fund staffing costs of 7 new or expanded facilities eligible for
    funds in FY 2024. Congress provided this funding in the FY 2024
    Omnibus, so this funding would become recurring and these increases
    would not need to be provided again in FY 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In FY 2025, the Budget also makes targeted investments to address
    our Nation's most pressing public health challenges, which
    disproportionately impact AI/AN communities, including an additional
    $10 million to address HIV, Hepatitis C, and sexually transmitted
    infections and an additional $10 million to address opioid use in
    Indian Country.
        The Budget also makes numerous investments in high priority areas,
    such as the expansion of the successful National Community Health Aide
    Program and other activities that support high quality health care.
        Likewise, from FY 2026 to FY 2030, the Budget requests an
    additional $11.6 billion in mandatory funding for the Indian Health
    Care Improvement Fund to address the funding gap for direct healthcare
    services documented in the FY 2018 level of need funded analysis.\10\
    The Budget would continue growth for direct services once the 2018 gap
    is addressed. This funding would be distributed using the Indian Health
    Care Improvement Fund formula. The formula targets appropriations to
    the sites with the greatest need, as compared to the benchmark of
    National Health Expenditure Data, which is maintained by the Centers
    for Medicare and Medicaid Services. The formula is the product of
    longstanding consultation with Tribes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Indian Health Service- FY 2018 Indian Health Care Improvement
    Fund Workgroup Interim Report https://www.ihs.gov/sites/ihcif/themes/
    responsive2017/display_objects/documents/2018/
    2018_IHCIF_WorkgroupInterimReport.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Budget also prevents a sharp reduction in services by providing
    an additional $220 million in mandatory funding in FY 2026 to partially
    sustain the one-time American Rescue Plan Act investments that were
    appropriated to expand access to mental health and substance abuse
    prevention and treatment services, and to expand the public health
    workforce in Indian Country.
        Lastly, the Budget proposes dedicated funding to address
    disparities in cancer rates and mortality among AI/ANs, providing $108
    million in mandatory funding in FY 2026 for the Biden Cancer Moonshot
    Initiative. Through this initiative, the IHS would develop a
    coordinated public health and clinical cancer prevention program to
    implement best practices and prevention strategies to address incidence
    of cancer and mortality among AI/ANs.
                      modernizing critical infrastructure
        In addition to funding for direct health care services, additional
    investments are needed to address substantial deficiencies in physical
    and information technology infrastructure across the IHS system.
    Outdated infrastructure poses challenges in safely providing patient
    care, recruiting and retaining staff, and meeting accreditation
    standards. The Budget includes critical funding increases to reduce or
    eliminate existing facilities backlogs and modernize the IHS Electronic
    Health Record (EHR) through implementation of a new system.
        The current IHS EHR is over 40 years old, and the GAO identifies it
    as one of the 10 most critical Federal legacy systems in need of
    modernization.\11\ The IHS relies on its EHR for all aspects of patient
    care, including the patient record, prescriptions, care referrals, and
    billing public and private insurance for over $1 billion reimbursable
    health care services annually. As a result of EHR modernization,
    patients and staff can expect improved patient safety, improved patient
    outcomes, better disease management, enhanced population health,
    improved clinical quality measures, opioid tracking, patient data
    exchange, third party revenue generation, and agency performance
    reporting; among others. Additionally, the new system will be
    interoperable with the Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of
    Defense, Tribal and urban Indian health programs, academic affiliates,
    and community partners, many of whom use different health information
    technology platforms.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ GAO-21-524T, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: Agencies Need to Develop
    and Implement Modernization Plans for Critical Legacy Systems https://
    www.gao.gov/assets/gao-21-524t.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In FY 2025, the Budget provides $435 million in discretionary
    funding for EHR modernization, an increase of +$245 million above 2024
    Enacted to support licensing, hosting, training, site remediation,
    implementation, and support costs to implement a modernized system. The
    Budget then builds funding for EHR by adding $1.3 billion in mandatory
    funding each year from FY 2026-FY 2030 to fully fund the modernization
    effort. Once the EHR modernization effort is fully funded, the Budget
    maintains sufficient resources for ongoing operations and maintenance
    of the new system.
        The Indian health system also faces substantial physical
    infrastructure challenges--IHS hospitals are approximately 39 years old
    on average, which is over three times the average age of hospitals in
    the United States. Infrastructure deficiencies directly contribute to
    poorer health outcomes for AI/ANs and limit services that can be
    provided. Starting in FY 2026, the Budget addresses these needs by
    fully funding the 1993 Health Care Facilities Construction Priority
    List over 5 years. The remaining projects on the list include the
    Phoenix Indian Medical Center, Phoenix, AZ; Whiteriver Hospital,
    Whiteriver, AZ; Gallup Indian Medical Center, Gallup, NM; Albuquerque
    West Health Center, Albuquerque, NM; Albuquerque Central Health Center,
    Albuquerque, NM; Sells Health Center, Sells, AZ, Alamo Heath Center,
    Alamo, NM; Bodaway Gap Health Center, The Gap AZ; and Pueblo Pintado
    Health Center, Pueblo Pintado, NM.
        Furthermore, the Budget includes an additional $454 million in
    mandatory funding over 2 years, from FY 2026 to FY 2027, to fully fund
    the medical equipment backlog. Many IHS hospital administrators report
    that old or inadequate physical environments challenged their ability
    to provide quality care and maintain compliance with the Medicare
    Hospital Conditions of Participation. The administrators also report
    that aging buildings and equipment is a major challenge impacting
    recruitment and retention of clinicians.
        Maintaining reliable and efficient buildings is also a challenge as
    existing health care facilities age and the costs to operate and
    properly maintain health care facilities increases. Many IHS and Tribal
    health care facilities are operating at or beyond capacity and their
    designs are not efficient in the context of modern health care
    delivery. The Budget tackles this challenge by fully funding the 2023
    Backlog of Essential Maintenance, Alteration, and Repair for IHS and
    Tribal facilities of $2.0 billion over 2 years, from FY 2026 to FY
    2027.
        The mandatory budget ensures that these facilities investments can
    be rapidly addressed by providing sufficient administrative support
    increases. Specifically, the Budget increases the Facilities and
    Environmental Health Support funding to account for the growth in
    Health Care Facilities Construction and Sanitation Facilities
    Construction (SFC). This ensures adequate staff to properly oversee and
    implement facilities projects, as well as a comprehensive environmental
    health program within IHS.
        Beginning in FY 2027, the Budget provides an additional $250
    million to address operation and maintenance costs for sanitation
    facilities projects, addressing longstanding recommendations from
    Tribes. In addition, the Budget dedicates $10 million in mandatory
    funding to support a nation-wide analysis to understand the cost
    implications of implementing section 302 of the Indian Health Care
    Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. 1632), which authorizes funding for
    operations and maintenance costs for Tribes who choose to directly
    compete their own SFC projects. The results of this analysis will be
    used and implemented as part of the updated mandatory formula
    structure. These funds would be used by IHS and Tribes to ensure that
    existing SFC projects are reaching their maximum life-cycle and
    operations of these projects are sustainable for as long as possible.
                         supporting self-determination
        IHS continues to support the self-determination of Tribes to
    operate their own health programs. Tribal leaders and members are best
    positioned to understand the priorities and needs of their local
    communities. The amount of the IHS budget that is administered directly
    by Tribes through Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
    Act contracts and compacts has grown over time, with over 60 percent of
    IHS funding currently administered directly by Tribes. Tribes design
    and manage the delivery of individual and community health services
    through 22 hospitals, 330 health centers, 559 ambulatory clinics, 76
    health stations, 146 Alaska village clinics, and 7 school health
    centers across Indian Country. In recognition of this, the Budget
    maintains an indefinite discretionary appropriation for Contract
    Support Costs and Section 105(l) lease agreements with estimated
    funding levels of $979 million for Contract Support Costs and $349
    million for Section 105(l) Lease Agreements in FY 2025. The budget also
    includes appropriations language to allow IHS not more than $10 million
    for management and oversight activities in each of the CSC and Tribal
    Lease Payments indefinite discretionary appropriations. These resources
    are critical for providing appropriate technical assistance to Tribes,
    supporting timely processing of CSC and section 105(l) lease
    agreements, and overseeing these ever- growing programs. Starting in FY
    2026, the Budget would provide mandatory, indefinite funding for these
    accounts across the 9-year budget window to ensure these payments to
    Tribes are fully funded.
                         future emergency preparedness
        Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the IHS made incredible
    achievements to save lives and improve the health of AI/ANs across the
    Nation. The IHS worked closely with our Tribal and Urban Indian
    Organization partners, State and local public health officials, and our
    fellow Federal agencies to coordinate a comprehensive public health
    response to the pandemic. Our number one priority has been the safety
    of our IHS patients and staff, as well as Tribal community members.
        COVID-19 has disproportionally impacted AI/ANs. Deficiencies in
    public health infrastructure exacerbated the impact of COVID-19 on AI/
    ANs. To address the long-term impacts of COVID- 19, in FY 2026 the
    Budget provides an additional $130 million in mandatory funding to
    support IHS patients in recovery from the long-lasting effects of the
    COVID-19 pandemic, including treatment for long haul COVID-19. Based on
    data from 14 States, age-adjusted COVID-19 associated mortality among
    AI/AN was 1.8 times that of non-Hispanic Whites.\12\ In 23 States with
    adequate race and ethnicity data, the cumulative incidence of
    laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 among AI/AN was 3.5 times that of non-
    Hispanic Whites. In the state of Montana, COVID-19 incidence and
    mortality rates among AI/AN were 2.2 and 3.8 times those among White
    persons, respectively.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ CDC- COVID-19 Mortality Among American Indian and Alaska
    Native Persons--14 States, January-June 2020 https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/
    volumes/69/wr/
    mm6949a3.htm#::text=Based%20on%20data%20from%2014,persons%20aged%2020%E2
    %80%9 349%20years
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Beginning in FY 2026, the Budget also establishes a new dedicated
    funding stream to address public health capacity and infrastructure
    needs in Indian Country. This funding will support an innovative hub-
    and-spoke model to address local public health needs in partnership
    with Tribes and urban Indian organizations. Establishing a new program
    to build public health capacity is a key lesson learned from the COVID-
    19 pandemic, and a top recommendation shared by tribal leaders in
    consultation with HHS. This includes $150 million in FY 2026, and would
    grow for inflation in the out-years under the formula, for a total of
    $500 million over 9 years.
        These resources are necessary to develop appropriate public health
    and emergency preparedness capacity in AI/AN communities to prevent
    these disproportionate impacts in the future. Tribes do not receive
    dedicated public health funding from the Federal Government, and the
    IHS does not currently have sufficient funding to support ongoing
    public health and emergency preparedness infrastructure. As of 2021,
    only four Tribal public health agencies are accredited through the
    Public Health Accreditation Board. Comparatively, 40 State and 305
    local public health agencies were accredited as of 2021.\13\ The
    proposal complements the Budget's proposed investments in public health
    readiness and pandemic preparedness by ensuring IHS and Tribal
    communities have comparable resources to prepare for the next pandemic.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion- Increase
    the number of Tribal public health agencies that are accredited https:/
    /health.gov/healthypeople/objectives-and-data/browse-objectives/public-
    health-infrastructure/increase-number-tribal-public-health- agencies-
    are-accredited-phi-03/data
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             legislative proposals
        In addition to proposed investments to ensure IHS has adequate
    operational capacity, the budget also includes several legislative
    proposals that would provide IHS with critical new or expanded
    authorities to address operational issues. Many of these proposals seek
    to enhance the agency's ability to recruit and retain healthcare
    providers, and provide parity with other Federal agencies to increase
    IHS' competitiveness when hiring for key positions. The IHS, as a rural
    health care provider, experiences difficulty recruiting and retaining
    health care professionals, physicians and other primary care clinicians
    in particular. Staffing shortages are particularly prevalent in the
    behavioral and mental health fields, which has only exacerbated the
    concurrent substance use crisis and suicide crisis that Tribes across
    the country are facing in their communities. Workforce challenges--and
    the impacts on care that come with them--are one of the top concerns
    raised to the Department by Tribes. The proposed legislative changes
    would: 1) Extend Title 38 personnel authorities, to enable IHS to offer
    specialized pay and benefits for health providers; 2) Provide tax
    exemption for recipients of IHS scholarship and loan repayment
    benefits, and allow these recipients to meet their service obligations
    on a half-time basis; 3) Enable IHS to fulfill mission- critical
    emergency hiring needs; 4) Provide IHS authority to hire and pay
    experts and consultants; 5) Enable IHS to provide on-call pay to its
    healthcare providers; and 6) Enable U.S. Public Health Service
    Commissioned Corps officers to be detailed to Urban Indian
    Organizations.
                                    closing
        The FY 2025 Budget makes critical strides toward the goal of
    ensuring stable and predictable funding to improve the overall health
    status of for AI/ANs. The Budget is a historic step and a continuation
    of an ongoing conversation with Tribes to ensure the IHS system is
    meeting the healthcare needs in Indian Country. HHS looks forward to
    working in consultation with Tribes, urban Indian organizations, and
    Congress to refine the FY 2026 mandatory proposal through the
    legislative process to strengthen the Nation-to-Nation relationship.

             IMPACTS OF CONTINUED LOWER FUNDING IN FISCAL YEAR 2025

        Senator Merkley. Well, thank you very much to both of you.
    As I said earlier, I do not love the Fiscal Responsibility Act,
    which I believe was irresponsible given the challenges that we
    are facing. But I was very pleased with the outcome of our 2024
    Interior bill, and it was a pleasure to work with Ranking
    Member Murkowski as we protected core programs and tried to
    minimize any negative impacts. But we need more support for
    tribal schools, for tribal law enforcement, tribal healthcare,
    and so what do you see happening if fiscal year 2025 has
    another round of cuts? And you mentioned some of them, and I
    will just open up with that concern, see what you are all
    seeing from the executive side, either one of you or both of
    you.
        Dr. Tso. Thank you. Thank you for that question. The
    immediate that I have seen is, of course, a $73 million
    reduction in SCF. SCF, of course, is our water/sewer
    infrastructure to Indian Country, and any home that does not
    have water or sewer infrastructure is going to be impacted by
    some kind of a health issue. So the public health need here to
    make sure that we protect those sources of funds is absolutely
    critical.
        The second line item that we received a reduction is our
    electronic health records. Our electronic health records at
    plural the Indian Health Service is more than 40 years old, and
    learning today and knowing today how significant that is for
    any healthcare system is imperative that we continue to stay on
    track as much as we can with our schedule and keep moving that
    forward so we can deliver improved healthcare to American
    Indians and Alaska Natives. Thank you.
        Mr. Newland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The short answer is
    that we will see cuts to important services across Indian
    Country. So at the fiscal year 2024-enacted level, that already
    limited our ability to hire law enforcement officers across
    Indian Country, which is laid out in my opening statement and
    submitted testimony. We are well short, far short of our
    obligation to Indian Country when it comes to public safety
    funding. It will limit our ability to replace schools that are
    in poor condition. We are already 30 years out from replacing
    all of those schools. It will limit our ability to ensure that
    people in BIA and Tribal detention centers are in humane
    conditions. Twenty-three of those jails are already rated in
    poor condition, and we estimate in today's funds, it will take
    over $600 million to replace those. So any cuts or limitations
    on our ability to make these investments will amplify what is
    already a big problem in so many tribal communities.

                          TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY PAYMENTS

        Senator Merkley. Now, a big challenge--and those challenges
    are made potentially higher by the pending Supreme Court case
    related to third-party billing within IHS programs, which would
    expand the responsibilities of what we have referred to as
    tribal sovereignty payments, administrative overhead, and
    leasing costs that the courts have said we need to pay. I have
    heard estimates that depending on how this Supreme Court
    decision comes out, it could result in immediate additional
    costs of $800 to $2 billion. Do you all have any update on that
    challenge? I think, Director Tso, this is more in your camp,
    and could you explain why that Court decision might increase
    the cost so much?
        Dr. Tso. Yeah. Thank you for that question. Two things.
    One, you know, we are definitely waiting for that final
    decision from the Supreme Court, but we are relying heavily on
    our current system that we have in place to calculate contract
    support costs, and we will continue to review those numbers to
    make sure that we do get to a more firm number as we move
    forward. Part of this also will require extensive tribal
    consultation that I want to be respectful for as we move
    towards agreement with tribes on how to calculate contract
    support costs.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, and you mentioned the challenge
    with electronic medical records. I must say this is one of my
    personal frustrations that we have so many different systems
    and so many different parts of our government makes absolutely
    no sense to me at all. We have to reinvent this time and time
    again. So I am going to ask my team to follow up on that,
    better understand where we are in that process, why it is we
    could not just adopt an electronic medical record system that
    had been developed for another Agency rather than trying to
    invent it from scratch. Back when we were working on the
    Affordable Care Act, I really lobbied for us to have one system
    across America. We ended up instead saying let's just make it
    free competition, which we have many systems, many systems that
    do not talk to each other. It does not serve the health of
    Americans, and it has amplified the overall cost a thousand
    times over. So just a personal frustration on that part.

                           LAW ENFORCEMENT CHALLENGES

        Secretary Newland, talk a little bit more about the law
    enforcement challenge that we are facing and what we should be
    doing and we are not getting done.
        Mr. Newland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, there are so
    many components to this. I will note that right now, the BIA
    funds 198 law enforcement programs across Indian Country. That
    includes 34 direct service Tribes where the BIA is responsible
    for policing and 164 Tribally-contracted law enforcement
    programs. That is less than half of all federally-recognized
    Tribes in the country, and as Ranking Member Murkowski has
    noted, you know, many Tribes in Public Law 280 States are
    facing similar challenges without the commitment of Federal
    funding, and, Mr. Chairman, you and I have spoken about this
    before as well.
        So you know, the need is really high, and it is across the
    board, from law enforcement officers to Tribal courts to
    detention facilities, and they all affect one another. When
    Tribal courts are not fully staffed up, we get a lot more
    people in jails on pretrial detention. When people are housed
    in pretrial detention in the jails, that limits the capacity
    and we have to move staff around, and we have to move inmates
    around to different locations, which takes officers off the
    beat to transport them. And so these all feed on each other.
        And, you know, we hear regularly from Tribal leaders about
    the urgent need for more officers in their communities, and for
    those direct service communities where BIA is responsible, if
    there is a public safety crisis, we have to pull officers from
    one Tribe and detail them to respond to that crisis. And so
    what that does is it creates a law enforcement shortage in the
    communities from which we have detailed those officers. And the
    overall level of investment, you know, really leads to this
    situation, and that is why we have put forward, or the
    President has put forward in his budget proposal to make these
    investments, to add hundreds of officers to Tribal communities
    across the country, make investments in jail construction and
    operations and maintenance.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. Let's turn to our
    ranking member, Senator Murkowski.

                    CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS AND 105(L) LEASES

        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to talk
    about contract support costs and 105(l) tribal lease payments.
    You know, from a budgetary perspective, this is one area that
    just continues to confound as we see these ever-escalating
    costs and just the unpredictability of it from a budgetary
    perspective. The request, again, proposes to reclassify
    contract support costs and 105(l) lease payments to mandatory
    beginning in fiscal year 2026.
        As I look at this, functionally, there is no difference to
    tribes if a reclassification happens since the Interior approps
    bill provides a full funding for these accounts. So can you
    share with me this is going to be directed to both of you, what
    the functional difference for your respective agencies would be
    if we do reclassify that. And then give me some kind of a
    status update in terms of what you each are doing to meet the
    legal requirement that was laid out in Maniilaq v. Burwell
    because both IHS and DOI have both been directed to establish
    these guidelines regarding the parameters for which a lease
    agreement should be structured and paid for, but it seems that
    the Agencies are taking a different approach here on how to
    structure those payments. So talk to me a little bit about CSC
    and 105(l)s, Director Tso.
        Dr. Tso. Thank you, Ranking Member, for that question. With
    regards to, again, contracts per costs and our request to move
    it over to mandatory for both CSC and 105(l), we believe that
    that is the best place for it to be to protect the rest of the
    Indian Health Service budget, the service and the facilities
    budget. We have experienced this year that, as a result of
    meeting those obligations, that we did face the reductions that
    we had in 2024. So that is our position with respect to
    believing that that is the best place for it to be to protect
    the budget for the Indian Health Service.
        Senator Murkowski. Assistant Secretary.
        Mr. Newland. Sure. Thank you, Ranking Member, for the
    question. With respect to 105(l) leases, you noted the surge in
    demand over the last few years. We have gone from fewer than 5
    to more than 600 in the pipeline. And so we have seen that, and
    we would be happy to provide some of the charts and data to you
    and your team. We have seen the growth and the impact that has
    on not only our staffing levels, but also, you know, our
    overall budget. With respect to the requirements from the case
    that you had mentioned, we have put guidelines in place for how
    we negotiate and reach these lease agreements with Tribes and
    provide technical assistance along the way, and will see in the
    budget requests that we have asked for additional staffing to
    help us with this because it has become a bottleneck. We are
    processing these with the same number of staff who did, fewer
    than five leases, so when they are providing technical
    assistance that is time away from processing these leases.
        Going back to your first question, Ranking Member, about,
    the impact on the budget given with respect to our mandatory
    proposal, I am going to ask our deputy assistant secretary to
    maybe speak on this for just a moment to be responsive.
        [The information follows:]
         requests for tribal 105(l) leases to interior fy 2021-fy 2025
        The 105(l) program currently has over 1,400 backlogged lease
    requests from FY 2021-FY 2024. We are still receiving new requests at a
    faster rate than we can process them. The program is not just growing
    but growing at an accelerated rate. We had requests from three Tribes
    in 2019 and have requests from one hundred twenty-eight Tribes as of
    the end of FY 2024. This significant growth underscores the importance
    of our collective efforts to manage it. We have requested additional
    FTE to implement the program through BIA's Operation of Indian Programs
    account in the FY 2025 President's Budget.
        Discretionary appropriations for the 105(l) program for recent
    years have grown from $21.6 million in 2021 and $36.6 million in 2022,
    to the projected amounts of $82.5.0 million in 2024, and $120.0 million
    in 2025. The interest in 105(l) payments is expected to be greater in
    future years.
        Once initiated, most leases will likely continue into future years,
    so the total program will only increase as new leases are added to the
    program, as existing rents increase, and as existing leases grow in
    scope. The need for appropriations for 105(l) leases is expected to
    grow rapidly based on current Tribal interest expressed in the program
    and the existing volume of lease applications. BIA is statutorily
    obligated to pay these lease costs.
        Recent President's Budgets, including for FY 2025, have proposed
    reclassifying 105(l) lease costs as mandatory funding. If 105(l)
    funding remains as discretionary appropriations, the expected continued
    growth of demand for these leases will exert more and more pressure on
    the overall amounts available for BIA's other programs funded with
    discretionary appropriations as well as the topline discretionary total
    for all of DOI.

        Mr. Freihage. Our response would be similar to IHS in that
    by having it in the same discretionary pot along with public
    safety and justice, law enforcement activities, social
    services, forestry, the full gamut of BIE schools, the growth
    of 105(l) is going to squeeze out those other discretionary
    investments. By realigning them on the mandatory side for what
    is already a mandatory legal requirement, simply matches the
    funding framework with the existing legal requirement to pay
    the leases.

                      MANDATORY VS. DISCRETIONARY FUNDING

        Senator Murkowski. Well, this is an area, again, where I
    think you have got a lot of attention from this committee.
    Director Tso, I want to ask you about the mandatory approps
    versus discretionary and the proposal that is contained. The
    mandatory formula would increase IHS funding pretty
    dramatically, $42 billion in fiscal year 2034. This is an
    increase of $35 billion over the 2024 total appropriation of $7
    billion. This switch is going to cost about $289 billion and
    would be charged to whichever committee enacted the change to
    mandatory, but I also note that there is no legislative
    proposal accompanying the President's budget to accomplish
    this.
        So the question is whether or not you are anticipating
    transmitting authorization language to account for the proposed
    shift, and has there been internal conversation about how to
    pay for the shift to mandatory appropriations because we just
    cannot talk about it on paper. You do that, it comes from
    somewhere. So has that been identified?
        Dr. Tso. Yes. Thank you, Ranking Member. I am going to ask
    my colleague, Jillian, to respond. Thank you.
        MS. Curtis: Thank you very much, Director, and thank you,
    Senator, for that question. The kind of key focus that the IHS,
    the administration has around preparing a legislative proposal
    for the mandatory budget request would be to partner with
    Congress in doing so. I know we have shared some technical
    assistance in previous years, but we would be happy to continue
    those conversations with the key staff on both the
    appropriations and the authorizing side.
        Senator Murkowski. So I take it you are not prepared to
    transmit authorizing legislation at this point in time?
        Ms. Curtis. Not today, no.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. Thank you. We will next turn to
    Senator Heinrich.

                         IMPLEMENTATION OF THE STOP ACT

        Senator Heinrich. Thank you. Secretary Newland, in 2022, I
    passed the STOP Act to stop the illegal export of tribal
    objects of patrimony, sacred objects. Your budget request does
    not include any funding to implement the STOP Act. The last
    time I raised this issue, the Secretary gave me an answer about
    NAGPRA, but that is not my question. I want to know what your
    plans are, how you are going to implement the STOP Act, which
    is current law, and what funding will you use.
        Mr. Newland. Thank you, Senator, and we are very grateful
    for that bill being passed into law, and we have been working
    with Indian Country on developing regulations as called for in
    the law in concert with the Department of Homeland Security,
    the State Department, and the Department of Justice. Our
    estimate at this time is that that program would be of a
    similar size and scope as the Department's NAGPRA Program.
        Part of the consultation concerning the regulations is
    about where we house STOP Act implementation at the Department,
    and what we heard from Indian Country is that it would be best
    housed within the Indian Affairs Bureaus. And so we are trying
    to get to publication of these regulations that would formalize
    that and allow us to place it in our budget someplace. But
    Senator, I think to get to the heart of your question about the
    costs to implement this, we estimate that they would be of a
    similar size and scope as the Department's NAGPRA Program,
    given the nature of the work, and then as we get into years of
    implementation, we will get a better sense as to the need. I
    hope that is responsive.
        Senator Heinrich. I am concerned that we are going to put
    off getting started for another year, and even without funding,
    this law has seen some success already. So I would certainly I
    am going to work with my colleagues here on the committee to
    start trying to identify funding in this fiscal year so that we
    can get this up and going.
        Mr. Newland. Thank you.

                          GALLUP INDIAN MEDICAL CENTER

        Senator Heinrich. Director, so you joined me a couple years
    ago at the Gallup Indian Medical Center. It is shameful the
    condition that that facility is in. I know IHS has been working
    with the Navajo Nation to identify a replacement site. Do you
    have an update on when a site will be selected, and what is IHS
    doing to move this forward?
        Dr. Tso. Thank you, Senator. It is good to see you again.
    Yeah, I have been on a regular basis making contact with the
    Navajo Nation with respect to site selection. This is crucial
    for us to do the appropriate planning for this. In my recent
    conversation, I am expecting at any point that the Navajo
    Nation will complete phase two of the site selection for two
    locations that they are working on, so I am looking forward to
    that information as we move forward. However, as I think your
    staff was informed a couple weeks ago, the situation that we
    are in at the Gallup Indian Medical Center is absolutely dire.
    We have actually had to close that facility for 24 hours within
    the last 30 days and move patients because repair of a water
    line. It is not going to take much more, and I am not sure it
    has gotten any better since we were there together.
        So I appreciate the $66 million that we have appropriated
    for that, but just as we have completed the last planning, we
    are looking at a billion dollars. Knowing the cost of
    construction and everything that we are looking at, we are
    probably looking at least an additional 40 percent onto that to
    complete that new facility today.
        Senator Heinrich. Well, I look forward to working with you
    on this. It is long, long overdue and incredibly important for
    that portion of Indian Country.

                           LAW ENFORCEMENT CHALLENGES

        Secretary Newland, I secured funding in the fiscal year
    2024 appropriations bill for four new ballistics testing
    machines in New Mexico, and that is going to include one in
    Farmington and one in Gallup. These machines can help solve gun
    crimes in neighboring tribal communities as well. So I just
    want to urge BIA law enforcement to look to partner with the
    New Mexico Attorney General, who is going to be housing and
    looking after those new machines to come up with an agreement
    so that BIA law enforcement can spend their time driving to
    other NIBIN machines. I mean, you know well the challenges of
    distance and how much time BIA law enforcement spends driving
    someplace. This is an opportunity for us to turn that around
    and be able to process evidence fairly close and then have
    those BIA officers spending more of their time actually
    enforcing the law, so would love to work with you on that.
        Mr. Newland. Thank you, Senator. We are absolutely
    committed to working with you and also the State on making sure
    we are keeping people safe in their communities and allowing
    police officers to be police officers.
        Senator Heinrich. Amen.
        Senator Murkowski. Senator Fischer.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator Murkowski, and thank
    you all for being here today.
        The Santee Sioux Nation, which is located in Northeast
    Nebraska, has been under a no-drink order since 2019, and that
    is nearly 5 years. The water from Sante Sioux Nation's wells
    contains more than 50 times the safe limits of manganese,
    which, as you know, can cause serious adverse health effects.
    Multiple studies from different agencies, including two from
    IHS, have all shown the same thing. Santee and the surrounding
    areas are isolated from Nebraska's major population centers,
    and they must rely on bottled water, which is costly. In fact,
    the tribe pays $14,000 a month to buy that bottled water. The
    tribe received a grant from the BIA during the pandemic for
    around $150,000 for the bottled water. The funding from that
    grant ran out in 8 months. The tribe has a plan to remedy this
    problem and is pursuing funding from many different sources,
    and while they have had some success, the total cost of this
    project will be very expensive. In 2021, I was proud to vote
    for the Infrastructure Bill, which provided billions to IHS for
    sanitation projects just like this.
        Assistant Secretary Newland and Director, so can I have
    both of your commitments to work with me and the Santee Sioux
    Nation to fix this problem once and for all?
        Dr. Tso. Yes, certainly with the Indian Health Service.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you.
        Mr. Newland. Yes, Senator.

                  FUNDING FOR TRIBAL COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES

        Senator Fischer. Thank you. We look forward to getting this
    solved. Nebraska is also the home to two tribal colleges,
    Little Priest Tribal College and the Nebraska Indian Community
    College. These schools and other tribal colleges, which are
    often located in very rural areas, do a wonderful job in
    educating and preparing native and non-native students alike to
    have successful futures. Funding from the Department of
    Interior is critical. It is a critical part in these
    institutions' budgets, particularly in supporting operational
    costs as well as maintenance and repairs.
        For example, many of the campus buildings at Little Priest
    Tribal College are decades old, with some dating back to the
    1950s and in need of continuous maintenance and repair to
    ensure a safe learning environment for the students. Flat
    funding from DOI for TCUs means that they have to use other
    resources to support these operational costs, and it also
    results in them having to defer key maintenance projects, which
    leads to higher costs down the road. A budget request is a
    statement of priorities. While DOI's budget requests for Indian
    programs flat funds these key programs for TCUs, it proposes
    funding increases elsewhere, like a nearly $14 million increase
    for climate resilience and environmental justice programs at
    BIA.
        Given the limitations of budget caps for fiscal year 2025,
    I am concerned about the Department's priorities for Indian
    programs. Mr. Assistant Secretary, can you explain the
    rationale behind the Department asking for flat funding for our
    TCUs?
        Mr. Newland. Thank you, Senator. First, let me express my
    gratitude to you for advocating for TCUs. I sat on the board of
    a Tribal college.
        Senator Fischer. They are fabulous.
        Mr. Newland. My wife presently teaches at a Tribal college,
    and, you know, one of the challenges I think everyone here,
    including the Committee members, understands is, with limited
    resources, trying to direct them where they are most needed. We
    develop our budget proposal in concert with Tribal leaders
    through the Tribal Interior Budget Council, and often our
    priorities are a reflection of that ongoing dialogue. I have
    heard from a number of Tribal leaders across the country about
    the present-day impacts of climate change. We have been asked
    to help them deal with the present-day effects of that, and the
    budget reflects that, and it is not necessarily a statement
    that Tribal colleges are not important.
        I agree with you that when Tribal colleges have investments
    and opportunities that really, really good things happen on the
    ground for people. We have requested $16 million for Tribal
    college and university facilities and, want to work with
    members of the Committee and you, Senator, and leaders of
    Tribal colleges to make sure that we are continuing to invest
    in those colleges because, again, they do just amazing things.
        Senator Fischer. I look forward to working with you on
    that, and for the record, I would like to submit some questions
    to you as well dealing with a shortage of officers on the
    Winnebago Reservation. Thank you.
        Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Peters.

                      MISSING OR MURDERED INDIGENUS PEOPLE

        Senator Peters. Thank you, Senator Murkowski, and to our
    witnesses, welcome. It is good to have you here, and thank you
    for your service to our country. Secretary Newland, great to
    see you, a friend from Michigan, and it is always a pleasure to
    be in your company and appreciate your work.
        In my conversations with tribal leaders in Michigan, the
    issue of missing and murdered indigenous people MMIP arises,
    unfortunately, all too often. Indigenous persons, as you know,
    experience disproportionately high rates of violence and,
    relatedly, are reported missing or murdered at rates many times
    the national average. Michigan has not been spared from this
    crisis. Early this month, hundreds gathered in Grand Rapids,
    Michigan to demand justice for the crisis and mark May 5, which
    President Biden proclaimed as Missing or Murdered Indigenous
    Persons Awareness Act.
        So my question for you, sir, is how does your fiscal year
    2025 budget request support continuing work to achieve justice
    in these cases as well as address the broader crisis that we
    have dealing with?
        Mr. Newland. Thank you, Senator, and it is great to see you
    again as well. First, the budget starts with increased
    investments in Tribal justice systems, and I want to also note
    that when we talk about that, we often are thinking about
    Tribal justice in terms of cops and courts and jails, but it
    also includes increases to the Tiwahe Initiative, which
    supports a lot of the work that Tribes are doing on the front
    end to prevent bad things from happening in the first place.
        And so when you include the Tiwahe Initiative increases
    that we have proposed, that total budget is over $700 million.
    It maintains investments in the Missing and Murdered Unit that
    Secretary Haaland has established, and Ranking Member Murkowski
    and I discussed yesterday at a separate hearing about our
    ongoing work to fully staff that up. And then, of course, make
    sure that we are closely coordinating with the FBI and U.S.
    attorney's offices on enforcement and prosecution of cases,
    especially when they cross reservation boundaries.

                    RIGHTS PROTECTION IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM

        Senator Peters. Very good. I am certainly very proud that
    Michigan is the home of over 50,000 native people and 12
    federally-recognized tribal nations. And several of these
    tribes, as you well know, benefit annually from the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs Rights Protection Implementation Program, the
    RPI. In Michigan, RPI funding enables a number of federally-
    recognized tribes to establish and enforce conservation-based
    fishing, hunting, and gathering regulations, invasive species
    monitoring, and other biological support services.
        So my question for you, sir, is could you explain how full
    funding for the Bureau's Rights Protection implementation
    program is absolutely critical, not just for our great State of
    Michigan, but all across the Great Lakes region?
        Mr. Newland. Thank you, Senator. I could probably speak all
    day about how great that is because I think it is an example
    of----
        Senator Peters. If you can do it a minute-45, that would be
    great.
        Mr. Newland. Yeah.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Newland. It is a win-win because what it does is it
    also allows Tribes to establish, you know, the departments with
    professional staff, biologists and wildlife and environmental
    technicians who go out and do this work, things like spraying
    boats off at the boat launch to prevent the transfer of
    invasive species. And really, that is augmenting Federal
    wildlife and environmental staff, State wildlife and
    environmental staff, and now you have adding Tribes to the mix,
    along with their traditional knowledge and practices as well.
    And it is putting more eyes on a lot of these threats to
    ecosystems, like the Great Lakes, so we can respond to those
    threats sooner, and also amplifies the resources we have to
    respond when we see them.
        Senator Peters. Well, thank you, and thank you for your
    leadership and working on that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Merkley. [Presiding.] Senator Hoeven.

                                  CAMP GRAFTON

        Senator Hoeven. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Secretary
    Newland, as I mentioned to you yesterday at Indian Affairs
    Committee hearing, 2 weeks ago, I asked Secretary Haaland for a
    commitment to continue supporting the work of the Advanced
    Training center at Camp Grafton. Secretary Haaland stated she
    would speak with you about the advanced training center and
    have staff work with our team to continue the good work that is
    being done at Camp Grafton. And as a member of the Approps
    Committee, I have continued to advocate for growing the number
    and type of training taking place at the advanced training
    center. Also, as I noted yesterday, the BIA recorded 5,429 law
    enforcement public safety personnel participating in training
    programs offered across all BIA police training facilities. Of
    this roughly 5,500 participants, about 4,000 training
    participants, obviously, well more than half, receive their
    training at the Advanced Training Center. It is also worth
    noting that the North Dakota National Guard, which owns and
    conducts its own training camp at Camp Grafton has been a
    tremendous partner to both the BIA and the ATC.
        Can I once again get your commitment to work with us to
    leverage the ATC and ensure it has the necessary resources to
    provide advanced training so we can get more BIA law
    enforcement officers out on the reservation?
        Mr. Newland. Thank you, Senator. Yes.
        Senator Hoeven. Very good. Thank you. I know it has been a
    long time since yesterday. I just want to make sure.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Newland. I always love also when my boss says, go talk
    to Bryan.
        (Laughter.)
        Mr. Newland. Thank you.

                           PROGRESS ACT IMPLENTATION

        Senator Hoeven. Thanks for your help and support on that.
    Administrator Tso, the PROGRESS Act, we passed, I do not know,
    a couple years ago. Anyway, it is to streamline 638 contract
    and giving tribes more control over services on the
    reservation, right? And so my question is, we passed it and
    then we passed it a second time because the rulemaking did not
    get done in time, so we have actually passed it twice. But what
    is the status? How are coming on that? Again, the whole idea is
    to expedite, you know, the ability of tribes for self-
    determination and forth. And like in the Farm Bill, we will
    probably more with FDPIR and food programs and that kind of
    thing. So what are we doing on that?
        Dr. Tso. Thank you for that question. At present, we have
    64 percent of our tribes that have contracted and compacted
    with the Indian Health Service, so we really are passing money
    directly to the tribes as they continue to do that. We also,
    right now, are in a number of negotiations that are working and
    moving as quickly as we can get them moved forward, and we
    anticipate that there are at least 11 tribes that are
    interested in contracting and compacting, and that we will
    execute those agreements within the timelines required.

                          SUPPORT FOR TIBAL HEALTHCARE

        Senator Hoeven. Yeah, it is a good program, and we want to
    make sure the tribes that want to take advantage of it can do
    so, yeah, and then my other question for you relates to
    healthcare services. Over the last decade, funding for IHS has
    grown, but the life expectancy for American Indian and Alaska
    Natives is 11 years below that of other populations in the
    United States. Now, the budget before us is $ billion, or
    includes $8 billion discretionary funding, which is a 14-
    percent increase over the fiscal year 2024 level. So we are
    increasing the resources, but, wow, we have not seeing the
    catch-up in terms of longevity for both American Indians and
    Alaska Natives.
        Dr. Tso. Thank you for pointing that out again, Mr.
    Senator. I really appreciate that. You know, there are a number
    of things that Indian Health Service continues to deal with
    across the board. I would say that the topics that keep me up
    at night is our workforce----
        Senator Hoeven. Yeah.
        Dr. Tso. [continued] and across the country, how fragile
    the healthcare system is across the country, let alone that to
    Indian Country. So really looking at, again, the equities, the
    legislative proposals that we have asking for to make sure that
    we are on parity with the--at least the Veterans Administration
    or other Federal organizations, is very important.
        Senator Hoeven. That is one of my questions.
        Dr. Tso. We have yet to talk about mental health today and
    how that is just absolutely critical right now in terms of the
    work that we have doing, and everything that we do, it crosses
    over to the questions about law enforcement and all of these
    entities that need to come together when we are talking about
    this.
        And then the last thing I would say are the social
    determinants of health that are directly impacting our people
    every single day. I was out visiting a food distribution center
    within the last 45 days, and realizing now that our people in
    Indian Country either have to choose between food stamps or a
    food box, and that more of our tribal people are choosing that
    food box versus securing--using food stamps. That just tells me
    that we are in such a place now. And of course, I looked at the
    box that was being provided, and many of those things that were
    in the box were not exactly healthy items. That then creates
    other health issues.
        Senator Hoeven. With the indulgence of the chair, I will
    finish up here quickly, but okay, so you went right to my next
    question, which was behavioral health. I appreciate that. And
    that, going back to 638 on the food, is why that is so
    important because in the Farm Bill, you know, we set up a pilot
    program, and now in the Farm Bill, we are going to continue to
    expand that, and that is going to give tribes more control over
    the food that they can get, you know, for their tribes. So
    whether it is bison or things that grow on reservation, all
    those kind of things, that opens that up for them. Thank you.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Senator, and we have
    going to turn now to Senator Sinema.

                        INDIAN WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENTS

        Senator Sinema. Thank you, Chairman Merkley, and thank you
    to our witnesses for being here today. Delivering results for
    tribal communities in Arizona has been one of my top priorities
    in the Senate, and I look forward to discussing a number of key
    issues with you both.
        The Federal Government's trust responsibilities to deliver
    water to our tribal communities is one of our most important
    duties. Last Congress, I was proud to introduce and secure
    unanimous support of the Hualapai Tribe Water Rights Settlement
    Act. This law ratifies the Hualapai Tribe's Colorado River
    Water Settlement Agreement and delivers approximately 4,000
    acre feet of critically-needed water per year to the tribe. The
    President's budget requests $45 million for this settlement in
    fiscal year 2025. Assistant Secretary Newland, what is the
    BIA's priority for funding this agreement, and will the Federal
    Government meet its obligation regarding the enforceability
    date?
        Mr. Newland. Thank you, Senator. First it was my honor to
    visit Hualapai twice, once before the settlement to discuss it
    with Tribal leadership and we stood down on the banks of the
    river, and once to celebrate the settlement, so thank you for
    that. We have asked for $45 million to fund this, but on top of
    that, we have also asked for $2.8 billion in mandatory funding
    over the next 10 years to support the implementation of water
    settlements like the Hualapai bill. And it is every bit our
    intention to make sure that when a settlement is reached--and
    Members of Congress work hard to enact it--that we fulfill our
    obligations to ensure that it is fully implemented.
        Senator Sinema. And so are you on track for the
    enforceability date?
        Mr. Newland. I believe so that we are, and, again, these
    investments that the President has requested will allow us to
    help make that happen.

                   105(L) LEASES AND CONTRACTS SUPPORT COSTS

        Senator Sinema. Thank you. In recent years, 105(l) payments
    for tribal leases and contract support costs have created the
    situation where escalating requirements are negatively
    impacting the ability to use discretionary appropriations to
    support core tribal programs like health, education, and
    construction programs, or to provide essential fixed-cost
    requirements. So Assistant Secretary Newland, in the
    Department's written testimony for this hearing and in
    testimony at other Senate and House hearings, you have
    expressed support for the President's request to reclassify
    both 105(l) leasing and contract support costs to mandatory
    funding. Can you explain why this is so important and what
    impact will be on the Federal budget and the Department's
    funding if we do not make the change? And then after that,
    Director Tso, can you provide IHS' view on this matter as well?
    Thank you.
        Mr. Newland. Thank you, Senator. Well, first, these
    payments are mandatory, so we do not have a choice once a Tribe
    has requested to enter a 105(l) lease and provide those
    payments. And if they are mandatory to provide, you know, it is
    our view that the funding should match that legal obligation.
    We have seen this program grow exponentially or not
    exponentially, but significantly over the last 5 years, and
    that puts a squeeze on our discretionary funding for programs.
    And without mandatory funding and without this level of
    investment through appropriations, we are going to be forced to
    choose between fulfilling our legal obligations or providing
    the other funding that Congress appropriates for these programs
    to Tribes. And I do not think that is a position the Department
    wants to be in, and I do not believe that is a position that
    Congress wants the Nation to be in either. Thank you.
        Dr. Tso. Thank you for that question. Of course, the same
    as what the assistant secretary is saying. But, you know, we
    have seen in 2024, the direct impact of where contract support
    costs in 105(l) sit right now today with a reduction of $440
    million. That impacted IHS. As a result, I was trying to cover
    our responsibilities for that. We also believe that moving it
    into mandatory, moving both of those accounts into mandatory
    will protect the IHS Service's and facility budget.

                              CONSTRUCTION BACKLOG

        Senator Sinema. Thank you. Director Tso, I was proud to
    deliver a historic $3.5 billion to address the construction and
    maintenance backlog of IHS sanitation facilities. Can you
    provide me with a progress report on where IHS is at clearing
    the project backlog?
        Dr. Tso. Yes, thank you for that question as well. In 2024,
    the Indian Health Service with the 2024 allocation, we are now
    looking at 91 additional projects that we are working on that
    will address 10,000 homes across Indian Country. We are also to
    date tracking 680 projects total that will improve the homes of
    our tribal communities for 102,000 individuals that live across
    Indian Country. So we know that we have a ways to go. We are
    also struggling with a workforce issue, but we also have
    updates on our website at the IHS that is tracking every
    project, every dollar, and every timeline, and that is our
    commitment to make sure that we are accountable and transparent
    with the dollars that we appreciate receiving. Thank you.
        Senator Sinema. Chairman, I know my time has expired, if I
    might ask one quick follow-up up question?
        Senator Merkley. Yes, very quickly, please.
        Senator Sinema. Thank you. You know, it is imperative that
    another backlog does not develop, so what IHS' plan to continue
    providing for these projects after those infrastructure funds
    expire?
        Dr. Tso. Thank you again for that question. So we have been
    working to make sure that we are crossing over not just on
    these dollars, but working across the Federal Government with
    our partners to make sure we just signed an agreement with BOR
    of some of the work that we can do to make sure that we are
    combining all of our resources together and leveraging that to
    complete projects, not just the ones that are on the current
    list, but the backlog that is also growing today.
        Senator Sinema. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much. Senator Tester.

                               PILI 638 CONTRACTS

        Senator Tester. I thank the chairman and ranking member for
    having this hearing. I want to thank you all for being here. It
    is good to see you. Thanks. I am going to ask you a couple
    questions here, Bryan. It has nothing to do with the budget. I
    am going to get to that in a minute.
        We got tribes in Montana that have 638 contracts for law
    enforcement, and nd then we got tribes in Montana that depend
    on the BIA for law enforcement. On 638 contracts, do you look
    at that? Do the tribes get the same amount of money as the BIA
    would normally spend on a 638 contract?
        Mr. Newland. Are you asking?
        Senator Tester. So what I am asking is if BIA provides the
    law enforcement and then they want to go with the 638, do they
    get the same amount of money the BIA was spending anyway, or do
    they get nicked back a bit?
        Mr. Newland. That is not what the law says. So one of the
    challenges we face, Senator, is, you know, as new Tribes come
    into 638 we cannot pull funding from other Tribes that already
    have a contract.
        Senator Tester. I have got you, but what I am saying is, is
    BIA spends X amount of dollars for law enforcement, and that
    tribe does not want the BIA doing it anymore. They think they
    can do a better job, and they want to do the 638. Is that money
    for the 638 contract an equivalent amount than what would be
    spent by the BIA to provide that same law enforcement?
        Mr. Newland. It is supposed to be, Senator.
        Senator Tester. Okay. I would like to ask you to look into
    that because I have had a lot of tribes, not once, not twice,
    but many times say, look, they spend far less on us than they
    do. That is one point. Second point is this: is this budget
    adequate to take care of law enforcement? Now, you know better
    than anybody, law enforcement in Indian Country is not so good.
    I think many of the tribes are large land-based tribes are
    bigger in the States, and they just have a few officers.
        [The information follows:]
                        public law 638 contract payments
        When a Tribe initially contracts or compacts for work related to a
    [law enforcement or other] BIA program under ISDEAA, 25 U.S.C. Section
    5325(a)(1) requires the BIA to fund that contract/compact at the level
    of funding ``that is no less than the appropriate Secretary would have
    otherwise provided for the operation of the programs or portions
    thereof for the period covered by the contract'' (i.e., Secretarial
    amount).
        This most often equates to the annual amount BIA expended in prior
    years to provide the service directly to the Tribe. Through
    negotiations with a Tribe, the ``Secretarial amount'' is established
    for the specific program being contracted in the initial contract year
    and once agreed upon, the amount establishes the Tribe's ``base
    funding'' for the program, function, service, or activity (PFSA)
    contracted, going forward.

        Mr. Newland. Right.
        Senator Tester. And what we have seeing is what crooks do.
    They will go to where they can get away committing crimes, and
    sometimes that is an Indian Country. So my question for you is,
    is this budget adequate to take care of the crime issues that
    are occurring in Indian Country?
        Mr. Newland. I will say this, Senator, in response. We have
    reported to Congress just several months ago that the total
    need and obligation is $3.1 billion.
        Senator Tester. Yes.
        Mr. Newland. And our budget request through the BIA is over
    $600 million dollars. I cannot find the exact number, but $650
    million.
        Mr. Freihage. Six-fifty-one.
        Mr. Newland. Yeah, $651 million.
        Senator Tester. So the budget request is $651 million and
    need is $3.1 billion.
        Mr. Newland. Correct.
        Senator Tester. How can we expect Indian Country to be now,
    so where did this come from? So one of the things that I have
    been on this committee for a while now, and one of the things
    that I always argue is you can never get what you need unless
    you tell people what you need.
        Mr. Newland. Right.
        Senator Tester. How are you telling us a different story
    here? I mean, $650 million versus $3.1 billion? Now, I am not
    sure it will take $3.1 billion, but I am telling you what we
    got right now is inadequate.
        Mr. Newland. Correct. So, Senator, what I will say in
    response to that is I will voice 100-percent agreement with you
    and other Members of the Committee that we need more officers.
    We need more funding for law enforcement in Indian Country, and
    we have proposed to increase by $33 million the amount of
    funding that would allow us to hire more cops.
        Senator Tester. Okay. That is good because I think more
    cops on the beat are important. The MMIP problem, people have
    talked about it, I am sure. I was not here for the whole
    hearing, but they were here when I was here talking about it.
    It will not ever going to be fixed unless we get some more
    people on the beat. Would you agree?
        Mr. Newland. I would agree with that, Senator.
        Senator Tester. Well, we got a serious problem and it needs
    to be fixed, and people are dying because of it and that is not
    an overstatement. People are dying. Lives are being ruined. It
    is a problem. I need you to be more vocal, okay?
        Mr. Newland. Thank you.
        Senator Tester. You got a great chairman and ranking member
    on this committee. They understand the issues that are out
    there. We need to drive it home to the rest of this committee
    and Congress, so that is number one.

                              HEALTH CARE STAFFING

        Now, I have got to talk to you, Director. The statistics
    show that Native Americans live 17 years fewer. They die 17
    years quicker than everybody else. I think it is because of
    healthcare. Crime is a part of it, but we have just going to
    assume the healthcare thing. You got a diabetes epidemic. You
    have got folks--the life and limb stuff, which I have not heard
    about with the advanced funding, but the truth is, it is still
    out there. How are you set right now as far as recruitment of
    doctors and nurses and support staff in Indian Country?
        Dr. Tso. Thank you for that question, Senator. We are,
    across the board, at 29 percent vacancy rate at the Indian
    Health Service right now.
        Senator Tester. So you are at about a third less. Does this
    budget get you to a point where you can fill those positions?
        Dr. Tso. No.
        Senator Tester. And how much is this? I hate to ask this
    question. How much is this part of the budget short? The law
    enforcement was $2.5 billion short. How much is this one short?
        Dr. Tso. In the recent consultation that we had with
    tribes, their estimate for the healthcare need is at $53
    billion.
        Senator Tester. And how much is in this budget?
        Dr. Tso. A little bit over $8 billion.
        Senator Tester. I mean, how do you fulfill trust
    responsibilities with those kind of numbers? I do not--you
    know, I am way over time, and Van Hollen is going to kick me
    out of here in a minute, but I do not know what we do about
    this. I do know that you guys understand this issue, but we
    have got to do better, and we have got to figure out how to do
    better. We put you guys in a lose-lose position. We will bring
    you in front of the committees and we will beat the crap out of
    you because you are not doing your job, but if you do not have
    the resources to be able to--now, if you are wasting the money,
    you have going to hear about it, but the truth is, if you have
    not wasting the money, we need more cops on the beat, we need
    more doctors, we need more nurses, the works. Otherwise, these
    numbers are going to continue to grow. Cartels are going to
    continue to move into Indian Country. Thank you.
        Senator Merkley. Senator Tester, thank you very much for
    really hammering that point home. Much appreciated. Senator Van
    Hollen.

                           HEALTH CARE FUNDING NEEDS

        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Merkley,
    Ranking Member Murkowski, and thank you, Assistant Secretary
    Newland and Director Tso for being here and your team. You
    know, I am proud to say that Maryland is home to American-
    Indian and Alaskan-Native communities, sizable numbers. People
    do not think about Maryland that way. We have three State-
    recognized tribes the Piscataway Indian Nation, Piscataway
    Conoy Tribe, and the Accohannock Tribe. We have also the proud
    home of the Indian Health Service. And I do want to associate
    myself with the remarks of Senator Tester on the budget because
    I have not served on this subcommittee as long as he has, but
    there is a chronic underfunding of the Indian Health Service.
        And now because you have many members of tribes living off
    of reservations and in urban settings, ensuring access to
    comprehensive, culturally-relevant healthcare at the urban
    Indian organizations is critical for our communities. And it is
    especially important that American-Indian and Alaska-Native
    people continue to--because they continue to face the currently
    the worst health outcomes, as we just heard from Senator Tester
    and as you know. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation,
    these communities have the shortest life expectancy compared to
    all other racial and ethnic groups.
        The Indian Health Service spends about 1 percent of its
    overall budget on the Urban Indian Health Program, so Dr. Tso,
    what are some of the limitations today to urban Indian--Indian
    health organizations being able to provide the care they need
    to, and what are some specific proposals in the
    administration's budget that might address that issue?
        Dr. Tso. Thank you very much for that question. Of course
    in 2025, we are asking for an increase for the urban programs.
    As I travel across Indian Country and particularly to our urban
    programs, the work that they do in our urban communities is
    amazing with the resources that we give them. And so there is a
    lot that we can learn from the urban programs in terms of how
    creative they are and what they can do to stretch that dollars
    as we move forward. However, what we are looking at, at the
    Indian Health Service is trying to streamline and improve how
    the Indian Health Service works with the urban programs to
    build those efficiencies to make sure that we support them in
    everything that they do.
        One of the things that I have been working on is making
    sure that, again, their ability to get reimbursement that is
    equal or similar to the Indian Health Service is absolutely
    critical. So when we talk about having a hundred percent FMAP
    reimbursement or using the Indian Health Service all-inclusive
    rate is absolutely critical. Again, just building parity across
    Indian Country is something that I would like to see happen,
    either one of those, either use the IHS all-inclusive rate or
    build in the 100 percent FMAP for the urban programs. That
    would take them a significant ways to meet the needs of the
    people they serve.
        Senator Van Hollen. Well, thank you for identifying that
    issue. I do look forward to working with you to make that
    happen because I met recently, you know, with some of our
    communities that have been, you know, negatively impacted by
    the lack of resources to the Urban Indian Health services.
        As you know, the President's budget for the Indian Health
    Service includes targeted funding to address some of the most
    pressing public health challenges, including identifying HIV,
    hepatitis C, and substance use conditions that are often co-
    occurring. And I want to focus specifically on hepatitis C
    because the treatment for Hepatitis C is very effective, nearly
    98-percent recovery over a 12-week period. And yet because of
    barriers to care, including cost and prior authorization
    requirements, close to 4 million people in the United States
    are estimated to have chronic hepatitis C. Many do not know
    that they have the symptoms in time for accurate diagnosis and
    unintentionally spread the virus. I am actually working on a
    bipartisan proposal to address this.
        But I would like to know more about what you thinking and
    planning is on these issues because hepatitis C is the leading
    cause of liver failure and cancer, claiming the lives of almost
    15,000 Americans each year. So Dr. Tso, can you talk about the
    disproportionate impact of hepatitis C on American-Indian and
    Alaska-Native communities and current barriers to diagnosis,
    screening, and treatment?
        Dr. Tso. Thank you for that question, Senator. So one of
    the things that we are seeing across, of course, we know that
    as the 2021 data presents, that American Indians and Alaska
    Natives have 3 times the rate of other nationalities or other
    groups of people. And then we also have 3 times the rate of
    mortality when it comes to hep C, but we also agree that they
    are absolutely treatable. And of course, the President's 2025
    budget asked for additional $10 million to address this, and we
    are looking today at expanding screening and testing at every
    opportunity that we have, and we will continue to do that.
        We have also targeting pre- and post-exposure therapies
    that will help our patients that might fall into this category,
    and working with our tribal representatives that are on the
    ground to make sure that we communicate and educate as much as
    we can. That is absolutely critical in what we do, and, of
    course, the coordination across a tribal healthcare system, or
    a community rather, is so important to make sure that there is
    understanding and education of how we can beat this, how we can
    make sure that we are treating hep C for all of our patients.
        Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. I appreciate that. And you
    know, it is a tragedy when you have got a disease that is
    killing this many people when we have a treatment that we know
    works, right, almost 100 percent of the time. So people are
    needlessly dying in the United States from Hep C. We have a
    cure. We just need to make sure that we identify the people who
    have it and make sure that they get this treatment. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman.

                    CHALLENGES IMPACTING TRIBAL COMMUNITIES

        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Senator. I am going to ask just
    one question given the shortness of time, and then submit the
    rest of my questions for the record, then I am going to turn
    over the hearing to Senator Murkowski, and she will close out
    the hearing when she completes her questions.
        I hold a town hall in each of my 36 counties each year, and
    folks are welcome to come and talk about whatever they want. In
    Umatilla County this weekend, five young tribal members from
    the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation came and
    spoke.
        [The information follows:]

        [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. They are the five who are in the center of
    this picture above. Their names are Sunhawk, Awna'e, Abigayle,
    Lisa, and Luka. They asked me the following questions, so I am
    asking you those questions. They wanted to know what more we
    can do to address the challenge of missing and murdered
    indigenous women and girls. They asked what we can do to
    decrease drug addiction, what we can do better to address
    suicide, and how we can provide more mental health resources. I
    will start with you, Director Tso, since these are mostly
    healthcare questions.
        Dr. Tso. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Some very tough
    questions there in terms of the work that we do at the Indian
    Health Service. Absolutely this is something that we need to
    make sure that we have using all available strategies, whether
    they are telehealth, again, being at the community level to
    better understand what are the challenges there, what can we
    do, and to make sure that we are mitigating some of these
    activities. The education, the mental health, again, I think
    has so much to do in this space, and more work needs to be done
    in that--in that particular area to make sure that we are
    creating a healthy a healthy place for people.
        One of the things that I want to do before the end of the
    year is really look at our ability to utilize joint venture
    authority to make sure that there are facilities outside the
    traditional hospitals and clinics, but maybe looking at
    treatment centers, treatment facilities that need to be built,
    that need to be available and closer to the homes of tribal
    community members so they can go and seek treatment. Right now,
    even those are scarce. So when a patient is ready to go, you
    have got to have a place for them to go or that time that will
    pass will probably pass on us. And so I think having more
    resources on the ground near tribal communities is critical.
        Senator Merkley. One of the things I am pondering is the
    fact that we have too few mental health counselors in America,
    and in particular we need trained tribal members in the context
    of tribal tradition and how we can possibly help increase the
    number of counselors. Would you like to add anything, Secretary
    Newland?
        Mr. Newland. Thank you, Chairman. You know, we have been
    talking a lot about resources and appropriations here. At the
    Senate Committee on Indian Affairs yesterday, we talked about
    safety, which you relayed from the young people, and I have
    spoken with you, Senator, Chairman, and Ranking Member
    Murkowski about some of the challenges with Public Law 280 and
    how that makes it difficult for Tribes to keep people safe.
    That law was passed in a time when Congress and the government
    were trying to terminate the existence of Tribes altogether.
    Fifty years ago, we relegated that policy to history's dust
    bin, but Public Law 280 continues to reach up from that era and
    hold us back.
        And when it comes to safety in communities, we are now
    trying to build a public safety regime based on self-
    determination, on the foundation of a law that was passed
    during termination. And it really makes it difficult for Tribes
    to keep those young people safe when they do not have the
    ability to control how public safety is administered in their
    communities. And so that is one of the responses I would give
    to the young folks who have spoken to you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Merkley. Well, thank you, and I really compliment
    these five young tribal members for coming, stepping forward to
    make their questions at my town hall. And they are questions we
    should be asking all across America, and I know they have
    questions that you all are working on, and I will continue to
    follow up with you on that. With that, let's turn this over to
    Senator Murkowski.
        Senator Murkowski. [Presiding.] Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Those are questions that we all seek answers to, so there is
    unified support trying to figure this out because it is about
    safety. It is about life. It is about community.

                                PROBATE BACKLOG

        I want to ask you a question, Assistant Secretary Newland,
    that I hear a lot about when I am back home, and this is the
    probate backlog. I mean, the words that I have in my notes are
    ``unreasonably long periods of time.'' It is really
    unacceptably long periods of time. We are hearing that some of
    our Alaska-Native families are waiting 6 years before BIA is
    able to assemble their probate case for adjudication. And,
    okay, we understand that sometimes things just take some time,
    but think about what happens to these families while they are
    waiting. Their loved one has passed. There is no denying that.
    There is no turning back on that, but it then pauses or freezes
    the ability to do anything. More often than not, it is the
    home. It is the family home. And so you have a situation where
    families are denied ownership of their lands. They are unable
    to build a home or even to renovate an existing home.
        And so in one of the communities that I was in just
    recently, what I heard, we were doing a little drive-by--drive-
    through in the community, and there was a home that they
    pointed out no one has lived in for 5 years. Now, the housing
    issue and this was Minto--very acute as it is in so many other
    places, and nobody can live in it until they wrap up the
    probate. And so I looked at the budget to see what you are
    looking at for probate casework services there at BIA. It is an
    increase, $1.2 million above the $14 million enacted. Just, I
    mean, you want to talk about a drop in the bucket to solve the
    problem.
        So we have asked BIA to provide us with a cost estimate for
    the resources that are needed to reduce the probate backlog to
    less than 2 years. We have not received a response on this, so
    I would ask that you get back to me in writing with an update.
    In doing that, I think we need you to share the same urgency
    that these families have. And I do not know whether you are
    considering whether the BIA can do more to actually support
    things like will-writing services or transfer-upon-death deeds
    to help keep the backlog from getting worse, but you have to
    admit that this is--this is just a travesty of a process right
    now.
        Mr. Newland. I agree, Ranking Member, and we have asked for
    that. I think my last check, the number of probate cases was
    well north of 40,000. And we can get you those exact numbers,
    and I will go back today, work with our team to make sure we
    get you a written response to your inquiry.
        You know, we work with the Office of Hearings and Appeals
    at the Department of the Interior on these. One of the other
    areas, not directly relevant in Alaska, Senator, but with
    probate is the level of fractionation across Indian Country.
    And the budget also requests a continuation of what began with
    the Cobell settlement to invest in land consolidation, which
    will help on the front end of that.
        Senator Murkowski. Right.
        Mr. Newland. But you are talking about the back end----
        when cases get to probate, and certainly there are--you
    know, we are trying to add to that, and we were just discussing
    this, I think, yesterday morning in out-years about how to
    address this problem more aggressively. But I will make sure we
    respond to your written inquiry.
        [The information follows:]
                   addressing the backlog in probate services
        We have developed an estimate of the resources needed to reduce the
    current probate backlog to less than 1 year. This information is not
    intended to circumvent or foreshadow the President's annual budget
    request process under 31 U.S.C. 11, and the resource estimates in
    should not be construed to imply Administration support for levels of
    appropriations for this program beyond what is included in the FY 2025
    budget request.
        The following three Department of the Interior organizations have a
    role in the probate adjudication process. The Bureau of Indian Affairs
    (BIA) prepares the probate file; the Department's Office of Hearings
    and Appeals Probate Hearings Division (OHA PHD), an independent office,
    holds hearings and issues decisions determining heirs and devisees of
    trust assets; BIA distributes the trust real property and the Bureau of
    Trust Funds Administration (BTFA) distributes trust funds in accordance
    with the OHA PHD division.
        The currently estimated caseload backlog is 44,000 cases.
    Considering factors such as dependence on family members to provide
    documentation, at current funding and staffing levels, it is estimated
    to take 5- 6 years to inventory the current backlog of requests needed
    to develop a plan to get to a shorter time frame like a 2-3 year
    process backlog. The initial estimate developed assumes there would be
    an initial need for surge funding, with most of the increased workload
    on BIA occurring in the first year. The estimate assumes the OHA PHD
    would also will need to ramp up in the first year to have additional
    Judges appointed and trained and in place to accommodate the additional
    workload in the second year, generated by BIA's increase in probate
    caseload processing. BTFA would start to see an increased load in the
    third year.
        The initial estimate for the work required to reduce the probate
    backlog to less than 1 year is an annual increase of $38.1 million to
    support an additional 131 FTE. Of this annual increase, $26 million and
    74 FTE would be needed in BIA's Probate program.
        An increase of $26 million in the BIA Probate program would allow
    the organization to hire additional FTE, upgrade IT systems, and
    provide contractor support to increase probate case work capacity by
    2,000 cases each year across the Bureau. Additionally, $6 million
    annually would be targeted for the Alaska region because of the
    significant number of Tribes requiring service and the lack of
    information infrastructure and connectivity available in the region,
    which many of the Tribes in the lower 48 already have. The additional
    funding would also support Streamlining Strategy Projects over a seven-
    year time period to focus efforts to:

      --Develop a centralized team that will handle death notices. This
            would ensure the timely entry of all reported death notices
            into the system. This would also allow the Probate field staff
            to concentrate on case preparation rather than perform research
            to determine if a person holds trust assets with the
            Department. This would also eliminate the need to push
            unnecessary research onto the staff that are working on cases
            that have trust assets.

      --Establish a team to gather documentation and family information by
            going out to the urban areas. Rather than waiting for potential
            heirs to come to us, we would go out to them leveraging Indian
            Centers to assist in developing outreach for the urban areas
            that would be visited. The team will also work with Tribal
            enrollment offices to gather information. This would allow the
            probate staff to concentrate on actual case development for
            submitting cases for adjudication.

      --Establish a team to encode data into the Trust Asset Accounting
            Management System from the information that is gathered. This
            would assist the Probate staff to more efficiently prepare the
            cases for submission to the Office of Hearings and Appeals.

        This initial estimate assumes the Office of Hearing and Appeals
    would need an additional $7.3 million annually to support an increase
    of 31 FTE. Independent of BIA, the OHA-PHD plays a critical role in the
    probate process. Probate cases originate with the BIA Division of
    Probate which, after notification of death, prepares a case file by
    identifying potential heirs and sends the case file to OHA PHD. OHA PHD
    judges adjudicate the cases--hold hearings and issue decisions
    determining the rightful heirs of the trust or restricted property. OHA
    PHD legal staff notify all potential heirs of the Judge's decision and
    send the case file back to BIA and BTFA to distribute trust assets.
        OHA-PHD would require increased funding per year to keep pace with
    an increased caseload of 7,000 per year from BIA Probate and continue
    to meet mission critical needs. This additional funding would support 7
    new Judge Units for a total of 14 Judge Units. An OHA PHD Judge Unit is
    comprised of 1 staff Judge, .5 attorney advisor, 1.75 Legal Assistants,
    and 1 Paralegal, and each Judge Unit can process and adjudicate
    approximately 500 cases per year. This funding would also support
    additional planning with BIA to improve collaboration, as well as fund
    the associated equipment, training, information technology needs,
    hearing support, and additional office space requirements.
        The estimate assumes the BTFA would require an additional $4.8
    million per year to meet mission critical needs while reducing the time
    an Indian heir must wait for processing, adjudication and distribution
    of trust or restricted property after the death of someone who owns
    trust or restricted property. The additional FTE would allow BTFA to
    ramp up capacity in anticipation of an increased workload of
    approximately 2,000 additional probate cases which would be distributed
    on an annual basis. These funds would also allow BTFA to explore
    automation options to improve the efficiency of certain manual estate
    distribution processes. With these changes, BTFA anticipates that
    processing times for probate distributions would improve, and directly
    impact Indian trust beneficiaries (many of whom reside in some of the
    poorest communities in the country and often depend on timely
    distributions for daily necessities and subsistence).

        Senator Murkowski. What about support for some kind of
    assistance, again, whether it is will writing? It seems to me
    that there are little things that we can do.
        Mr. Newland. Right.
        Senator Murkowski. That we might not going to change you
    from your 6-year backlog to 2-year, but is the Agency looking
    at doing any more of this?
        Mr. Newland. I know that is something that, the first time
    I was at the Department of the Interior, that we had worked on.
    I can get you an answer on how that work goes.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay.
        Mr. Newland. And I know a big challenge in the past has
    been trust in the BIA, you know, when we show up and offer
    help, you know, building that that license and that trust in
    communities so that they view it as help and not as something
    else.
        Senator Murkowski. Well, it is something that we have
    failed in that trust responsibility. We have just absolutely
    failed there.

                           BUILD AMERICA BUY AMERICA

        Another issue that kind of tangentially relates on the
    housing side is the BABA, Build America, Buy America. And what
    we have seen is that you have got multiple agencies that have
    issued waivers from the application of the BABA requirements as
    applied to the tribal recipients. That is good, that helps, but
    the problem is that many of these are set to expire this
    summer, which is coming up pretty quick. And this includes
    HUD's Tribal General Applicability Waiver and a whole bunch of
    others. So I am sending a letter today to OMB requesting a 5-
    year waiver of BABA preferences for all Federal financial
    assistance programs for tribes of infrastructure projects.
        So you know the issue. You know how challenged and
    challenging these requirements are. I think we all agree we
    would love to see more that is built here in this country and
    bought here. But when I have tribal housing authorities come
    and say the stove that will provide heat to these little
    houses, believe it or not, is only available in Japan, and so
    we do not have anything right now, so what am I going to do to
    get this house that we have0 now finished, give it a little bit
    of heat.
        So I guess the question to you is, how is the White House
    Council on Native American Affairs and the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs working with OMB on a more comprehensive approach to
    address the BABA implementation issues?
        Mr. Newland. Thank you, Senator. We are actually engaged or
    kicking off a tribal consultation process right now on this.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay.
        Mr. Newland. I think our first session is in June. We will
    be happy to get your team information on those dates and where
    they are going to be held and follow up on that. But this has
    been a source of or a subject of conversation at the Department
    and through the White House Council for some time.
        [The information follows:]
         implementation of build america, buy america in indian country
        The Buy America preference set forth in section 70914 of the Build
    America, Buy America Act (BABA) requires all iron, steel, manufactured
    products, and construction materials used for infrastructure projects
    under Federal financial assistance awards be produced in the United
    States. On September 1, 2023, DOI issued a 1-year general applicability
    waiver of the BABA requirements for financial assistance agreements
    awarded to Federally recognized Indian Tribes in accordance with the
    Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit
    Requirements for Federal Awards, 2 CFR Part 200.
        DOI conducted two virtual Tribal consultation sessions on June 11
    and June 12, 2024. These sessions solicited Tribal input on challenges
    and concerns about DOI financial assistance programs and BABA
    requirements during the open period of the DOI Tribal BABA waiver.
    Comments were received and consolidated through DOI's Office of Grants
    Management and we are actively engaged with Departmental leadership to
    summarize Tribal impact for ongoing discussions with OMB.
        In addition, DOI has determined BABA does not apply to Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) agreements, which
    represent a substantial portion of BIA's direct awards to Tribal
    recipients. BIA is working through DOI to engage with OMB on impacts to
    Tribes.

        Senator Murkowski. Yeah. Well, it is as you know, and I
    think both of you have heard it in different applications in
    different areas, I think the whole table here. So help us with
    this because it is frustrating a lot of good initiatives, and I
    think in a way that was just not intended.

                            IHS FACILITIES IN ALASKA

        Director, so let me ask you about the joint venture, JVCP
    Program. We obviously see great benefit to this in Alaska right
    now. Mount Edgecomb Medical Center there in Sitka, which is a
    joint venture construction project, is requesting about $47
    million for staffing and operation of the new package. We are
    really excited about this. I think have you had a chance to see
    it?
        [Nonverbal response.]
        Senator Murkowski. If you have not been to Sitka yet, it
    should be on your travel list because this is--this is so far
    from the facility that has been basically providing for
    healthcare services since World War II era, so this is a big
    deal.
        But we have been seeking a little bit of clarity from IHS
    on the eligibility of tribes for a joint venture construction
    program if they have been awarded congressionally-directed
    spending. And that is going to matter because we get the
    requests, we want to do what we can to help facilitate it, but
    if it then is determined that a CDS funding for planning or
    design deems the tribe ineligible for JVCP consideration, that
    is an entirely different thing. So can you give me a little
    more clarity on that?
        Dr. Tso. Thank you, Ranking Member. So we are doing some
    work with regards to our joint venture, as I have shared
    before, that we are looking to run an updated joint venture, as
    Congress has directed us, between 3 to 5 years coming up here
    before summer. That is my goal. That is our timeline to run in
    a new application process before summer.
        As a result of that, and as a result of comments that I
    have received from tribes, we are also updating and reviewing
    our eligibility processes to make sure that they are fair and
    open to all tribes that choose to do that. So I am expecting
    that we will be making some changes with regards to our process
    to make sure, again, that it is fair and consistent.
        With regards to the staffing package, though, those come as
    the projects are completed. And so we will continue to work
    with each of the joint venture recipients to make sure that we
    are putting forth their staffing packages for funding.
        Senator Murkowski. So with regards to this process that you
    have going through this summer, you have mentioned that you
    have done consultation. Do you have some kind of a working
    group that is providing some form of input to evaluate and make
    changes to the program then? I mean, it sounds like you have
    had a process underway for a bit.
        Dr. Tso. Yes, I do have an advisory group the Facilities
    Appropriations Advisory Group that looks at all of the facility
    infrastructure work for the Indian Health Service, but I have
    not completed tribal consultation.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay.
        Dr. Tso. So if there is going to be a change, we will make
    sure that goes to tribal consultation before anything is
    finalized. So we are going to have to run these pretty quickly
    to make sure that we get the input that we want from Indian
    Country.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. All right. Thank you for that. I
    briefly mentioned ANMC, the Alaska Native Medical Center in
    Anchorage, the only tribal regional referral hospital in the
    State. As you know, we have supported the use of the non-
    recurring expenses fund for construction and renovation there
    at ANMC, and I am just hopeful that we can find a way forward
    as, you think about the role that they play as this, it is
    regional, but it is not. It is absolutely a facility that is a
    statewide facility but it is a Federal facility, and we have to
    ensure that it is meeting the IHS mission of delivering really
    quality and comprehensive care. And the structure itself is
    just bursting at the seams, and I know you have had plenty of
    opportunity to walk through, to listen, but if you need more
    reinforcement as to why we need to prioritize the efforts there
    at ANMC, we will take you through yet another walkthrough
    because it is so vitally, vitally important.
        Dr. Tso. Thank you, Ranking Member. Just for your
    information, I will be up there all next week again, so I will
    be landing in Anchorage on Monday. I intend to have a
    conversation with regards to the facility again and look at
    ways that we can help address that. We know right now there is
    $17 million that have been allocated from the Indian Health
    Service, and so we need to know what the difference is there
    that is needed to complete that or at least move that project
    forward. So I am excited about that. That is one of the things
    that is on my list of priorities to evaluate and see what we
    can do to get that project completed.
        Senator Murkowski. Good. I appreciate working with you on
    that. We were expecting a report on the Purchase Referred Care
    Program policies focused on reimbursing travel costs.
    Apparently, we gave you 180-day deadline to do that. Do you
    know if you are on track, when we might expect that?
        Dr. Tso. Thank you again, Ranking Member. I will definitely
    follow up on that. With respect to that, I have shared before,
    we are doing extensive amount of work with regards to PRC and
    making sure that we do that. Our recent updated guidelines with
    regards to expenditures of PRC do include travel, so we know
    that in Alaska, I know the challenges there for just overall
    PRC, so we are taking a look at that as well.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. Well if you can just kind of pay
    attention to that deadline, that timeline, because that kind of
    information I think is going to be instructive.
        This is for you, Assistant Secretary Newland. I was in
    Alaska in mid-April and had an opportunity to visit with the
    new project manager for the Newtok to Mertarvik, the relocation
    from Newtok up to Mertarvik. When I say ``new,'' she was maybe
    10 days on the job. And I have to tell you, what she shared
    with me, along with a couple other residents from Newtok,
    really concerned me just with a lack of coordination. And, you
    know, we have been working on this move for decades. A lot of
    Federal funds that have gone there, and they were updating me
    with the condition of the school and the erosion undercutting
    the school, and the fact that they were going to be closing the
    school at the end of this school year, so, like, right now. And
    it is gone. It is done, and I think everybody had thought that
    we had a little more time.
        Anyway, I am encouraged now, about 6 weeks later, that
    there is much greater coordination. We have got anybody who has
    any involvement with that project is engaged. I think we have
    got a plan for how to move the remaining families, how to begin
    a new school year up there. But I am just reminded that we have
    got 144 environmentally-threatened communities, maybe not all
    in the same dire situation as Newtok, but with a potential to
    get there, and so know that these are front and center in my
    mind. We have got to be working together, but I think we have
    to recognize that this is not one agency. This is not one
    entity. This is everybody here. You got to get your friends
    from EPA and from Transportation and HHS. We have some
    significant challenges just in coordination for these small-
    small communities.

                             PUBLIC LAW 280 STATES

        Last question for you, Secretary Newland, and this follows
    on our hearing yesterday when I asked you about the timeline
    for consultations with regards to the PL 280 States. You were
    unsure yesterday, so I do not know if you have more detail to
    that or whether you need to get back to me still.
        Mr. Newland. No, we were able to confirm that we will meet
    the September deadline from the committee report to complete
    the consultation period. And I think the letter will be going
    out pretty soon, and those consultations will be happening this
    summer.
        Senator Murkowski. Okay. Okay. Good. Good. And then I have
    got a couple others, but I have kept everybody over the
    allotted time, and I appreciate your fielding all of these
    questions that the committee has had.

                         ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

        And I know you have going to be responding to members'
    questions for the record. So if there is nothing else, the
    hearing record will be open until close of business, May 30,
    2024.
                    Questions Submitted to Hon. Roselyn Tso
                 Questions Submitted by Senator Martin Heinrich
        Question. IHS is not allowing Tribal members to access over the
    counter medications unless they have a prescription or a provider
    visit. That's not something we require of anyone else and it's not
    medically necessary. Will you look into this and make it easier for IHS
    patients to access over the counter medications?
        Answer. IHS believes providing access to needed medications is part
    of our mission to deliver safe, high quality care. Indian Health
    Service Federal pharmacies are required to provide medications listed
    on the IHS National Core Formulary (NCF) to eligible beneficiaries when
    clinically indicated.
        The NCF is a core drug formulary that includes both prescription
    and over-the-counter (OTC) medications, as determined by the IHS
    National Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee.
        Following appropriate review, Federal IHS pharmacies are expected
    to supplement their local formularies beyond the NCF to include
    additional prescription and OTC medications according to the needs of
    the local service population. Federal IHS facilities differ from retail
    pharmacies, in that there are no retail shelves for patient selection
    and there is no mechanism for purchase of OTC medications by
    beneficiaries from the pharmacy. All pharmaceuticals, including OTC
    medications, are provided at no cost to eligible beneficiaries through
    the pharmacy. The pharmacy safely and securely stores all medications,
    including OTCs to ensure appropriate storage and handling.Patients are
    able to request OTC medications without a provider prescription
    directly from the pharmacy at an IHS Federal site, or it may be
    prescribed during the normal course of care. As the IHS has a
    comprehensive electronic health record for all medical care provided at
    the site, any prescribed medication or OTC is reviewed by pharmacy
    staff before dispensing medications to ensure appropriate dosing, and
    to avoid contraindications, duplicative drug therapy or drug-drug or
    drug-disease interactions. The wait time depends on the number of
    patients waiting at the pharmacy and the workload of pharmacy staff,
    but patients will receive requested OTC medication the same day as the
    request.
        Question. In July 2023, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
    approved Opill, the first over the counter daily oral contraceptive
    approved for use in the U.S., which has given patients to purchase oral
    contraceptive medicine without a prescription at drug stores,
    convenience stores, and grocery stores, and online. How are IHS
    facilities being directed to provide Opill without a prescription or
    visit with a provider? What is the IHS doing to educate IHS
    pharmacists, nurses, doctors, community health workers and educators in
    the community about the availability of Opill and how it can and should
    be provided at the pharmacy and without barriers?
        Answer. Opill(r) (norgestrel 0.075mg) was added to the IHS National
    Core Formulary (NCF) in August 2023 soon after the product was approved
    by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in July 2023. Since it was
    added to the NCF, IHS Federal sites are required to have this
    medication on their local formulary. Opill(r) (norgestrel 0.075mg)
    became commercially available for purchase the last week of March 2024
    and the IHS Chief Medical Officer (CMO) distributed guidance via email
    to all IHS staff in April 2024 directing IHS Federal sites to offer
    Opill(r) (norgestrel 0.075mg) with as few barriers as possible, similar
    to OTC emergency contraception dispensing practices. Additionally, IHS
    created and shared numerous resources for the implementation of
    Opill(r) (norgestrel 0.075mg). The resources included example
    medication policies, FAQ handouts for clinicians, FAQ handouts for
    patients, example request forms for pharmacists and clinicians to
    distribute Opill(r) (norgestrel 0.075mg) and a combined form used to
    evaluate the need for emergency contraception in conjunction with of
    Opill(r) (norgestrel 0.075mg). These resources could be adapted to meet
    the needs of the local facility, which allows for rapid uptake and
    integration of Opill(r) (norgestrel 0.075mg) into local practices.
    Patients are able to request Opill(r) (norgestrel 0.075mg) without a
    provider prescription directly from the pharmacy at an IHS Federal
    site, or it may be prescribed during the normal course of care.

                                     ______

                 Questions Submitted by Senator Kyrsten Sinema
        Question. The Phoenix Indian Medical Center in Arizona provides
    direct health care services to over 150,000 patients. However, its
    facilities are in need of repair and renovation.
        In 2020, the abrupt closure of the Center's labor and delivery
    services created a lot of confusion and left expectant mothers
    scrambling to find alternative birthing arrangements with nearby
    providers.
        While the Women's Clinic at the Phoenix Indian Medical Center did
    reopen and provides comprehensive prenatal and postpartum care, in
    addition to women's health care--delivery and birthing services must be
    provided by an offsite partner.
        Director Tso, are there plans to restore delivery and birth
    services at the Phoenix Indian Medical Center, and if not--what remain
    the challenges?
        What is the status of other planned construction and modernization
    at the Phoenix Indian Medical Center?
        Answer. Labor and Delivery services at Phoenix Indian Medical
    Center (PIMC): PIMC currently has an agreement in place with Valley
    Wise Medical Center, which has been a successful means of providing
    access to labor and delivery services for IHS patients. Prenatal care,
    post-partum follow-up and newborn follow-up care is provided at PIMC.
    PIMC Certified Nurse Midwifes and OB/GYN providers provide the care
    while the patients are at the Valley Wise Medical Center for labor/
    delivery/NB care. Care is then transitioned back to PIMC. Current plans
    are to resume labor and delivery care once a new facility is
    constructed.
        Status of Phoenix Indian Medical Center planned construction: PIMC
    is one of the oldest projects on the 1993 IHS Health Care Facilities
    Construction Priority List, and its replacement is estimated to cost
    $3.5 billion. Due to limited funding available for new facility
    construction each year, and the size and access limits of the current
    site, IHS is investigating leasing space, locating services at other
    locations, and forming partnerships as part of the strategy to provide
    health care at PIMC.
        The specifications for space needed to provide healthcare services
    at the PIMC replacement facility have been thoroughly reviewed with an
    established plan. However, Congress must appropriate additional funding
    to the IHS for the needed PIMC replacement facility. Typically Health
    Care Facilities Construction funding is allocated towards the 1993
    Priority list, which includes PIMC.
        The replacement and modernization of PIMC will be completed using a
    phased strategy to plan, design, and construct the replacement as
    Congressional appropriations become available. The IHS plan to replace
    PIMC prioritizes short and long-term healthcare needs of PIMC's local
    community, as well as specialty referral services of sites throughout
    the Phoenix Area. The phasing will strive to meet those needs through
    construction, leasing space, and renovation of existing space.
        Question. In 2019, Tuba City Regional Health Care Corporation, the
    Native-led nonprofit organization that operates Tuba City Hospital,
    responded to their community's urgent need for equitable access to
    cancer treatments by opening the Specialty Care Center, an outpatient
    oncology and hematology clinic.
        However, the I.H.S. rate does not reimburse Tribal health care
    providers for the cost of chemotherapeutics provided by a physician in
    an office setting.
        In June and September last year, Senator Kelly and I wrote to CMS
    Administrator Brooks- LaSure to urge CMS to improve Medicare
    reimbursements for high-cost, specialty drugs provided by I.H.S. and
    tribally-owned facilities. CMS did not move the policy forward despite
    5 years of active engagement.
        In the 5 years since its opening, the Specialty Care Center has
    treated over 400 patients and lost over $2 million. This makes the
    provision of cancer care on reservations unsustainable for Medicare
    patients and harms the ability of Tribal populations to access local
    cancer treatments.
        The President's budget request urges significant investments in the
    Administration's Cancer Moonshot goal to reduce the cancer death rate
    and improve the experience of people living with cancer. It includes
    approximately $108 million to develop a nationwide coordinated public
    health and cancer prevention initiative to address the unacceptably
    high cancer incidence and mortality rates among American Indian and
    Alaska Native populations.
        Director Tso, do you agree that increasing access to cancer care at
    I.H.S. and tribally-owned facilities is in alignment with the Cancer
    Moonshot and important to achieving greater health care equity for
    Tribal communities? Do you believe creating sustainable Federal
    reimbursements for complex care at I.H.S. and tribally-owned facilities
    (like the Specialty Care Center) will help achieve those goals?
        Answer. Increasing access to care across Indian Country is critical
    to health equity for the AI/AN population we serve, which is why the FY
    2025 President's Budget requests an additional $108 million for the
    Cancer Moonshot. In addition, the creation of sustainable Federal
    reimbursements for complex cancer care at IHS and tribally-owned
    facilities will support an organized and well- led cancer program
    (comprised of prevention, early detection, diagnosis, treatment, and
    palliative care) that involves stakeholders, creates and leverages
    partnerships, responds to the unique needs of our patients, and
    incorporates evidence and cultural values to be effective in improving
    health outcomes, controlling costs, and improving patient and family
    experiences. Supporting the infrastructure of Indian health care
    programs with sustainable reimbursement is essential to building health
    equity and to decreasing health disparities. In the calendar year 2024
    Medicare Hospital Outpatient Prospective Payment System final rule with
    comment period, CMS discussed comments it solicited on a number of
    potential payment for high-cost drugs provided by IHS and Tribal
    facilities (88 FR 81896 through 81897). We look forward to sustainable
    Federal reimbursement informed by commenters' suggestions to support
    specialty care such as that provided by the Tuba City Regional Health
    Care Cancer Center.
        Question. It has been a year since vulnerable Tribal members were
    targeted in Arizona in a Medicaid rehab scam--with criminals promising
    offers of mental and behavioral health services only to be denied
    legitimate health care services and stranded far from home, services,
    or their communities.
        Despite actions by the State and Arizona's Medicaid program, known
    as the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (AHCCCS), many
    Tribal advocates, health care providers, and nonprofit organizations
    say Federal assistance in the aftermath has been woefully lacking.
        Director Tso, what role or assistance, if any, can I.H.S. play in
    assisting vulnerable Tribal members impacted by these crimes and the
    Tribal organizations who are aiding in their recovery and connection to
    legitimate services?
        Answer. IHS works diligently to ensure that we assist AI/AN
    patients with enrollment into Medicaid and that the agency is properly
    processing Medicaid claims for eligible services. All employees,
    contractors and anyone who has contact with the IHS is encouraged to
    combat fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement by reporting these
    matters to the IHS Division of Personnel Security and Ethics or the
    Department of Health Human Services Office of Inspector General.

                              SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

        Senator Murkowski. So thank you, and if there are no
    further comments, we stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:16 p.m., Thursday, May 23, the hearing
    was adjourned and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene
    at a time subject to the call of the Chair.]

         DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
                      APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025

                                  ----------

                                           U.S. Senate,
               Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                        Washington, DC.

                           NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES

        [Clerk's note.--The subcommittee was unable to hold
    hearings on nondepartmental witnesses. The statements and
    letters of those submitting written testimony are as follows:]
               Prepared Statement of the Alliance to Save Energy
        The Alliance to Save Energy, a bipartisan, non-profit organization
    representing a coalition of businesses, government, and environmental &
    consumer leaders, respectfully submits this testimony alongside the
    undersigned allied organizations to urge you to support robust energy
    efficiency (EE) investments in critical programs managed by the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), particularly increasing the
    ENERGY STAR budget for FY 2025 to $50 million. ENERGY STAR is well
    known for its ability to facilitate energy savings for consumers and to
    encourage innovation in residential construction and appliance
    manufacturing. Energy efficiency, a key domestic resource, is critical
    to ensuring safe, reliable, & affordable energy to Americans now & in
    the future. Efficiency measures have cut our energy use in half
    relative to the size of the U.S. economy since 1980. This energy waste
    reduction has effectively delivered more than $2,000 in annual savings
    per American.
        In 2020 alone, ENERGY STAR saved American consumers and businesses
    more than $42 billion in avoided energy costs. During the same period,
    ENERGY STAR accounted for nearly 400 million metric tons of emissions
    reductions--equivalent to more than five percent of U.S. total
    greenhouse gas emissions. Since 1992 the program has helped businesses
    and consumers save 5 trillion KWhs of electricity and avoid over $500
    billion in energy costs- and the program is also responsible for 4
    billion metric tons of GHG reductions during the same period.
        Notwithstanding the program's success, ENERGY STAR has seen its
    funding steadily decline from a high of nearly $54 million more than a
    decade ago, to $33 million today. If we were to simply adjust for
    inflation, ENERGY STAR would have a budget of approximately $75 million
    \1\ in today's dollars versus a decade ago. This steady decrease in
    funding priority has greatly restricted ENERGY STAR's ability to keep
    up with fast-changing markets and to expand the program's reach in
    sectors where large untapped energy savings are achievable, including
    low-to-moderate income, disadvantaged, and Tribal communities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The chained GDP deflator in the FY25 budget (Historical Tables
    10.1) gives 0.8968 for FY2010 and 1.2533 for FY2024 (estimate).
    53.6/.8968*1.2533 = 74.9
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        With broad bipartisan support and nationwide brand recognition
    above 90%, ENERGY STAR is among the most impactful energy and climate
    programs in the Federal Government. Our request to increase the ENERGY
    STAR budget to $50 million reflects the urgency to address climate
    change and the need to prioritize energy efficiency solutions as
    consumers and businesses are faced with higher energy costs. We fully
    appreciate the competing interests during the budget and appropriation
    cycles, however, we urge prioritization of energy efficiency- as ``one
    of the fastest, most cost-effective ways to save money, reduce
    greenhouse gas emissions, create jobs, and meet growing energy
    demand.''
        Thank you for your leadership on these important issues, and we
    look forward to working together to strengthen the ENERGY STAR program.
    If you have any questions or need additional information, please
    contact Sapna Dowla (sgdowla@ase.org) with the Alliance to Save Energy.

    Sincerely,

        Alliance to Save Energy (ASE)
        American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)
        Acuity Brands
        ASHRAE
        Building Performance Association (BPA)
        Building Potential
        Cellulose Insulation Manufacturers Association
        DuPont
        E4TheFuture
        Environmental and Energy Study Institute (EESI)
        Federal Performance Contracting Coalition (FPCC)
        Institute for Market Transformation (IMT)
        Midwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (MEEA)
        National Association of Energy Service Companies (NAESCO)
        National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO)
        Northeast Energy Efficiency and Electrification Council (NEEEC)
        Polyisocyanurate Insulation Manufacturers Association
        Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP)
        U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC)

        [This statement was submitted by Sapna Gheewala Dowla, Associate VP
    Policy & Research, Alliance to Save Energy.]
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the American Alliance of Museums
        Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit this testimony.
    My name is Marilyn Jackson, and I am the President and CEO of the
    American Alliance of Museums (AAM). We urge your support for at least
    $211 million in Fiscal Year 2025 funding for the National Endowment for
    the Arts (NEA), at least $211 million in funding for the National
    Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), as well as robust funding for the
    Smithsonian Institution. We also request your support for the Historic
    Preservation Fund, including at least $70 million for State Historic
    Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and $34 million for Tribal Historic
    Preservation Offices (THPOs). We support $28 million for African
    American Civil Rights Grants, $13 million for Historically Black
    Colleges/Universities, $7 million for Equal Rights Grants, and $5
    million for Underrepresented Community Grants. We request funding of at
    least $40 million for the Save America's Treasures program and $17
    million for Paul Bruhn Historic Revitalization grants. We also ask that
    Congress include museums in, and provide robust funding for,
    supplemental programs for Federal agencies carrying out
    Semiquincentennial/America 250 programming and commemorations. In light
    of museums being banned from House Community Project Funding, which we
    strongly oppose, increasing funding for competitive grants for museums
    is all the more critical.
        Before detailing these funding priorities for the museum field, I
    want to express my appreciation for the funding enacted in FY 2024. The
    funds for the NEH, NEA, and historic preservation activities will
    enhance museums' work to enrich their communities and preserve our many
    heritages. Making these investments speaks volumes about Congress'
    commitment to our Nation's cultural institutions and its understanding
    of the economic and educational impact these institutions have on
    Americans.
        There is a museum for everyone, and in every part of the country.
    Museums are a robust and diverse nonpartisan business and cultural
    sector, including aquariums, arboreta, art museums, botanic gardens,
    children's museums, culturally-specific museums, historic sites,
    historical societies, history museums, maritime museums, military
    museums, natural history museums, planetariums, presidential libraries,
    public gardens, railway museums, science and technology centers, and
    zoos.
        Museums are economic engines and job creators. According to Museums
    as Economic Engines: A National Report, U.S. museums (pre-pandemic)
    support more than 726,000 jobs and contribute $50 billion to the U.S.
    economy per year. The economic activity of museums generates more than
    $12 billion in tax revenue, one-third of it going to State and local
    governments. For example, the total financial impact that museums have
    on the economy in the State of Oregon is $585 million, including
    supporting 9,740 jobs. For Alaska it is a $280 million impact
    supporting 3,240 jobs. This impact is not limited to cities: more than
    25% of museums are in rural areas. The import of these data is not the
    numbers alone--but the larger point that museums give back tremendously
    to their communities in numerous ways--including economically. The
    Federal funding for NEA, NEH, and the other programs does not stay in
    Washington, DC, it goes back to communities across the Nation. And it
    is leveraged many times over by private philanthropy, and State and
    local investments.
        Museums are key education providers. Museums spend more than $2
    billion yearly on education activities; the typical museum devotes 75%
    of its education budget to K-12 students, and museums receive
    approximately 55 million visits each year from students in school
    groups. Museums also answered the call and significantly ramped up
    online educational programs and resources for students and families
    throughout the pandemic and beyond. Museums help teach the State and
    local curriculum in subjects ranging from art and science to history,
    civics, and government. Museums have long served as a vital resource to
    homeschool learners. It is not surprising that in a public opinion
    survey, 97% of respondents agreed that museums were educational assets
    in their communities. The results were statistically identical
    regardless of political persuasion or community size. Museums are
    nonpartisan and accessible to all Americans.
        While making strides, the museum field continues to face financial
    strain in the aftermath of the pandemic, with half of museums
    indicating at least one sign of financial distress. In the 6 months
    prior to completing a recent survey, half of museums either lost
    revenue or had to make difficult decisions on personnel, programs, or
    other expenditures (or all of the above). Despite the tremendous
    financial and psychological stress caused by the pandemic, museum
    professionals understand the essential role they play in their
    communities and despite the stress and financial strain they have
    deepened their commitment to serving as community assets. Museums are
    essential community infrastructure.
        The National Endowment for the Humanities is an independent Federal
    agency created by Congress in 1965. Grants are awarded to nonprofit
    educational institutions, including museums, for educational
    programming, infrastructure and the care of collections. NEH supports
    museums as institutions of lifelong learning and exploration, and as
    keepers of our cultural, historical, and scientific heritages that can
    foster critical dialogues on challenging issues. Approximately 40% of
    its budget is awarded to state humanities councils located in every
    State and U.S. territory.
        In FY 2023, the NEH awarded 798 grants totaling more than $110.7
    million to institutions across the U.S., including museums. All of
    NEH's divisions and offices support museums. Humanities councils
    sponsor family literacy programs, speakers' bureaus, cultural heritage
    tourism, exhibitions, and live performances. Many councils also offer
    grants to local cultural organizations, including museums.
        In preparation for the U.S. Semiquincentennial in 2026, NEH's ``A
    More Perfect Union'' initiative provides funding opportunities across
    the agency's seven grantmaking divisions for humanities projects that
    promote a deeper understanding of American history and culture and that
    advance civic education and knowledge of our core principles of
    government. As part of the initiative, most of NEH's grant programs
    include special encouragements to applications related to the United
    States' 250th.
        Here are just two examples of how NEH funding was used to support
    museums' work in your communities:

      --The High Desert Museum in Bend, Oregon, was awarded a $500,000
            Infrastructure and Capacity Building Challenge Grant for the
            construction of a new 27,500 square foot wing to advance the
            High Desert Museum's vision for the Center for the High Desert-
            a place for humanities-driven programming that brings together
            scholars, artists, policy makers, nontraditional leaders, and
            community members to transform conversations about the High
            Desert region, significantly broaden and deepen community
            engagement, and catalyze collaborative, creative solutions.
            These adaptable new spaces will support interdisciplinary
            programming that will broaden community engagement, drive new
            scholarship, inform policy decisions, and build understanding
            and collaboration between community members.

      --The Anchorage Museum in Anchorage, Alaska, was awarded a Challenge
            Grant for the museum's Climate and Sustainability Working Group
            to create and implement a sustainability plan for the
            organization. The process will include a review of the museum's
            existing energy audit, undertaking a carbon audit, and working
            with national and international consultants who are
            sustainability experts in the cultural sector. The
            sustainability plan will be integrated into the museum's
            existing strategic framework and long-term capital plan,
            providing clear goals and benchmarks and outlining actions and
            a timeline to achieve sustainability goals. The project will
            also include opportunities to share the process and findings
            with statewide cultural organizations, partners, and the
            general public to help work collectively toward a sustainable
            future.

        The National Endowment for the Arts makes art accessible to all and
    provides leadership in arts education. Established in 1965, NEA
    supports great art in every congressional district. Its grants to
    museums help them exhibit, preserve, and interpret visual material
    through exhibitions, residencies, publications, commissions, public art
    works, conservation, documentation, services to the field, and public
    programs. Annually, the NEA typically provides more than 150 awards to
    museums and museum-related projects, totaling approximately $5 million.
        Since 2010, the NEA has collaborated with Blue Star Families and
    the U.S. Department of Defense on Blue Star Museums, which provides
    free museum admission to active duty military and their families all
    summer long. Typically each year more than 2,000 museums in all 50
    States participate, reaching on average more than 900,000 military
    members and their families. Participating Oregon museums include the
    Columbia River Maritime Museum (Astoria), Eugene Science Center
    (Eugene), and Oregon Historical Society (Portland). Alaska includes
    Palmer Historical Society (Palmer) and the Valdez Museum (Valdez).
        The Federal role of the NEA is uniquely valuable; receiving a grant
    from the NEA confers prestige on supported projects, strengthening
    museums' ability to attract matching funds from other public and
    private funders. On average, each dollar awarded by the NEA leverages
    up to nine dollars from other sources. No other funder-public or
    private-funds the arts in every State and the U.S. territories. 40% of
    NEA's grant funds are distributed to state arts agencies for re-
    granting.
        Here are two examples of how NEA funding was used to support
    museums' work in your communities:

      --The Portland Art Museum in Portland, Oregon, was awarded a $65,000
            grant to support installation and administrative costs for the
            presentation of Africa Fashion, an exhibition organized by the
            Victoria and Albert Museum in London. The exhibition celebrated
            the richness and diversity of African creativity, cultures, and
            histories, using fashion as a catalyst through an extensive
            display of garments, textiles, personal testimonies,
            photographs, sketches, and film. Works featured hailed from the
            archives of iconic mid-20th century African designers. Africa
            Fashion builds on the museum's commitment to showcasing
            innovative fashion and design, as well as important works from
            local, regional, and international Black artists.

      --The Portland Museum of Art in Portland, Maine, was awarded $30,000
            from the Grants for Art Project program to support a solo
            exhibition of the work of Passamaquoddy basketmaker Jeremy Frey
            (b. 1978). More than 45 works ranging from early point baskets
            and urchin forms to recent multicolored vases with porcupine
            quillwork will be presented. Public programming will include
            artist talks, workshops, community projects, and gallery-based
            discussions. The exhibition will benefit in-person and online
            museum visitors, families, and collaborative partners including
            Passamaquoddy youth, artists, and community organizations.

        The NEA also runs the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity program, which
    reduces the cost of insuring major exhibitions. Absent this program,
    such exhibitions would need to be reduced in scale limiting visitors
    and students access to great art and artifacts from around the world.
    It saves museums millions of dollars annually, at a cost of almost zero
    to taxpayers.
        The Smithsonian Institution comprises some of the most visited
    museums in the world. The National Museum of African American History
    and Culture has captivated audiences from around the globe,
    underscoring the power of our National museums to educate and inspire.
    We support robust funding that would allow these world-class museums to
    undertake critical collections care, make needed technology upgrades,
    conduct cutting edge research, and increase access for all. We applaud
    the establishment and ongoing development of the Smithsonian American
    Women's History Museum and the National Museum of the American Latino.
        The Historic Preservation Fund is the funding source of
    preservation awards to States, Tribes, local governments, and
    nonprofits. State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices carry out
    the historic preservation work of the Federal Government on State and
    Tribal lands. Historic preservation programs are not only essential to
    protecting our many heritages; they also serve as economic development
    engines and job creators, and provide vital funding to help museums
    serve their communities.
        I hope that my testimony helped make it clear why these priorities
    are of critical importance to the Nation and how they provide a
    worthwhile return on investment to the American taxpayer.
        Thank you for your consideration.

        [This statement was submitted by Marilyn Jackson, President and CEO
    of the American Alliance of Museums.]

                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the American Battlefield Trust
        Thank you for the opportunity to present testimony today. My name
    is David Duncan, and I am the president of the American Battlefield
    Trust. I testify today to respectfully request that the Senate
    Appropriations subcommittee for Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies fund the Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants Program, along
    with related grant programs administered by the National Park Service's
    American Battlefield Protection Program, at its authorized amount of
    $20 million. I also respectfully request $2 million for Multi-State
    Battlefield Parks inholding acquisition funding.
        The American Battlefield Trust is a national nonprofit organization
    dedicated to preserving America's remaining Revolutionary War, War of
    1812 and Civil War battlefields. Thanks to the generosity of our
    500,000 members and supporters from all 50 States, the American
    Battlefield Trust has protected more than 58,000 acres of critically
    important battlefield land in 25 States.
                outdoor classrooms and military training grounds
        America's battlefields are irreplaceable parts of our shared
    national heritage. When preserved, these battlefields serve as outdoor
    classrooms to educate current and future generations about the defining
    moments in our country's history. They are living memorials, not just
    to the soldiers who fought and died there, but to all who have proudly
    worn our Nation's uniform.
        Preserved battlefields are also economic drivers for communities,
    generating tourism dollars that are extremely important to State and
    local economies. Battlefield visitors, who typically travel in groups
    and as part of families, tend to stay longer and spend more than other
    types of tourists.
        Additionally, battlefields serve as training grounds for today's
    military, in the form of customized battlefield tours known as ``staff
    rides.'' Preserved battlefields are frequently used by the modern
    military to place officers and enlisted ranks alike in the shoes of
    combat commanders, asking them to make difficult choices, in the face
    of daunting obstacles, over the same terrain. The American Battlefield
    Trust is proud to work with the Marine Corps University Foundation and
    others to host staff rides on battlefields we own and have protected.
                  the american battlefield protection program
        In 1990, Congress created the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission
    (CWSAC), a panel composed of lawmakers, historians and
    preservationists, to examine the status of America's Civil War
    battlefields. Three years later, the Commission released a report
    identifying the most important Civil War battlegrounds, prioritizing
    them according to preservation status and historic significance. In
    addition, the Commission also recommended that Congress establish a
    Federal matching grant program to encourage private sector investment
    in battlefield preservation. The Commission's proposal for Federal
    matching grants was the genesis of today's Battlefield Land Acquisition
    Grants Program.
        The Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants Program is an authorized
    competitive matching grants program that requires a 1-to-1 federal/non-
    federal match, although on most occasions the Federal dollars are
    leveraged much more than that. The program promotes cooperative
    partnerships between State and local governments and the private sector
    to protect high priority battlegrounds outside existing National Park
    Service boundaries.
        Building on the enormous success and popularity of the program,
    Congress expanded its grant-making eligibility in fiscal year 2015 to
    include Revolutionary War and War of 1812 battlefields, in addition to
    Civil War battlefields. Similar to Civil War battlefields, funding for
    Revolutionary War and War of 1812 battlefield preservation is targeted
    toward sites reviewed and prioritized in a comprehensive study
    requested by the Congress and published in 2007 by the National Park
    Service.
        Since the program was first funded in FY1999, grants have been used
    to protect 36,000 acres of hallowed ground in 20 States. Among the
    battlefields that have been preserved using this program are: Antietam,
    Maryland; Bentonville, North Carolina; Brandywine, Pennsylvania;
    Champion Hill, Mississippi; Chancellorsville, Virginia; Chattanooga,
    Tennessee; Gettysburg, Pennsylvania; Hanging Rock, South Carolina;
    Harpers Ferry, West Virginia; Kettle Creek, Georgia; Mill Springs,
    Kentucky; Prairie Grove, Arkansas; Princeton, New Jersey; Sackets
    Harbor, New York; Wilson's Creek, Missouri; and Wood Lake, Minnesota.
    It is important to note that grants are awarded for acquisition of
    lands from willing sellers only; there is--and never has been--any
    eminent domain authority.
                     multi-state battlefield parks funding
        The Multi-State Battlefield Parks funding request provides the
    National Park Service with the flexibility to acquire privately-owned
    battlefield land within the boundaries of existing battlefield parks
    throughout the country. Since Federal inholding money often goes for
    high-profile, big acreage tracts at larger, natural parks, smaller
    battlefield parks have trouble competing for limited Federal inholding
    dollars. The Multi-State Battlefield Parks funding request provides NPS
    with the flexibility to acquire smaller but historically significant
    parcels when they become available for acquisition.
        In addition, since the process for securing inholding funding for
    individual battlefield parks often takes years, the Multi-State
    Battlefield Parks funding request enables the National Park Service to
    direct funding to the battlefield parks that have the most urgent
    needs. Further, it enables nonprofit organizations like the American
    Battlefield Trust to secure these properties with the rapidity often
    expected of willing sellers, with intent to ultimately transfer land to
    NPS.
        Since 2020, the Multi-State Battlefield Parks Line Item has been
    funded in FY2024 at $2.68 million; FY2023 at $2.5 million; FY2021 at $2
    million; and FY2020 at $2 million. We respectfully request that the
    Multi-State Battlefield Parks Line Item be funded at $2 million for
    FY2025.
                            urgent need for funding
        The American Battlefield Trust wishes to thank the subcommittee for
    its support for battlefield preservation and saving America's hallowed
    grounds for future generations. We recognize that these are difficult
    economic times and appreciate the constraints on this subcommittee.
        However, we must point out that the clock is ticking on the
    remaining battlefields of the Revolutionary War, War of 1812 and Civil
    War. The American Battlefield Trust estimates that, in the next decade,
    most unprotected battlefield land will be either developed or
    preserved. Further, with the 250th anniversary commemoration of the
    American Revolution less than a year away, there is no better time to
    preserve these historic shrines and prepare for the influx of visitors
    expected at that time. The Trust and its partners strive diligently to
    put these funds to good use in a timely manner. There is no shortage of
    land that can be saved.
                                   conclusion
        The Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Civil War were
    defining moments in our country's history. America's battlefields are
    important to understanding who we are as a nation, and where we come
    from. They are open spaces and outdoor classrooms that commemorate the
    sacrifices of those who fought and died on these fields. The
    Battlefield Land Acquisition Grant Program has been an irreplaceable
    tool for preserving these hallowed grounds.
        I sincerely hope you and your subcommittee will consider our
    request to provide funding of the American Battlefield Protection
    Program's land acquisition program at its authorized level of $20
    million and Multi-State Battlefields Parks inholding request at $2
    million. We look forward to working closely with you as we continue our
    important work to preserve America's sacred battlefield lands. Thank
    you for the opportunity to address the subcommittee.

        [This statement was submitted by David N. Duncan, President,
    American Battlefield Trust.]
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of American Bird Conservancy
        To help recover endangered species, reduce environmental threats,
    and bolster programs needed to reverse bird declines, American Bird
    Conservancy respectfully requests funding increases for the following
    bird conservation programs in the FY 2025 Interior Appropriations bill.

                                         FY 25 Bird Conservation Recommendations
                                                (all figures in millions)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                FY25 to Bring Back
                  Agency                     Program         FY24 Final   FY25 President's          Birds (ABC
                                                                               Budget            Recommendation)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EPA..............................  Pesticides                 $48.7               $75.7                    $75.7
                                        Licensing.
    EPA..............................  Marine Pollution           $10.2               $12.7                      $13
                                        Program.
    NPS..............................  Window Collision              $0                  $0                      $10
                                        Mitigation.
    NOAA.............................  Seabird Recovery              $0                  $0                      $10
                                        Technical
                                        Assistance.
    USFWS............................  ESA Pesticide                 $1                  $1                      $10
                                        Consultations.
    USFWS............................  Red Knot Recovery..           $0                  $0                       $5
    USFWS, NMFS......................  Marbled Murrelet              $0                  $0                       $5
                                        Recovery.
    USFWS............................  Lesser Prairie-               $0                  $0                       $5
                                        chicken Recovery.
    USFWS, NPS, USGS.................  Hawaiian ESA              $15.51                 $15                      $20
                                        Recovery.
    USFWS............................  NMBCA..............         $5.1                $5.1                     $6.5
    USFWS............................  Migratory Bird            $16.82               $17.7                      $25
                                        Joint Ventures.
    USFWS............................  California Central            $0                  $0                     $0.6
                                        Coast Joint
                                        Venture.
    USFWS............................  Non-Lead Exchange..           $0                  $0                      $20
    USFWS............................  MBTA Incidental               $0                  $0                      $10
                                        Take Mitigation.
    BLM..............................  Sage Grouse                  $73                 $73                      $73
                                        Conservation.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA and USFWS Pesticide Reviews
    To address a 40-year backlog of reviews, and court-mandated Endangered
    Species Act compliance, we ask that Congress appropriate $75.7 million
    to the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs to expedite registration and
    registration review procedures mandated by the Federal Insecticide,
    Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.

    EPA Plastic Pollution Mitigation
    Plastic pollution is among the leading threats to seabirds. We
    recommend that the EPA's Marine Pollution Program receive at least $13
    million to support their goals of reducing marine litter, capturing
    trash, and protecting human health and the marine environment.

    Reducing Window Collisions
    Please provide $10 million to continue work by the National Park
    Service and other agencies to retrofit Department of the Interior
    buildings to make them bird-safe.

    USFWS Pesticide Consultations
    We also ask that an additional $10 million be appropriated to the USFWS
    to be used expressly for pesticide consultations, including
    programmatic expenses and an additional 20 FTE, under the Planning and
    Consultation division of Ecological Services.

    Red Knot Recovery
    We recommend $5 million to support the FWS Red Knot recovery program.
    Added funds should be used to improve state horseshoe crab egg density
    surveys and provide grants to reduce horseshoe crab bait fishing and
    bleeding for pharmaceutical purposes. Red Knot depend on horseshoe crab
    eggs to survive their migration and successfully breed.

    Marbled Murrelet Recovery
    We recommend an additional $5 million for recovery of the threatened
    Marbled Murrelet, a rapidly declining critically endangered seabird
    which only nests in the inland Old Growth forests of the Pacific
    Northwest. Funds are needed to support campground cleanup campaigns to
    reduce the number of ravens and jays predating Murrelet nests.

    Lesser Prairie-Chicken Recovery
    We recommend $5 million to initiate a robust recovery program that will
    incentivize landowners to provide for high quality habitat needed to
    maintain the currently declining population. A coordinated outreach
    campaign, technical support, and funding are needed to implement
    grazing rest and other practices that will improve the range.

    Hawai'i ESA Recovery
    ABC recommends funding Hawaiian Forest Bird Conservation through State
    of the Birds Activities and associated National Park Service and U.S.
    Geological Survey programs at $20 million for FY25. Funds are being
    used to halt the spread of avian malaria threatening 12 of Hawaiian
    forest birds.

    Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act
    Please increase funding for migratory bird conservation including
    wintering grounds in Latin America and the Caribbean by providing $6.5
    million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. This
    program is essential to the conservation of wintering habitats,
    building capacity of our Latin American and Caribbean partners, and
    providing greater access to conservation resources in a region where it
    is urgently needed.

    North American Waterfowl Management Joint Ventures
    The national network of Joint Ventures (JVs) are essential to address
    the conservation needs of migratory birds, and they leverage
    significant matching contributions from partner organizations and
    foundations. We recommend that to help reverse bird declines the Joint
    Ventures be allocated $20 million.

    California Central Coast Joint Venture
    We request $600,000 the California Central Coast Joint Venture's (C3JV,
    https://www.c3jv.org/) and its BIRDS (Bridging Information for the
    Recovery of Declining Species) Project, including the preparation of a
    State of the Birds Report, launch of the Central Coast Bird Monitoring
    Network, and development of an Indigenous Stewardship Program.

    Non-Lead Exchange Program
    We recommend $20 million appropriated to State Wildlife Agencies
    through the Department of the Interior for non-lead tackle and non-lead
    ammunition exchange programs.

    Migratory Bird Treaty Act
    We appreciate the President's FY25 Budget Justification from USFWS in
    regard to protections for birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act,
    and are hopeful the Service will soon propose a draft rule establishing
    an incidental take permitting system and general sector permits to
    reduce preventable mortality and ask Congress to support and designate
    $10 million towards this effort.

    Climate Change and Energy Development
    Please include in wildlife incidental take mitigation funding. We also
    recommend report language emphasizing environmentally appropriate
    siting and minimizing wildlife impacts of renewable energy facility
    development and encouraging Federal agencies to avoid ecologically
    important areas on public lands and in Federal waters and to apply
    available best management practices that reduce wildlife mortality.

    Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation
    We remain deeply concerned by the Greater Sage-Grouse ESA listing rider
    given a recent USGS report indicating the species is in severe decline,
    and that that trend is anticipated to continue. We request the listing
    moratorium for all Sage Grouse populations be ended.

        1. We appreciate the proposed $73 million for sage grouse
    conservation in the House recommendation, and the Senate report
    language offering helpful guidance for the restoration program.

        2. The remaining grouse strongholds are at risk and require
    immediate protection. We ask Congress to please include the following
    bill language to recover grouse populations:

        No less than $3 million will be spent on the designation and
    planning for a network of ACECs deemed sufficient to prevent further
    long-term greater sage-grouse population declines in accordance with 43
    U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 1702(a) and 1712(c)(3).
                          recommended report language
    Pesticides and Birds
    Please include report language directing EPA to:

        1. In conjunction with the Center for Pollinator Conservation,
    conduct a scientific review of the impacts of neonicotinoid
    insecticides on birds, insects, and the environment and report these
    findings to Congress

        2. Clarify that the Treated Article Exemption, FIFRA Sec. 152.25(a)
    should not include pesticide-coated seeds

        3. Request that FWS ban the use of conventional pesticides used for
    crop production on National Wildlife Refuges and other important bird
    habitats

        4. Direct the Government Accountability Office to study the impact
    of pesticides used in crop production on National Wildlife Refuges

    Public Lands Protection and Forest Carbon
    We are encouraged by the Executive Order to map and conserve Old Growth
    and Mature Forests which could make a major contribution to address
    climate change. Please include report language recommending:

                    The protection of existing carbon stores in mature and
                    old growth forests that provide habitat for the
                    threatened Marbled Murrelet, Northern Spotted Owl, and
                    California Spotted Owl.

    Reducing Window Collisions
    Please include previous report language:

                    All agencies under the jurisdiction of this act are
                    directed to monitor visitor and nature centers and
                    office buildings for bird collisions with glass to
                    address bird collision risk. At a minimum, facilities
                    identified as high-risk should take low cost or no cost
                    action, such as turning off interior lights at night or
                    applying films or other adhesives to glass windows to
                    reduce bird collisions.

       subcommittee on commerce, justice, science, and related agencies,
             national oceanic and atmospheric administration (noaa)
    Reducing Seabird Bycatch
    U.S. fisheries have taken great strides to reduce seabird bycatch. To
    further assist ongoing efforts, we recommend $10 million in technical
    assistance and seabird bycatch mitigation funding be provided to NOAA
    Fisheries in the Commerce, Justice, Science, And Related Agencies
    Appropriations Bill. We recommend that at least $100,000 of that money
    be directly appropriated to the National Seabird Program for staffing.
    This is necessary to boost program capacity and enhance internal
    coordination.
       agriculture, rural development, food and drug administration, and
      related agencies fy2025--draft fy2025 appropriations report language

                    The Committee recognizes the scientific, economic,
                    supply chain, environmental, and animal protection
                    benefits to utilizing synthetic safety approaches to
                    test for bacterial endotoxins in vaccines, injectable
                    therapies, and medical devices. Without clear guidance
                    that the Food and Drug Administration accepts modern
                    approaches in lieu of traditionally accepted animal-
                    based methods, regulated entities are unlikely to adopt
                    new approaches that accurately detect fever-causing
                    contaminants with lower impact on animals and the
                    environment. The Committee directs the FDA to update
                    its 2012 Guidance for Industry on Pyrogen and
                    Endotoxins Testing within 120 days of enactment of this
                    act to reflect acceptance of recombinant Bacterial
                    Endotoxins Test (rBET) methods for new and existing
                    products. FDA must also provide staff training on rBET.
                    The Committee requests a written update by 180 days of
                    enactment of this act.

    Contacts:

    Steve Holmer
    Vice President of Policy
    sholmer@abcbirds.org
    202-744-6459

    Annie Chester
    Policy Initiatives Coordinator
    achester@abcbirds.org
    202-888-7471

    Steve Riley
    Director of Farm Bill Programs
    sriley@abcbirds.org
    402-433-5078

        [This statement was submitted by Hardy Kern, Director of Government
    Relations.]
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the American Cultural Resources Association
        Thank you for giving the American Cultural Resources Association
    (ACRA) the opportunity to provide written testimony about the
    Department of the Interior's appropriations for Fiscal Year 2025. I am
    Amanda Stratton, the Executive Director of ACRA.
        ACRA is the National trade association supporting the common
    interests of cultural resource management (CRM) firms of all sizes,
    types, and specialties. ACRA member firms undertake much of the legally
    mandated cultural resource studies and investigations in the United
    States and employ thousands of professionals, including archaeologists,
    architectural historians, historians, ethnographers, and an
    increasingly diverse group of other specialists in the museum and non-
    profit sectors.
        The majority of CRM firms in the United States are designated as
    small businesses under the U.S. Small Business Administration's size
    standards. They work in every State in the country to balance the
    necessity to build infrastructure with the need to protect our Nation's
    cultural heritage. CRM firms like mine help enable smart development
    while elevating important cultural heritage assets.
        Numerous programs within the Interior Department play an essential
    part in helping our Nation understand its history. ACRA appreciates the
    important work of the subcommittee over the last few years to ensure
    historic preservation and cultural resource programs at the Interior
    Department have adequate funding despite a challenging fiscal
    environment. Our recommendations outlined below reflect the reality
    that, as the demand for cultural resource services continues to rise,
    Federal investments must keep up.
     national park service--historic preservation fund (hpf): $225 million
        Since its establishment in the 1970s, the Historic Preservation
    Fund (HPF) has supported the rescue and rehabilitation of historic
    sites, revitalized communities, and created opportunities for economic
    growth.
        The Fund helps the National Park Service administer heritage
    programs such as the National Register of Historic Places and the
    Historic Tax Credit Program. State and Tribal Historic Preservation
    Offices (S/THPOs), who are tasked with the survey and inventory of
    America's historic resources, rely on HPF funding for part of their
    budgets. Over the last four decades, the HPF has made possible the
    survey of millions of acres and identification of numerous cultural
    resources, resulting in over 95,000 listings on the National Register,
    provided millions of dollars for the rehabilitation of historic
    buildings, and leveraged more than $162 billion in private investment
    through the Historic Tax Credit.
        Not a single dollar of HPF funding comes from Federal taxpayers;
    funding for the HPF comes from offshore oil leases. States are required
    to match at least 40 percent of the funding that they receive from the
    HPF. Recognizing the immense economic and cultural value of historic
    preservation, Congress has increased funding for the HPF in recent
    years.
        Despite these increases, the investments have not kept up with
    rising demand. The need for full funding of the HPF has become more
    critical in recent years as SHPO responsibilities have increased, new
    THPO offices are established, and competitive grant programs are
    created and expanded. In addition, the passage of the 2021 bipartisan
    infrastructure bill means that state and Tribal preservation offices
    now face significantly more demand for their services as Federal
    projects get funded.
        Without adequate funding, state and Tribal preservation offices
    often lack the capacity to carry out programs that support management
    of our cultural resources, heritage preservation, and community
    development. As a result, critical infrastructure projects risk being
    delayed.
        In FY2024, Congress appropriated $188 million from the HPF.
    Although this amount is still above the $150 million amount that is
    authorized to be transferred into the Fund each year, it is a reduction
    from the $204 million appropriated the previous fiscal year. This
    reduction in funding comes at a time when many of the projects
    authorized by the infrastructure law are beginning to enter the
    permitting and construction phases.
        Congress can help States, localities and Tribes continue their
    efforts to protect and celebrate our heritage by providing $225 million
    from the HPF in fiscal year 2025, including $70 million for SHPOs and
    $34 million for THPOs.
      national park service-national recreation and preservation cultural
                             programs: $50 million
        NPS National Recreation and Preservation Cultural Programs enable
    the Park Service to administer technical assistance and support for
    resource protection, not just within the Park system but across the
    Federal Government. Cultural resources professionals in the NPS work
    alongside Tribes, State and local governments, nonprofits and others to
    ensure that our shared heritage is not lost.
        The Cultural Programs include management of the National Register
    of Historic Places and the National Historic Landmarks Program,
    coordination of Federal archaeology programs, certification of Federal
    Historic Tax Credit projects, and the administration of grant programs
    like the Japanese American Confinement Sites Grants, American
    Battlefield Protection Program Assistance Grants, and others. These
    funds support projects and initiatives in virtually every community in
    the country, promoting economic development as they help celebrate the
    achievements of countless Americans whose stories otherwise would be
    lost to history.
        ACRA appreciates the subcommittee's efforts to maintain level
    funding for these programs in FY2024 and urges the subcommittee to
    continue to invest in them. ACRA requests that the subcommittee provide
    $46 million for these programs in FY2025.
      national park service--african american burial grounds preservation
                              program: $3 million
        ACRA requests $3 million for the new African American Burial
    Grounds Preservation Program.
        From the early days of our Republic to the Jim Crow era, African
    American families were often barred from burying their loved ones in
    White cemeteries. Large numbers of African American burial sites lack
    any official record of their existence, and many have been neglected
    and abused over time, effectively erasing the memory of Americans whose
    history deserves to be told. In many areas of the country, burial
    grounds are the only tangible properties that represent African
    American culture and heritage.
        Congress recognized the importance of protecting these sacred sites
    in 2022 when it first authorized the African American Burial Grounds
    Preservation Program. This program supports efforts to research,
    identify, document, preserve, and interpret historic African American
    burial grounds, many of which have been badly neglected or lost to
    history. We urge the subcommittee to provide $3 million to this vital
    program.
         national park service--native american graves protection and
                 repatriation act (nagpra) grants: $12 million
        In addition, ACRA requests the subcommittee provide $12 million for
    Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) Grants.
        NAGPRA is the Federal Government's cornerstone statute recognizing
    that Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects,
    and objects of cultural patrimony belonging to lineal descendants,
    Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, and must be treated
    with dignity and respect.
        Compliance with the newly revised NAGPRA rules will require
    significant consultation between Tribes and museum and curation
    facilities. The NAGPRA Grant program is an indispensable resource that
    supports the documentation, protection and repatriation of remains and
    cultural objects. Recognizing the increased demand the new rules have
    created, ACRA urges the subcommittee to provide $12 million for these
    Grants.
        ACRA appreciates having the opportunity to provide this written
    testimony to the subcommittee and looks forward to working with you to
    ensure that the Federal Government continues to serve as a
    collaborative partner with State and local governments, Tribes, non-
    for-profit organizations, the CRM industry and others who work every
    day to protect our Nation's cultural treasures.

        [This statement was submitted by Amanda Stratton, Executive
    Director of the American Cultural Resources Association.]
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the American Fisheries Society
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide recommendations on Federal
    appropriations for Fiscal Year 2025. Founded in 1870, The American
    Fisheries Society is the oldest and largest professional society of
    fisheries biologists, managers, and researchers in the world. The
    mission of AFS is to improve the conservation and sustainability of
    fishery resources and aquatic ecosystems by advancing fisheries and
    aquatic science and promoting the development of fisheries
    professionals.
        AFS respectfully submits the following funding recommendations for
    the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the
    U.S. Forest Service to secure critical funds for conservation and
    restoration of our country's important fisheries and aquatic
    ecosystems.
                         u.s. fish and wildlife service
        Fish and Aquatic Conservation (FAC) works with States, landowners,
    and other partners and stakeholders to achieve the goals of healthy,
    self-sustaining populations of fish and other aquatic species. Within
    this program, the National Fish Hatchery System has served an important
    role in recovering and restoring aquatic species through conservation
    aquaculture. AFS fully supports an increase in funding for this program
    for Restoring Salmon in the Columbia River Basin. However, we are
    particularly concerned with Administration's proposed funding
    reductions for Aquatic Habitat and Species Conservation. The program's
    important work to protect, restore, and recover native fish and our
    Nation's freshwater ecosystems must be maintained to address increasing
    impacts to freshwater ecosystems and native fish populations from
    habitat loss, fragmentation, aquatic invasive species, pollution, and
    climate change. AFS requests $253 million for FAC for FY 2025 to
    maintain funding for Aquatic Habitat and Species Conservation and for
    additional appropriations for Restoring Salmon in the Columbia River
    Basin.
        The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program (STWG) is the Nation's
    only program that encourages development and implementation of State
    Wildlife Action Plans. Collectively, STWG funds support strong
    partnerships among federal, state, Tribal, private, and nonprofit
    entities that enable fish and wildlife professionals to implement on-
    the-ground conservation activities that benefit over 12,000 at-risk
    species, with the goal of eliminating the need to list them under the
    Endangered Species Act. In FY 2010, appropriations were at $90 million
    for the program--allowing States to complete more projects deemed
    necessary for monitoring and management of at-risk fish and wildlife.
    Subsequent budget reductions in STWG, however, have not allowed this
    highly successful program to reach its full potential. AFS requests
    that Congress increase funding for the program to at least $100 million
    annually.
             u.s. geological survey (usgs)--ecosystems mission area
        The Climate Adaptation Science Centers program addresses evolving
    challenges posed by climate change on regional fish and wildlife,
    ecosystems, and community-based stakeholders. Modest budget increases
    in recent fiscal periods have bolstered the program's ability to
    swiftly respond to demands and expand its capacity, facilitating
    proactive engagement of Tribal communities in project design and
    resource allocation. Nevertheless, funding levels have failed to match
    identified needs, especially in equipping USGS with adequate resources
    to effectively convey scientific insights to stakeholders for
    actionable decision-making based on project outcomes. For FY 2025, AFS
    recommends the full realization of the Administration's proposal,
    reaching no less than $69.3 million.
        The Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Units (CRUs) foster
    federal, state, nongovernment organization (NGO), and academic
    partnerships to provide actionable science tailored to the needs of
    natural resource managers. This science plays a pivotal role in the
    implementation of State and Federal management decisions. CRUs are an
    exemplary model for cooperative natural resource science programming;
    with the support of collaborators, this program leverages an average of
    three dollars in outside funds for every Federal dollar invested.
    Thanks to support from Congress, Indiana was able to establish the
    Indiana Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit hosted by Purdue
    University. Despite growing interest from other States, limited Federal
    funding has constrained the expansion of units and continues to result
    in vacancies at existing units. To address this gap, AFS recommends a
    funding increase to $36 million in FY 2025, enabling CRUs to capitalize
    on emerging partnerships and fill vacancies in an effort to meet
    longstanding commitments.
                           u.s. forest service (usfs)
        The Forest Service administers a large transportation and trails
    infrastructure system including roads, trails, bridges, and other types
    of stream crossing features. Stream crossings pose a significant
    challenge to water quality and the health of fish and aquatic species
    habitat. Legacy Road and Trail Remediation Program improves fish and
    aquatic species passage and reduces erosion and sediment into streams
    to improve water quality while increasing flood resilience. AFS
    requests the full $6 million in annual appropriations for FY 2025 in
    the Administration's proposal for decommissioning roads, removal or
    replacement of stream crossing structures that are barriers to aquatic
    organism passage, road and trail repair and improvements and associated
    activities in environmentally sensitive areas; and repair and
    improvements on roads and trails subject to recent storm damage.
        Thank you for your commitment to conserving our country's natural
    resources. We appreciate your consideration of this request.

        [This statement was submitted by Douglas J. Austen, Ph.D.,
    Executive Director.]
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of American Hiking Society
        Chair Merkley, Ranking Murkowski, and members of the subcommittee,
    on behalf of American Hiking Society and the millions of trail users
    our collective 240 organizations and entities represent who spend their
    time, money, and energy to get out on trails for recreation, health and
    wellness, and to volunteer, we thank the Committee for the opportunity
    to provide testimony on the importance of adequately funding our
    Nation's trails and public lands to ensure access for all. We ask the
    Committee to adopt the following funding requests so the Federal
    Government can continue to leverage private contributions and benefit
    from volunteer labor as well as provide inexpensive, healthy outdoor
    recreation options for your constituents and all Americans.
    Appropriations for Federal land management agencies requested herein,
    coupled with the significant resources provided by non-profit partners,
    serve to accelerate collective stewardship of our Nation's public lands
    and waters, and enhance climate adaptability.
                              summary of requests
    Forest Service:

      --Capital Improvement and Maintenance (CMTL), Trails at $30M,
            including $15M for National Scenic and Historic Trails, and
            funding for the National Forest System Trail Stewardship Trail
            Partner Funding. In order to support adequate funding for all
            Forest Service trails and to avoid a reduction in the existing
            budget for non-National Scenic and Historic Trails managed by
            the Forest Service, increases for non-National Scenic and
            Historic Trails should occur in parity with the rate of
            increases for National Scenic and Historic Trails;

      --At, minimum $70M to fund Recreation, Heritage & Wilderness;

      --At least $10M to fund Legacy Roads & Trails, with support for
            Washington Watershed Restoration Initiative (WWRI) coalition
            request of $100M;

        Bureau of Land Management:

      --Funding at $15M for National Trails System Line Item;

      --National Conservation Lands at $78.145M, but a minimum level
            funding of FY24 Senate proposed at $65M;

        U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:

      --Refuge Visitor Services at least $86.114M;

      --Support Infrastructure-National Partnership funding;

        National Park Service:

      --Rivers, Trails, & Conservation Assistance (RTCA) program at $15M;

      --Park Service Operations for the National Trails System at a minimum
            of $20.964M;

      --Volunteers in Parks programs at a minimum of FY23 levels, including
            dedicated funding to the National Trails System;

      --Visitor Services sub-activity, Youth Partnership Programs at a
            minimum of $10.95M, including an acknowledgment of the benefits
            for trails;

      --Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership (ORLP) Program, at a min
            $125M;

        US Geological Survey:

      --$1.5M to fully fund the National Digital Trail Project (NDTP)
                         forest service recommendation
        National Forest trails benefit everyone and receive increasing
    public use each year. Collectively, the National Forests provide
    159,000 miles of trails for activities ranging from hiking, biking,
    horseback riding, off-highway vehicle usage, groomed winter trails for
    cross-country skiing and snowmobiling, and access points for ``river
    trails.'' Roughly 120,000 of the 159,000 miles of trails are in need of
    some form of maintenance or repair.

    Program: Capital Improvement and Maintenance, Trails
    FY25 Funding Level Requested: $30M
    FY24 Enacted Level: $20M (House bill was $25M)
    Department: USDA
    Agency/Account: Forest Service, Capital Improvement and Maintenance,
    Trails
    Report Language requested:

      --In order to support adequate funding for all Forest Service trails
            and to avoid a reduction in the existing budget for non-
            National Scenic and Historic Trails managed by the Forest
            Service, increases for non-National Scenic and Historic Trails
            should occur in parity with the rate of increases for National
            Scenic and Historic Trails

      --The committee supports continued funding for the National Forest
            System Trail Stewardship Trail Partner Funding Program. Much of
            the Forest Service's trail work is accomplished today by
            volunteer groups and non-profit partners. The Forest Service
            has a successful Trail Stewardship Partner Funding challenge
            cost share program that leverages Federal funding by 3 to 5:1.

    Program: Recreation, Heritage & Wilderness
    FY25 Funding Level Requested: At, minimum $70M
    FY24 Proposed Level (House): $60M
    Department: USDA
    Agency/Account: Forest Service, Recreation, Heritage & Wilderness

    Program: Legacy Roads & Trails
    FY25 Funding Level Requested: $10M minimum
    FY24 Enacted Level: $6M (House bill was $10M)
    Department: USDA
    Agency/Account: Forest Service, Legacy Roads & Trails
                               blm recommendation
        The BLM manages 13,468 miles of trails over 245 million acres -more
    land than any other Federal land management agency and contains a
    diversity of landscapes that often provide the public less structured
    but nonetheless diverse recreational opportunities. BLM recreation
    resources and visitor services support strong local economies. More
    than 120 urban centers and thousands of rural towns (comprising 64
    million people) are located within 25 miles of BLM lands.

    Program: Bureau of Land Management National Trails System Line-Item
    Funding
    FY25 Funding Level Requested: $15M
    FY24 Enacted Level: $11M (House bill was $15M)
    Department: Bureau of Land Management
    Agency/Account: Trails

    Program: National Conservation Lands
    FY25 Funding Level Requested: $78.145M, but a minimum $63.599M
    FY24 Enacted Level: $59.135M (Senate proposed FY24 level was $63.599M)
    Department: Bureau of Land Management
    Agency/Account: National Conservation Lands
                               fws recommendation
        Refuge Visitor Services provides funding for trail maintenance
    across FWS-managed land. Located in every U.S. state and territory, and
    within an hour's drive of nearly every major U.S. city, National
    Wildlife Refuges provide incredible opportunities for outdoor
    recreation, including hiking, hunting, fishing, birding, boating, and
    nature photography across 2,500 miles of trails. More than 37,000 jobs
    are reliant on refugees. Funding at a level of $93M will provide for
    trail maintenance across the land and water trails, refuges, wetlands,
    and hatcheries, including 11 National Scenic and Historic Trails and
    forty-four National Recreation Trails.

    Program: Visitor Services
    FY25 Funding Level Requested: $86.114M
    FY24 Enacted Level: $76M (Senate bill was $80.839M)
    Department: Department of Interior
    Agency/Account: Fish and Wildlife Service, Visitor Services

    Program: Infrastructure
    Department: Department of Interior
    Agency/Account: Fish and Wildlife Service, Infrastructure
    Report Language requested: National Partnerships are an important
    component to maintain trail infrastructure across Fish and Wildlife
    Service sites. The Department shall continue support for National
    Partnerships and prioritize funding to leverage these partnerships.
                               nps recommendation
        National Parks, and the world-class experiences their 18,844 miles
    of trails provide, are one of the most unifying forces in America.
    Well-maintained trails improve the quality of visitor experiences and
    enhance visitor safety.

    Program: Rivers, Trails, & Conservation Assistance (RTCA)
    FY25 Funding Level Requested: $15M
    FY24 Enacted Level: $13M
    Department: Interior
    Agency/Account: National Park Service, National Recreation and
    Preservation
    Report Language requested: Within, National Recreation and
    Preservation, $13.845M for the Rivers, Trails, & Conservation
    Assistance program.

    Program: National Trails System
    FY25 Funding Level Requested: $20.964M
    FY24 Enacted Level: $18.856M
    Department: Interior
    Agency/Account: National Park Service, Park Service Operations
    Report Language requested:

      --Within, Park Service Operations, $20.964M for administration of the
            National Trails System.

      --National Trails System-The Committees understand the importance of
            providing adequate funding for the development and maintenance
            of the National Trails System for future generations to enjoy.
            The Committees urge the Service to continue its efforts to
            develop National Scenic and Historic Trails, not limited to
            supporting construction and maintenance projects and volunteer
            coordination efforts, and to recognize equal ``unit'' status of
            National Scenic Trails.

    Program: Volunteers in Parks
    FY25 Funding Level Requested: Maintain FY23 increase, at minimum
    FY24 Enacted Level: Level
    Department: Interior
    Agency/Account: National Park Service, Park Partnership Support
    Functions
    Report Language Requested: The committee recommends funding through
    Volunteers in Parks be provided for volunteer support of the National
    Trails System, National Rivers, and National Park Service trails.

    Program: Youth Partnership Programs
    FY25 Funding Level Requested: Maintain FY23 increase, at minimum
    FY24 Enacted Level: Level
    Department: Interior
    Agency/Account: National Park Service, Visitor Services
    Report Language Requested: The committee recommends funding through the
    Youth Partnership Programs be provided for support of the National
    Trails System, National Rivers, and National Park Service trails.

    Program: Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership
    FY25 Funding Level Requested: At least $125M
    FY24 Enacted Level: $125M
    Department: Interior
    Agency/Account: National Park Service, State Conservation Grants
    Report Language Requested: The committee recommends funding through the
    Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Program be provided for support
    of trails, including the National Trails System.
                     u.s. geological survey recommendation
    Program: National Digital Trail Project
    FY25 Funding Level Requested: $1.5M
    FY24 Enacted Level: $1.35M
    Department: U.S. Geological Survey
    Agency/Account: Core Science Systems
         (across agencies) restore staffing for federal land managers
                                 recommendation
        Federal land agency field staff continue to suffer from previous
    job reductions, and the resulting lack of oversight is now a roadblock
    to proper collaborative management between Federal land agencies and
    volunteer-based partners. Crucial projects are stalled waiting for plan
    review or other necessary agency expertise, such as environmental
    studies, design, and other work that is above the ability and purview
    of trail groups. Delays have lasted years, contributing to the
    maintenance backlog and, ultimately, increasing the cost to taxpayers
    for this necessary work as trails continue to deteriorate at an even
    greater rate.
        We must improve agency staffing levels to meet the need. Agency
    front-line managers provide crucial and unparalleled expertise and
    oversight to nonprofit trail partners. This guidance is key to the
    success of nonprofits as they take on more of the management
    responsibility for our trails and recruit, train, and marshal thousands
    of volunteers in public service. Increasing agency staffing levels is
    essential to completing the complex work of managing and maintaining
    trails and public lands.
        Beyond increases in land management agency staffing, we ask the
    committee to include report language to audit the centralized agency
    hiring practices, which have been identified as a roadblock to filling
    thousands of crucial vacancies. Centralizing hiring prevents land
    managers from quickly filling vacancies from local talent pools. The
    cumbersome process slows hiring so much that vacancies often go
    unfilled. In many cases, by the time a job is offered, the candidate
    has already moved on. More hiring flexibility would help local land
    managers fill vacancies quickly.

        [This statement was submitted by American Hiking Society.]
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the American Institute of Biological Sciences
        The American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS) appreciates
    the opportunity to provide testimony in support of appropriations for
    the Smithsonian Institution, the United States Geological Survey
    (USGS), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for fiscal year (FY) 2025. We
    encourage Congress to provide additional funding to the Smithsonian
    Institution in FY 2025, including at least $60 million to the National
    Museum of Natural History with new funding to support scientific and
    curatorial work. We urge Congress to provide the USGS with $1.85
    billion in FY 2025, with at least $395 million for its Ecosystems
    Mission Area. We further request that Science Applications within USFWS
    be provided at least $55.5 million in FY 2025. Lastly, we request that
    Congress provide EPA Science and Technology with at least $876 million
    in FY 2025.
        AIBS is a scientific association dedicated to promoting the use of
    science to inform decision-making that advances the biological sciences
    for the benefit of science and society. AIBS works to ensure that the
    public, legislators, funders, and the community of biologists have
    access to information to guide informed decision-making.
        The unprecedented loss of biological diversity and the associated
    negative impacts on human health and well-being are of significant
    concern. As human population grows and people increasingly come into
    contact with new environments and species migrating into new habitats,
    the risk of new diseases, such as zoonotic pandemics, is of growing
    concern. Biological diversity, however, offers a buffer against the
    spread of pathogens and contributes to environmental sustainability and
    increases our resilience to natural disasters. Robust Federal
    investments in scientific research and monitoring that improves our
    understanding of biological diversity and ecosystem function must be a
    priority. The agencies funded by this appropriations bill are centrally
    involved in conducting, supporting, and using this scientific research
    for public benefit.
                            smithsonian institution
        Scientific collections and the professionals and scientists who
    collect, care for, and study these resources are a vital component of
    our Nation's research infrastructure and bioeconomy. Collections are a
    critical resource for advancing the knowledge needed to address current
    global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and
    pandemics.
        The Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History
    (NMNH) is a valuable Federal partner in the curation of and research on
    scientific specimens. Scientists at the NMNH care for 148 million
    scientific specimens and ensure the strategic growth of this
    internationally recognized scientific research institution. To increase
    the availability of these scientific resources to researchers,
    educators, other Federal agencies, and the public, NMNH is working on a
    multi-year effort to digitize its collections and make the data
    available online. That effort will substantially increase the use of
    these collections by researchers, educators and students, and
    policymakers. NMNH is also working to strengthen curatorial and
    research staffing and to backfill positions left open by retirements
    and budget constraints. The current staffing level is insufficient to
    provide optimal care for the collections.
        Recognizing the importance of biological collections for research,
    the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act called for the establishment of an
    action center for biological collections. Such a center will provide
    leadership, support, and coordination for federal, non-federal, and
    private collections and enable transformative research to address grand
    societal challenges. Many Federal agencies have a role in supporting
    the establishment of this center, including the Smithsonian
    Institution's NMNH. However, the budget for NMNH has not seen adequate
    increases in recent years. We urge Congress to provide NMNH with at
    least $60 million in FY 2025 to allow the museum to undertake critical
    collections care, make needed technology upgrades, and conduct cutting
    edge research.
                             u.s. geological survey
        The USGS provides unbiased, independent research, data, and
    assessments that are needed by public and private sector decision-
    makers. Data generated by the USGS save taxpayers money by enabling
    more effective management of water and biological resources and
    providing essential geospatial information that is needed for
    commercial activity and natural resource management. The data collected
    by the USGS are simply not available from other sources.
        The Ecosystems Mission Area is the biological research arm of USGS
    and is integral to the agency's other science mission areas. It
    provides the science needed to achieve sustainable management and
    conservation of natural resources and inform land and water
    stewardship. The USGS conducts research on and monitors fish, wildlife,
    and vegetation-data that informs management decisions by other Interior
    bureaus. Biological science programs collect and analyze long-term data
    not available from other agencies, universities, or the private sector.
    The knowledge generated by the USGS are used by Federal and State
    natural resource managers to maintain healthy and diverse ecosystems
    while balancing the needs of public use.
        Examples of successful USGS Ecosystem initiatives include:

      --Development of comprehensive geospatial data products that
            characterize the risk of wildfires on all lands in the United
            States. These products are used to allocate firefighting
            resources and to plan wildfire fuel reduction projects.

      --Development and evaluation of control measures and other management
            interventions for invasive species, such as Asian carp and sea
            lamprey, that cause billions of dollars in economic losses to
            fisheries, hydropower, recreation, and many other industries.

      --Development of the scientific understanding needed to combat the
            spread of avian flu, white-nose syndrome, and other diseases
            spread by wildlife in North America, including diseases that
            can jump from wild populations to livestock, agricultural
            systems, and humans.

        The USGS also supports critical science needed to respond to a
    number of national and global challenges. Examples of the important
    work conducted by the USGS include:

      --The National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers. This
            program is responsible for developing the science and tools to
            address the effects of climate change on land, water, wildlife,
            fish, ecosystems, and communities. These centers play a vital
            role in addressing the impacts of unique weather patterns on
            ecosystem health across the country.

      --The National Wildlife Health Center. This USGS-wide program
            investigates national and international wildlife health issues,
            including the spread of zoonotic pathogens, such as the virus
            that causes COVID-19. Zoonoses-diseases that spread from
            wildlife to humans-can pose serious threats to human health and
            cause significant disruptions to the economy.

      --Cooperative Research Units (CRUs). CRUs are located on 43
            university campuses in 41 States. These research centers are a
            cost-effective way for USGS to leverage research and technical
            expertise affiliated with these universities to conduct
            actionable research, provide technical assistance, and develop
            scientific workforces through graduate education and mentoring
            programs.

      --Environmental Health Research. The Toxic Substances Hydrology and
            Contaminant Biology programs work collaboratively with other
            Mission Areas, and with external collaborators to study
            environmental contaminants and pathogens and provide the
            critical science needed to help Federal, State, and local
            government agencies, the private sector, non-governmental
            organizations, and other stakeholders protect fish and wildlife
            health using a One Health approach that recognizes the
            interdependence of human, animal, and ecosystem health.

      --Research on ecosystems of concern. This research is a critical
            component of efforts to restore and manage important national
            resources, such as the Everglades and the Chesapeake Bay. The
            Changing Arctic Ecosystems initiative conducts research on
            wildlife and habitat responses to ecosystem change in the
            Arctic to inform land and species management decisions and
            address the needs of Arctic residents, including Native
            communities.

        In summary, the USGS is uniquely positioned to provide a scientific
    context for many of the Nation's biological and environmental
    challenges, including pandemics, water quality and use, energy
    independence, and conservation of biodiversity. This array of research
    expertise not only serves the core missions of the Department of the
    Interior, but also contributes to management decisions made by other
    agencies and private sector organizations. USGS science also enables
    cost-effective decisions, as the agency's activities help to identify
    the most efficient management actions. Increased investments in these
    important research activities will yield dividends.
        We urge Congress to provide significant funding increases to the
    Ecosystems Mission Area. In recent years, the budget for USGS has not
    seen adequate increases. In fact, in FY 2024, the agency received a 3
    percent cut. Failure to make critical investments in the research
    conducted by the agency will hamper long-term data collection
    initiatives, lead to critical data loss, and undermine the Nation's
    ability to address national challenges.
        We request that Congress fund the USGS at $1.85 billion in FY 2025,
    with at least $395 million for the Ecosystems mission area.
                         u.s. fish and wildlife service
        The Science Applications program within USFWS supports science
    partnerships with external stakeholders for collaborative landscape
    conservation activities. It supports pollinator conservation, proactive
    conservation of at-risk species and their habitats, habitat and
    ecosystem restoration grants, as well the agency's climate change
    action program. In FY 2023, Science Support was merged with the
    Cooperative Landscape Conservation activity and renamed Science
    Applications. The enacted funding for Science Applications in FY 2023,
    however, was lower than the combined FY 2022 funding for its two
    activities. The program received a further 4 percent reduction in
    funding in FY 2024.
        We request that Science Applications be provided at least $55.5
    million in FY 2025 with robust funding for research activities
    previously under Science Support.
                        environmental protection agency
        Funding for EPA Science and Technology supports valuable research
    that identifies and mitigates environmental problems. EPA research
    informs decisions made by public health and safety managers, natural
    resource managers, businesses, and other stakeholders concerned about
    air and water pollution, human health, and land management and
    restoration. This program provides the scientific basis upon which EPA
    monitoring and enforcement programs are built.
        Despite the important role of EPA Science and Technology in the
    Federal Government's ability to ensure that people have clean air and
    water, funding for this account in recent years has remained
    significantly lower than its peak of $846 million in FY 2010. Notably,
    in FY 2024, EPA's Science and Technology budget was reduced by nearly 6
    percent to $758 million. Strong increases in funding are needed for
    programs such as the consistently under-funded Science to Achieve
    Results (STAR) Research Grants Program, which supports extramural
    research that advances EPA's mission to protect human health and the
    environment, and the Global Change Research program, which develops
    scientific information that allows policy makers, stakeholders, and
    society to respond to climate change.
        Please provide at least $876 million in FY 2025 to support
    scientific research at the EPA. This much needed increase will allow
    the agency to provide resources for efforts to protect and restore our
    Nation's natural resources.
                                   conclusion
        We urge Congress to sustain its bipartisan support for science by
    investing in our Nation's scientific capacity. Thank you for your
    thoughtful consideration of this request.

        [This statement was submitted by Jyotsna Pandey, Ph.D., Community
    Programs Director, American Institute of Biological Sciences.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium
        On behalf of the Nation's 35 accredited Tribal Colleges and
    Universities (TCUs), which collectively are the American Indian Higher
    Education Consortium (AIHEC), we thank you for the opportunity to share
    our Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 funding requests. The following is a list of
    recommendations including the Department, programs, and funding
    requests.

    Department of the Interior--Bureau of Indian Education

      --Title I, II, III, and Contracts & NCAA: $108,590, 607

      --Title V (Tribal Career/Technical Institutions): $15,000,000

      --TCU Construction & Facilities Improvement: $35,000,000

      --Institute of American Indian Arts with Center for Lifelong
            Education & Museum: $13,982,000

      --Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian
            Polytechnic Institute: $30,000,000
    tribal colleges & universities: serving students across indian country
                                & rural america
        Currently, 35 accredited TCUs operate more than 90 campuses and
    sites in 16 States. Three emerging institutions, located in California
    (two) and Arizona (one), are on their way to seeking accreditation.
    These institutions serve students from over 250 Federally Recognized
    Indian Tribes and embody a vital component of Tribal higher education.
        Over 80 percent of Indian Country is served by TCUs. Tribal
    colleges not only serve students, but they also serve over 160,000
    American Indians, Alaska Natives, and other rural residents each year
    through a wide variety of academic and community-based programs. All
    TCUs offer certificates and associate degrees; 22 offer bachelor's
    degrees; 9 offer master's degrees; and one offers a doctoral degree.
    Our programs range from liberal arts to technical and career programs.
    As open enrollment, community-based institutions, Tribal colleges
    welcome all students and proudly became a part of this nation's land-
    grant family in 1994.
        Funding cuts of any amount to even one TCU program would force TCUs
    to scale back vital programs and services that students rely on to
    complete degree and certificate programs needed to succeed in their
    chosen career paths. Any reduction in funding will threaten TCU
    accreditation status and further stretch overtaxed faculty and staff or
    result in cuts to faculty and staff. The following are justifications
    for TCU FY 2025 funding requests.
                           bureau of indian education
        Title I, II, III, and Contracts & NCAA: AIHEC requests the
    subcommittee to provide $108,590, 607 for the Title I, II, III, and
    Contracts. The $108,590,607 funds institutional operations under Title
    I ($92,200,000) and Title II (17,633,000) along with TCU Endowments
    ($113,251) and technical assistance ($728,339,000), of the TCU Act.
    This funding would provide the Congressionally authorized amount of
    $10,907*/Indian student for the first time since the enactment of the
    TCU Act more than 40 years ago (*$8,000 per Indian student adjusted for
    inflation). This request also provides an additional $100,000 for
    needed technical assistance, which has been level-funded for 15 years
    despite the growing numbers of developing TCUs and increased demands
    for accountability and student success. As we move forward, we are
    worried about TCU operating funding: at least three new TCUs could join
    the pool soon (California Indian Nations College, California Tribal
    College, and San Carlos Apache College). The addition of these TCUs is
    important for Indian Country, but only if support is available to
    ensure that they can operate effectively.
        Title V (Tribal Career/Technical Institutions): AIHEC requests the
    subcommittee to provide $15,000,000 for Title V funding for the Tribal
    Career and Technical Institutions. For Tribal career and technical
    institutions authorized under Title V of the TCU Act, we request
    $15,000,000. Section 117 of Perkins V provides the primary operating
    funding source for Navajo Technical University (NTU) and United Tribes
    Technical College (UTTC). It is the responsibility of the Federal
    Government to provide operating funding for these institutions due to
    treaty obligations, the Federal trust responsibility, and the exchange
    of over one billion acres of land. Neither NTU nor UTTC are part of a
    State higher education system, and they do not benefit from state-
    appropriated college funds. Current funding under section 117, while
    greatly appreciated, is low and does not adequately provide the
    resources necessary to fully support the operational needs of existing
    grantees. These institutions provide vital workforce development and
    job creation, education, and training programs to American Indians and
    Alaska Natives from Tribes and communities with some of the highest
    unemployment rates in the Nation.
        TCU Construction & Facilities Improvement: AIHEC requests the
    subcommittee to provide $35,000,000 for TCU Construction & Facilities
    Improvement. For TCUs to realize their goals of strengthening Tribal
    nations with a modern workforce, TCUs must have the facilities and
    infrastructure capable of educating and training students in a safe
    environment. It simply cannot be done on the scale needed in classrooms
    with leaking roofs and substandard electrical wiring; outdated computer
    labs; students sleeping in cars and trucks because there are no dorms;
    and the slowest--yet most expensive--Internet access of any institution
    of higher education in the country.
        The Senate Interior Appropriations report has requested that the
    Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) develop a consistent methodology for
    determining TCU operating and maintenance needs. The report's results
    will likely expand on the needs identified in a July 2021 AIHEC survey,
    which revealed many chronic unmet facilities and infrastructure needs,
    including a lack of student and faculty housing, inadequate classroom
    space, insufficient libraries, and outdated laboratories.
        Leech Lake reservation, the largest in Minnesota, requires students
    to drive over an hour to get to class if they have reliable
    transportation. Due to the size and lack of housing on the reservation,
    Leech Lake Tribal College has identified the need for dormitories to
    address many of the challenges faced by its students. Little Big Horn
    College in Montana is renting or borrowing space for its career and
    technical programs in electrical, plumbing, HVAC, Welding, and
    Agriculture technology. Northwest Indian College, serving the
    communities of Bellingham, Washington and Lapwai, Idaho would like to
    build its cybersecurity program to address Tribal community and
    business needs. The college also has $20 million in differed
    maintenance costs and needs $35 million to complete its campus master
    plans.
        In the aggregate, AIHEC's survey calculated $400 million (total) in
    deferred maintenance and rehabilitation costs and $2.7 billion (total)
    to complete existing master plans. To begin to address TCU
    infrastructure needs, AIHEC requests $35 million be allocated in FY
    2025.
        Institute of American Indian Arts with Center for Lifelong
    Education & Museum: AIHEC requests the subcommittee to provide
    $13,982,000 for the Institute of American Indian Arts. The Institute of
    American Indian Arts (IAIA) is the birthplace of contemporary Native
    art and holds a unique position as one of the only three colleges in
    the United States chartered by Congress. At IAIA, meaningful dialogue
    occurs, skills are honed, and creativity flourishes. World-class
    educational experiences happen inside our studio and classroom walls.
    Outstanding students, faculty, and staff gather to propel student
    success forward. The college embraces its rich history while actively
    working to share the future.
        Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian
    Polytechnic Institute: AIHEC requests the subcommittee to provide
    $30,000,000 for the BIE's two postsecondary institutions (Haskell
    Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic
    Institute). Haskell Indian Nations University (HINU) has an average
    enrollment of over 1000 students each semester. Students represent
    federally recognized Tribes from across the United States and are as
    culturally diverse as imaginable. Students select programs that will
    prepare them to enter baccalaureate programs in elementary teacher
    education, American Indian studies, business administration, and
    environmental science; to transfer to another baccalaureate degree-
    granting institution; or to enter directly into employment. HINU
    continues to integrate American Indian and Alaska Native culture into
    all its curricula. The Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute (SIPI)
    is a federally funded Tribal college located in Albuquerque, New
    Mexico. It was established in 1971 as a vocational training center to
    provide education and training to Native American individuals from
    various Tribes across the United States. SIPI's main focus is on
    science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education,
    along with other vocational and technical programs.
                                   conclusion
        TCUs provide thousands of American Indian and Alaska Native
    students with access to high-quality, culturally appropriate,
    postsecondary education opportunities, including critical early
    childhood education programs. The modest Federal investment in TCUs has
    paid significant dividends in employment, education, and economic
    development. We ask you to renew your commitment to help move our
    students and communities toward self-sufficiency and request your full
    consideration of our FY 2025 appropriations requests. Thank you.

        [This statement was submitted by Tribal Colleges and Universities.]
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the American Lung Association
               summary of fy 2025 appropriations recommendations
      --EPA topline--$12 billion
      --Clean Air Program overall--$915.5 million
      --Climate Protection Program--$181.2 million
      --Categorical Grants: State and Local Air Quality Management--$500
            million
      --Categorical Grants: Tribal Air Quality Management--$57.4 million
      --Compliance Monitoring--$162.1 million
      --Enforcement--$391.4 million
      --Environmental Justice--$369.1 million
      --Diesel Emissions Reduction Grant Program--$150 million
      --EPA Radon Program--$5 million
      --Categorical Grant: Radon--$18 million
      --Wildfire Smoke Preparedness--$15 million
      --Office of Air and Radiation, Indoor Environments Division--$100
            million

        Thank you for the opportunity to highlight the funding priorities
    of the American Lung Association within the Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA) for fiscal year 2025 (FY25). The American Lung Association
    is the trusted champion for lung health, working to save lives by
    improving lung health and preventing lung disease through education,
    advocacy and research. We urge the Committee to support $12 billion in
    funding for the Environmental Protection Agency.
        EPA programs play an important role in efforts to improve lung
    health and save lives. The Agency is responsible for setting and
    enforcing national air pollution standards, supporting air quality
    monitoring, implementing emissions reductions and educating the public
    about the health harms of pollution. Air pollution poses a threat to
    the health of all Americans, but some individuals are at elevated risk.
    There are 34.4 million Americans living with a chronic lung disease
    like asthma or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Children,
    seniors, individuals who are pregnant and people who work and play
    outside are also more likely to suffer health harms. Additionally,
    people of color and people with low incomes are often exposed to air
    pollution at a higher rate. The Lung Association's 2024 ``State of the
    Air'' report found that nearly 70 million people of color and 16
    million people with incomes meeting the Federal poverty definition live
    in counties that received a failing grade for ozone and/or particle
    pollution.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The American Lung Association. State of the Air, April 2024
    https://www.lung.org/sota
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        EPA is also responsible for administering grants to States,
    localities, Tribes and other entities to improve health by improving
    air quality and climate resilience. While legislation passed in the
    past few years provided necessary increases in funding for communities
    to see relief from the impacts of pollution and climate change, it does
    not replace the need for funding the agency's core programs and
    infrastructure. The American Lung Association urges robust investments
    in the following key programs:
        Provide $915.5 million for EPA's Clean Air program. EPA is the
    agency responsible for protecting the public from air pollution and the
    Clean Air program is necessary to meeting that responsibility. Through
    this funding line, EPA assists States, Tribes and localities with
    implementing comprehensive air quality management programs and provides
    testing and oversight to ensure unlawful pollution is not impacting the
    health of communities. Please provide $694.6 million for Environmental
    Programs and Management and $220.9 million for Science and Technology.
        Provide $500 million for State and Local Air Quality Monitoring
    Grants and $57.4 million for Tribal Air Quality Monitoring Grants.
    Accurately monitoring air quality is necessary to ensure resources to
    clean up pollution are spent effectively and deliver benefits to the
    areas in need of pollution cleanup. Unfortunately, State, local and
    Tribal air agencies--who run the Nation's official air quality
    monitoring system--continue to face budget shortfalls and many are
    operating with out-of-date monitors. Supplemental funding passed over
    the past few years was necessary to progress towards an expanded and
    more efficient network, but it was not a replacement for regular and
    dependable appropriations. Both the National Association of Clean Air
    Agencies and the National Tribal Air Association conducted baseline
    needs assessments of their members to determine what would be needed to
    successfully implement programs under current and anticipated Federal
    requirements. The results showed that air agencies need increases if
    they are to adequately protect health by monitoring air pollution
    levels.\2,3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ National Association of Clean Air Agencies FY 2025 Funding
    Recommendations October 2023 https://www.4cleanair.org/wp-content/
    uploads/NACAA_FY_2025_Grant-Recommendations.pdf
      \3\ National Tribal Air Association. Tribal Air Quality Priorities
    and the Resources to Address those Priorities: Key Findings of the
    National Baseline Needs Assessment Among American Indian and Alaska
    Native Communities, May 2022 https://www.ntaatribalair.org/wp-content/
    uploads/2022/06/5.5.22-NTAA-Baseline-Needs-Assessment-Key-Findings.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Provide $162.1 million for Compliance Monitoring, $391.4 million
    for enforcement and $369.1 million for environmental justice efforts.
    Enforcing EPA's science-backed air quality standards is necessary to
    truly achieve the rules' intended health benefits. EPA must have the
    resources and capacity to reduce non-compliance, as well as enforce
    penalties for violations. EPA must also be prepared to respond to civil
    enforcement actions authorized by the Clean Air Act. Additionally, air
    pollution does not impact everyone equally. Recognizing--and
    rectifying--the health disparities that come from air pollution
    requires dedicated funding and attention. We applaud the commitments to
    improving health disparities and urge that the funding matches that
    commitment.
        Provide $150 million for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act and
    Support the Clean School Bus Program. The Diesel Emissions Reduction
    Act (DERA) Program is a bipartisan program to clean up cancer-causing
    diesel emissions. There are millions of legacy diesel engines still in
    use today that emit large amounts of pollution, making efforts to
    improve diesel engine efficiency a public health imperative. And it's
    cost-effective, with monetized health benefits exceeding Federal
    funding by a factor of 10. Additionally, we urge the Committee to
    continue supporting the rapid transition to zero emission school buses
    through the popular Clean School Bus Program. Over 600 school districts
    have received awards to replace over 5,000 diesel school buses with
    cleaner, low or zero-emission versions which will provide a safer,
    healthier environment for children, who are among those most at risk of
    health harm from breathing in pollution.
        Provide $5 million for EPA's Radon Program and $18 million for
    State Indoor Radon Grants. Radon is the second leading cause of lung
    cancer in the United States and is estimated to result in 21,000 deaths
    annually. EPA's radon program and its State Indoor Radon Grants are
    critical for reducing radon exposure and a necessary component of a
    comprehensive cancer reduction strategy. Significant progress has been
    made in reducing radon risks, but more than 90,000 homes each year
    still require radon fixes. There are also health disparities in radon
    exposure that need to be addressed, such as financial barriers to radon
    testing and mitigation lack of tenant protections. Additionally, we
    recommend that the Agency prioritize SIRG funding to States are seeking
    to adopt or strengthen certification requirements for radon measurement
    and mitigation workers, including the adoption of national consensus
    standards.
        Please provide $100 million for the Office of Air and Radiation/
    Indoor Environments Division and $10 million to EPA's Office of
    Children's Health Protection. Indoor air pollution is particularly
    dangerous when it exists in classrooms full of children, who are more
    susceptible to health harms from breathing in toxins and pollutants.
    Pollution exposure can decrease attendance, negatively impact test
    scores and harm health such as by worsening asthma symptoms. 41% of
    school districts were found to be in need of HVAC repairs in at least
    half of their schools.\4\ Many school districts lack the education,
    training and resources to implement effective prevention measures,
    making EPA guidance and assistance necessary to access funding
    opportunities. Additionally, the Office of Children's Health Protection
    plays a critical role in researching children's risks and exposures in
    school and childcare facilities. Improving indoor air quality in
    schools will benefit kids health both in the short-term and long-term.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Government Accountability Office. (2020). K-12 Education:
    School Districts Frequently Identified Multiple Building Systems
    Needing Updates or Replacement (GAO-20-494)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Please provide $15 million for wildfire smoke preparedness.
    Wildfire smoke is an urgent threat to public health. States across the
    country--not just in the western US--have experienced the impacts that
    wildfire smoke can have on health. Furthering our understanding of the
    depth and magnitude of that health impact as well as identifying what
    interventions are most impactful will help officials respond in
    effective ways and spend resources wisely.
        Oppose all policy riders. Lastly, the American Lung Association
    also asks for your leadership in opposing all policy riders that would
    weaken key lung health protections, including those in the Clean Air
    Act. Policy riders have no place in appropriations bills, and the Lung
    Association strongly opposes attempts to include them, especially
    riders that would make it harder to protect Americans from air
    pollution.
        Investments in EPA programs are critical to protecting public
    health. On behalf of the Lung Association, I thank you for your
    consideration of these requests.

        [This statement was submitted by Harold P. Wimmer, President and
    CEO, American Lung Association.]
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the American Nuclear Society
                          american nuclear society \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The American Nuclear Society is the premier organization for
    those who embrace nuclear science and technology for their vital
    contributions to improving people's lives and preserving the planet.
    ANS membership is open to all, and current membership consists of
    individuals from all walks of life; including engineers, doctors,
    students, educators, scientists, soldiers, advocates, government
    employees, and others. ANS is committed to advancing, fostering, and
    promoting the development and application of nuclear sciences and
    technologies to benefit society.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        On behalf of the 10,000 men and women of the American Nuclear
    Society (ANS), I am pleased to provide one recommendation for an
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) program under the subcommittee's
    jurisdiction. We continue to be grateful to the Committee for its
    dedication and support for environmental protection programs and U.S.
    environmental safety standards.
      epa; environmental programs and management, office of radiation and
                                   indoor air
        ANS recommends an additional $3 million dollars for the EPA Office
    of Radiation and Indoor Air in FY 2025. The $3 million dollar addition
    would allow the EPA to begin development on a new generic, technology-
    neutral protection standard that reflects modern, international
    practices and that would apply to future high-level nuclear waste
    disposal facilities as authorized by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
    1982.
        This new standard will not impact any policies related to Yucca
    Mountain. The current quantity of high-level waste in America exceeds
    the maximum capacity originally meant for storage at the Yucca Mountain
    site; when Congress chooses to pursue a second repository in the
    future, this standards development must be completed to prevent
    unnecessary delays and prevent burdensome litigation. Updating the
    EPA's generic geologic repository standard is a long-term endeavor and
    will not result in any immediate changes to U.S. policy; it may take
    five to 10 years. Given the extended timeframe for the action, it is
    imperative that the EPA starts now on the development of an updated
    standard using state-of-the-art science to be applied to future
    repositories in order to protect public health and safety.
        In a 2017 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on nuclear
    waste, GAO-17-174, experts advised that ``it would be premature for
    [the U.S. Department of Energy] to site a... repository until health
    and safety regulations are revised.'' Recognizing that the EPA has
    responsibility for revising regulations, EPA officials specified in the
    same report that ``they do not plan to invest resources in revising
    health and safety regulations without specific direction from
    Congress.'' Therefore, specific input from Congress directing the EPA
    to revise the standard in advance of other policy actions is necessary
    for the success of any future policy actions on commercial spent
    nuclear fuel.
        The Administration's FY 2025 budget request highlighted this future
    need and included a request for 2-3 FTE's which would address some of
    the critical gaps in EPA's radiological protection capacity including
    the ability to provide ongoing site characterization and analytical
    support for site assessment activities, radioactive waste storage and
    disposal approaches, remediation technologies, and measurement and
    information systems.
    Requested Report Language:

    Within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Office of Radiation
    and Indoor Air, the Committee provides $3,000,000 to develop a new
    generic, technology-neutral protection standard that reflects modern,
    international practices and that would apply to future high-level
    nuclear waste disposal facilities as authorized by the Nuclear Waste
    Policy Act of 1982 (Public Law 97-425) as amended.

        For further information or questions, please contact John Starkey,
    ANS Director of Public Policy, jstarkey@ans.org.

        [This statement was submitted by Craig H. Piercy, Executive
    Director/CEO, American Nuclear Society.]
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the American Psychological Association
        APA Services is the companion organization of the American
    Psychological Association, which is the Nation's largest scientific and
    professional nonprofit organization representing the discipline and
    profession of psychology, as well as over 157,000 members and
    affiliates who are clinicians, researchers, educators, consultants, and
    students in psychological science. Through the application of
    psychological science and practice, our association's mission is to
    make a positive impact on critical societal issues across the States.
    Many programs funded in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    bill provide essential support for our Nation's public health programs
    by helping to provide critical access to essential mental and
    behavioral health services to American Indians and Alaska Natives.
      apa services urges congress to provide the following funding levels.
                           the indian health service
        APA Services urges Congress to provide at least $8.2 billion for
    the Indian Health Service (IHS). The IHS provides Federal health
    services to American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/AN). As the main
    Federal health care provider for AI/AN people, its main goal is to
    improve their health care to the highest extent possible. The agency
    provides a health service delivery system for approximately 2.6 million
    American Indians and Alaska Natives who belong to the 574 federally
    recognized Tribes.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Indian Health Service, (October 2019). Indian Health
    Disparities. Retrieved from: https://www.ihs.gov/newsroom/factsheets/
    disparities/.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Increased funding is essential for the IHS since this population
    has a life expectancy of approximately 5.5 years less than the U.S. all
    races population and often has a disproportionate disease burden when
    compared to other populations.\2\ For example, American Indians and
    Alaska Natives die at higher rates than other Americans as a result of
    intentional self-harm/suicide, chronic liver disease and cirrhosis,
    diabetes, unintentional injuries and assault/homicide.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Ibid.
        \3\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        COVID-19 also highlighted how AI/AN communities were especially
    vulnerable to COVID-19, partly due to the long-term inequalities, high
    rates of poverty and high rates of underlying medical conditions within
    these communities. Now more than ever, it is important that Congress
    continue to address the needs of the most vulnerable. If more resources
    are not provided, the substantial number of health needs for AI/AN that
    already exist will become even greater.
                                 mental health
        Within the Indian Health Services, APA Services recommends $139
    million be allocated to mental health services. This program is
    currently funded at $130 million. AI/AN communities often lack access
    to adequate health care, including behavioral health. Particularly
    striking are the suicide rates among adolescents and young adults in
    these communities. Suicide rates for AI/AN individuals between the age
    of 15 to 24 years old was 39.7 per 100,000, compared with the overall
    U.S. rate of 9.9 per 100,000. This rate is more than 3 and half times
    the suicide rate for males of all races in the age group. The suicide
    rate for AI/AN females in the same age group was lower than males at
    20.2. per 100,000. However, this rate was still nearly six times the
    rate for females of all races.\4\ Furthermore, during 2015-2020, 3,397
    suicides among AI/AN individuals and 179,850 suicides among non AI/AN
    were reported. About three quarters (74.6%) of AI/AN suicide decedents
    were under the age of 44, compared to less than half (46.5%) of non AI/
    AN decedents.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Substance Abuse
    and Mental Health Services Administration, (2017). Suicide Clusters
    within American Indian and Alaska Native Communities: A review of the
    literature and recommendations. HHS Publication No. SMA17-5050.
    Rockville, MD. Retrieved from: https://store.samhsa.gov/sites/default/
    files/d7/priv/sma17-5050.pdf.
        \5\ Stone, D., Trinh E., Zhou, H., Welder, L., End of Horn, P.,
    Fowler, K., Ivey-Stephenson, A., (September 2022). Suicides Among
    American Indian or Alaska Native Persons- National Violent Death
    Reporting System, United States 2015-2020. Morbidity and Mortality
    Weekly Report 2022; 71:1161-1168. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/
    mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7137a1.htm.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Given the prevalent mental health concerns following COVID-19,
    mental health resources are even more critical now for all communities,
    especially those that have extensive histories of high rates of mental
    health concerns such as American Indians and Alaska Natives.
                           alcohol and substance use
        Within the IHS, APA Services requests at least $291 million be
    allocated to alcohol and substance use programs. This program is
    currently funded at $267 million. High rates of alcohol and substance
    use in AI/AN communities are well documented.\6\ This serious
    behavioral health issue has a strong impact on the health of
    individuals and families. AI/AN communities are much more likely to
    report past-year alcohol and substance use disorders than any other
    race.\7\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Indian Health Service, (2023). Behavioral Health. Retrieved
    from: https://www.ihs.gov/sites/newsroom/themes/responsive2017/
    display_objects/documents/factsheets/BehavioralHealth.pdf.
        \7\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This population is also more likely to require alcohol use
    treatment than persons of any other ethnic groups.\8\ These programs
    can be extremely helpful for individuals struggling with alcohol
    addiction, however there is often a lack of availability of culturally
    sensitive treatment programs.\9\ The IHS is especially positioned to
    ensure such programs contain culturally sensitive components in the
    treatment plans.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ American Addiction Centers. (February, 2024). Alcohol Addiction
    Resources for Different Demographics and Populations. Retrieved from:
    https://americanaddictioncenters.org/alcoholism-treatment/native-
    americans.
        \9\ Ibid.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           indian health professions
        Within the IHS, APA Services requests $81.3 million for the Indian
    Health Professions account. This program is currently funded at $80.6
    million. We emphasize the importance of having psychologists who are
    aware of the cultural sensitivities of this community and can best
    address this community's needs. The Indian Health Professions account
    includes the American Indians Into Psychology Program (INPSYC). The
    primary goals of the program are to increase the number of AI/AN with
    doctoral degrees in psychology and enhance the cross-cultural
    understanding and competence of non-AI/AN about AI/AN psychology.
    Together, these aims will help ensure the development and maintenance
    of AI/AN psychology career recruitment programs to encourage AI/AN to
    enter the field of psychology.
        More specifically, the program recruits and trains individuals to
    be psychologists. It also provides scholarships to individuals enrolled
    in schools of clinical psychology to pay tuition, for books, fees and
    stipends for living expenses. Additionally, the program seeks to
    directly engage with Tribal communities in order to provide greater
    exposure to the field of psychology. Finally, the program provides
    stipends to undergraduate and graduate students pursuing careers in
    psychology and training opportunities for psychology graduate students
    in Tribal communities.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ Indian Health Service. American Indians Into Psychology
    Program. Retrieved from: American Indians into Psychology Program
    Student Opportunities (ihs.gov)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        With the higher rates of suicide and other behavioral health
    concerns for this community, APA Services values the importance of
    increasing the number of AI/AN psychologists.
        For these reasons, APA Services recommends $81.3 million for the
    Indian Health Professions Account.

        [This statement was submitted byBy Katherine B. McGuire, Chief
    Advocacy Officer.]
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of American Rivers
        My name is Tom Kiernan, I am the President and CEO of American
    Rivers. Since 1973, American Rivers has protected wild rivers, restored
    damaged rivers, and conserved clean water for people and nature. With
    headquarters in Washington, D.C. and 355,000 supporters, members, and
    volunteers across the country, we are the most trusted and influential
    river conservation organization in the United States, delivering
    solutions for a better future. On behalf of American Rivers, I would
    like to thank Chairman Jeff Merkley and Ranking Member Lisa Murkowski
    for your leadership to reduce pollution in rivers, improve clean water
    access, and safeguard public drinking water supplies now and into the
    future.
        American Rivers is pleased to submit our full requests (see the
    full River Budget here and below) as part of the written testimony for
    the record. We address the funding and programmatic needs for Federal
    agencies' programs to make sure they are effective and efficient.
    Today, rivers across the country face daunting challenges on the road
    to recovery. From algal blooms in the Great Lakes to water scarcity in
    the Southwest and flooding in the Northeast, we must use every tool at
    our disposal to ensure heathy rivers have a fighting chance to bounce
    back. Our critical water supplies are at risk if we fail to fund these
    key programs that enhance our ability to improve river health and grow
    our economy. These topline figures are backed by River Budget Partners,
    a network of 156 partner organizations including utility and state
    agency associations, fishing groups, small businesses, rural
    communities, public health organizations, environmental justice
    leaders, and more.
    Per our FY25 River Budget, we respectfully request the following:

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 FY25
                 Agency                     Program         Recommendation
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BLM.............................  Wild and Scenic             $7,500,000
                                       Rivers.
    BLM.............................  Threatened and             $51,000,000
                                       Endangered
                                       Species (T&E)
                                       Program.
    EPA.............................  Chesapeake Bay             $93,000,000
                                       Program.
    EPA.............................  Clean Water SRF...      $7,600,000,000
    EPA.............................  Drinking Water SRF      $7,600,000,000
    EPA.............................  Environmental             $294,938,000
                                       Justice Programs.
    EPA.............................  Great Lakes                   $450,000
                                       Restoration
                                       Initiative.
    EPA.............................  Indian Reservation         $50,000,000
                                       Drinking Water
                                       Program.
    EPA.............................  Low Income                $225,000,000
                                       Household Water
                                       Assistance
                                       Program Pilot.
    EPA.............................  National Non-Point        $200,000,000
                                       Source Management
                                       Program.
    EPA.............................  Puget Sound                $57,000,000
                                       Program.
    EPA.............................  Reducing Lead in          $100,000,000
                                       Drinking Water.
    EPA.............................  Sewer Overflow and        $280,000,000
                                       Stormwater Reuse
                                       Municipal Grants
                                       Program.
    EPA.............................  Assistance for             $80,002,000
                                       Small &
                                       Disadvantaged
                                       Communities
                                       Drinking Water.
    EPA.............................  Water                      $80,344,000
                                       Infrastructure
                                       Finance and
                                       Innovation Fund.
    EPA.............................  Water Pollution           $255,000,000
                                       Control (Sec 106)
                                       grant program.
    EPA.............................  Wetlands Program           $20,000,000
                                       Development
                                       Grants.
    Forest Service..................  Threatened,                $24,667,000
                                       Endangered and
                                       Sensitive Species
                                       (TES) Program.
    Forest Service..................  Legacy Roads and          $100,000,000
                                       Trails (LRT)
                                       Program.
    USFWS...........................  Delaware Watershed         $15,500,000
                                       Conservation Fund.
    USFWS...........................  National Fish and          $10,000,000
                                       Wildlife
                                       Foundation.
    USFWS...........................  National Fish               $7,500,000
                                       Habitat Action
                                       Plan.
    USFWS...........................  National Fish              $30,000,000
                                       Passage Program.
    USFWS...........................  National Wetlands           $8,000,000
                                       Inventory.
    USFWS...........................  National Wildlife       $1,500,000,000
                                       Refuge System.
    USFWS...........................  North American             $50,150,000
                                       Wetlands
                                       Conservation Fund.
    USFWS...........................  Partners for Fish         $100,000,000
                                       and Wildlife
                                       Program.
    IHS.............................  Sanitation                $250,000,000
                                       Facilities
                                       Construction.
    NPS.............................  Partnership Wild            $5,800,000
                                       and Scenic Rivers
                                       Program.
    NPS.............................  Rivers, Trails and         $15,000,000
                                       Conservation
                                       Assistance.
    USGS............................  Groundwater and           $150,000,000
                                       Streamflow
                                       Information
                                       Program.
    USGS............................  National Water            $100,080,000
                                       Quality Program.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *For more detail, see here.

         support funding for the national wild and scenic rivers system
        We request that you support sufficient funding for the stewardship
    of the Wild and Scenic River System which preserves select free-flowing
    rivers that have nationally significant values for future generations
    of Americans. The National System protects 13,467 miles of 228 rivers
    in 41 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; this is less than one
    half of one percent of the Nation's rivers. We also request that you to
    institute transparency and accountability by creating a sub-category
    line item for the Wild and Scenic Rivers programs within the USDA
    Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management and National Park Service
    budgets to better track performance. Without true accountability it is
    difficult to measure results and to apply limited resources
    appropriately to meet the agencies' statutory mandates.
        Additional appropriations include:

      --USDA Forest Service request: $15 Million in support of ongoing
            management of designated rivers, Forest Plan Revision planning,
            and necessary increases in river manager staffing.

      --U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service request: $450,000 to improve
            resource protection and management capacity for Alaska Wild and
            Scenic Rivers, Comprehensive River Management Plan development
            and leveraging community involvement, and youth engagement
            including in urban refuges.

        Investing in this nationally significant system of rivers pays back
    in multiple ways--tourism, hunting, fishing, other outdoor recreation,
    healthier ecological systems, abundant water resources-- and leverages
    local investments that strengthen local economies as well as the
    public's use and enjoyment of our country's natural resources. We
    appreciate your help providing stewardship resources for this uniquely
    American idea and establishing a legacy for local communities. This
    funding will enable agencies to meet their statutory requirements to
    protect and enhance those rivers that have been designated as
    nationally significant and avoid unnecessary litigation.
     support additional funding to remove dams for safety and fish passage
        Many dams have reached the end of their useful lives and pose
    public safety risks, negatively impact fish and other aquatic life, and
    can be costly liabilities to their owners. Removing dams is the fastest
    way to bring a river back to life. Removing dams restores native
    aquatic life to rivers, increases climate resilience, and reduces the
    risk of aging dams failing and causing catastrophic flood damages and
    even loss of human life. In addition, more than 1,400 people have died
    in the dangerous hydraulics created at the base of low-head dams.
    Funding from Congress is necessary to support the removal of unsafe or
    obsolete dams, including dangerous low-head dams.
        Agencies of the Department of the Interior have demonstrated their
    ability to support barrier removal projects. These agencies need
    additional funding to support and expand this critical work. Funding is
    needed to adequately staff programs such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service's (FWS) National Fish Passage Program. Despite the significant
    investment of Federal dollars through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
    (BIL), FWS continues to receive many more proposals through their fish
    passage grant programs than can be funded. In addition, agencies need
    more funding to assess their water infrastructure, including dams, for
    safety, use, and end of life plans for projects no longer needed whose
    removal will relieve the maintenance burden on those agencies.
    Prioritizing funding to remove, rehabilitate, and/or retrofit dams is
    the best way to bring life back to damaged rivers and protect
    communities.
                              wetlands protection
        In May 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the authority of EPA to
    regulate the Nation's waterway including creeks, streams, and rivers
    that are scientifically significant and/or connected to wetlands. In
    the ruling of Sackett v. EPA, the majority of justices narrowly
    interpreted the definition of ``waters of the United States'' in the
    Clean Water Act. American Rivers is concerned with this ruling and its
    impact to our Nation's rivers and waterways.
        This new interpretation puts unprecedented constraints on the types
    of waterways EPA has the ability to regulate which Congress empowered
    the agency to oversee. The amendments to the Clean Water Act in 1972
    passed overwhelmingly in a bipartisan fashion to enact strong
    protections to protect America's water resources. The dangerous
    precedent set by the Supreme Court sets us back and weakens national
    and State efforts to conserve and restore rivers, wetlands, and lakes
    that are essential to outdoor recreation, drinking water, and
    wastewater infrastructure.
        We urge the committee to fund the Wetlands Program Development
    Grants at a minimum of $20M for FY25. This funding will support
    development of State and Tribal wetlands programs and give communities
    a way to respond to water shortages. Today, one in 10 watersheds in the
    U.S. is stressed for water natural supply including Houston, TX; Salt
    Lake City, UT; Lincoln, NE; Cleveland, OH; Miami, FL; Atlanta, GA;
    Washington, DC; El Paso, TX; San Antonio, TX; San Franciso Bay Area,
    CA; and Los Angeles, CA.
      direct cost recovery funds back to usfws to support its hydropower
                programs and improve fish migration initiatives
        Improving fish passage at hydropower sites can prevent further
    declines in migratory fish populations and support sustainable
    commercial, Tribal, and recreational fisheries. Fish such as the
    Pacific and Atlantic salmon and other migratory species, such as shad,
    river herring, American eel, lamprey, and sturgeon need access to both
    the ocean and freshwater habitat to complete their life cycles. But
    barriers like hydropower dams block migration patterns and access which
    lead to steep population declines and potential loss of species. USFWS'
    Hydropower Program is a vital program that partners rely on to identify
    and implement solutions to reopen rivers for migratory fish while
    preserving hydropower generation in smart and sustainable way. With
    more than 1,600 hydropower projects regulated by the Federal Energy
    Regulatory Commission, USFWS needs more funding for staffing and
    science to upgrade and retrofit our Nation's hydropower infrastructure.
        Over the next 10 years, we will see a rise in hydropower
    relicensing with over 440 scheduled to start the licensing process by
    2035. We request the committee support reporting language that makes
    cost recovery for agencies at USFWS' Hydropower Program more explicit
    and efficient so they can continue providing technical assistance,
    staffing, and capacity for the relicensing process that are in the
    pipeline. Specifically, we ask the committee to support language on the
    disposition of charges arising from licenses. Currently, during the
    relicensing process charges are returned to the U.S. Treasury instead
    of to USFWS' Hydropower Program which could then use the funds
    dedicated for hydropower to support workloads for upcoming relicenses.
    We must do more to empower NOAA Fisheries Hydropower Program to keep
    their funding for future projects, so they can better prepare and
    provide the much-needed expertise for the wave of relicenses that are
    incoming. Direct cost recovery would be a major benefit to the
    hydropower programs, however additional funding is likely necessary for
    the programs to work with the full suite of hydropower projects to
    conserve and restore the migratory fish affected by them.
                                   conclusion
        Thank you for your consideration of these funding requests, and for
    your leadership on appropriations. We look forward to working with you
    to support these opportunities to restore and protect rivers across
    America. Please contact Jaime D. Sigaran, Associate Director, Policy
    and Government Relations (jsigaran@americanrivers.org) with any
    questions.

    Sincerely,

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        President and CEO
        American Rivers
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the American Society for the Prevention of
                               Cruelty to Animals
        On behalf of our more than 2 million supporters, the American
    Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) submits this
    testimony to the House Appropriations subcommittee on Interior,
    Environment and Related Agencies regarding the Wild Horse and Burro
    Program administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S.
    Forest Service (USFS). Founded in 1866, the ASPCA is the first humane
    organization established in the Americas and serves as the Nation's
    leading voice for animal welfare. The ASPCA is dedicated to ensuring
    good welfare for all equines, building innovative programs to provide
    them with a unique, comprehensive network of support. We appreciate
    this opportunity and respectfully ask that the subcommittee consider
    the following requests when making FY2025 appropriations, including
    allocating $170,917,000 for the BLM's Wild Horse and Burro Program.
                        wild horse and burro management
        Our wild horses and burros should be revered as historical icons,
    treated humanely, and managed responsibly on our public lands. Yet, in
    the nearly 50 years since Congress charged the BLM with protecting our
    country's wild horses and burros, Americans have witnessed the agency's
    Wild Horse and Burro Program deteriorate into a continuous cycle of
    costly roundups and removals with little regard for the prioritization
    of on-range management of the herds. Thanks to past funding and strong
    congressional directives, we are starting to see the agency slowly
    embrace a more positive management framework. But more needs to be done
    to steer the program on track.
        Accordingly, we ask you to:

      --provide the funding needed to implement a multi-tiered non-lethal
            management approach;

      --continue to include longstanding bill language prohibiting the BLM
            and USFS from killing or selling wild horses or burros to
            slaughter as part of the government's strategy for managing
            wild herds;

      --continue to include report language directing the BLM to implement
            each of the four below-described strategies for a more humane
            and sustainable program; and,

      --ensure the agency will adhere to those directives by making the
            funding contingent on BLM following the directives.

        Recognizing that the BLM's Wild Horse and Burro Program is in dire
    need of an overhaul, the ASPCA has partnered with a diverse group of
    stakeholders to propose a non-lethal, humane, and long-term approach to
    on-range management that would implement a strategic and comprehensive
    fertility control program on the range and eventually release the BLM
    from a continuous cycle of round-ups, removals, and warehousing of
    horses in off-range holding. The proposal contains four interdependent
    strategies that must be implemented simultaneously to have a meaningful
    effect: 1) immediate and robust application of proven, safe, and humane
    fertility control to manage the on-range population; 2) shifting horses
    currently in off-range BLM corrals to humane, cost-effective pasture
    facilities; 3) increasing safe wild horse and burro adoptions; and 4)
    removals of horses from densely populated herd management areas to
    reduce the population that must be managed on-range, the need for which
    will decrease over time as the program rebalances towards on-range
    management, with strict adherence to the BLM's Comprehensive Animal
    Welfare Program.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Bureau of Land Management, Wild Horse and Burro Comprehensive
    Animal Welfare Program, PIM 2021-002: https://www.blm.gov/policy/pim-
    2021-002
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Accordingly, the FY2020 through FY2023 funding bills consistently
    increased funding for the Wild Horse and Burro Program and included
    clear language directing BLM to implement a comprehensive, on-range
    management program that embraces the four principles of our proposal.
    Although Congress decreased funding for the program in the FY2024
    funding bill, it maintained language requiring a non-lethal, science-
    based wild horse and burro management program. With proper funding and
    with the appropriate safeguards guiding management, the BLM can
    effectively rebalance the program and ensure that wild horses and
    burros can live safely on our public lands for generations to come.
        We have been encouraged by some signs that the Department of
    Interior and the BLM are making important changes towards preventative
    management. Since Congress has allocated additional funds for the
    program, the BLM has been slowly embracing fertility control and has
    demonstrated an ability to scale up management activities. Yet despite
    report language directing the agency to implement an effective,
    nationwide fertility control program, it has long been the missing
    component of the prescribed multi-tiered management plan. Fertility
    control is a critical component of any successful program and it must
    be incorporated into the BLM's Environmental Assessments used to guide
    management decisions. Unfortunately, it appears that the prior report
    language has not been enough to convince the agency to implement a
    fertility control program at a meaningful scale. We therefore
    respectfully request the below bill language to more clearly direct the
    BLM to adhere to the report language.
        As part of its fertility control implementation, the agency should
    also do contingency planning for extreme climate conditions, drought,
    and other impacts to the program in order to achieve its goals for
    fertility treatment implementation. In 2021, for example, extreme
    drought conditions necessitated emergency removals of animals from the
    range. As a result, the BLM treated fewer than half of the mares they
    originally planned to inoculate using fertility control vaccines in
    their annual gather plan. In 2023, drought and inflation increased the
    cost of off-range care, resulting in a steep decline in fertility
    control treatments. It is mission critical, therefore, that the agency
    plan for these and similar, reasonably foreseeable events to ensure
    their management actions are effective and the program is in the best
    position to succeed in reaching its management goals.
        Unfortunately, Congress also must continue to adopt bill language
    to explicitly prohibit the agencies from destroying wild horses or
    burros or selling them with the result that the animal is destroyed as
    part of the government's management strategy. The Wild Free-Roaming
    Horses and Burros Act of 1971 declared that these icons were to be
    protected from harassment, branding, capture, and death. In 2004,
    however, the act was amended to allow the sale of these animals to
    slaughter; this infamous amendment, known as the Burns Amendment, was
    included as part of the appropriations package and was not voted on.
    The overwhelming majority of the American public opposes horse
    slaughter, and this amendment flew in the face of the stated purpose of
    the act, leading Congress to include annually the below requested bill
    language, which explicitly prohibits the agencies from utilizing lethal
    management. With the Burns Amendment still in place, this bill language
    remains necessary to protect our Nation's wild horses and burros.
        The ASPCA requests, therefore, that the subcommittee continue its
    progress towards a humane, non-lethal and effective wild horse and
    burro management program by reinvesting in the program and including
    the bill and report language identified below.
                            appropriations requests
        The ASPCA requests that the subcommittee fund the Wild Horse and
    Burro Program at the amount included in the President's Budget Request
    to implement a multi-tiered, humane, non-lethal and effective
    management approach: $170,917,000.
        The ASPCA requests that the subcommittee continue to include the
    following bill language, most recently included in FY24 as Section 417
    of Public Law 118-42, which prohibits the BLM and U.S. Forest Service
    from killing or selling wild horses or burros to slaughter as part of
    the government's strategy for managing wild herds:

            HUMANE TRANSFER AND TREATMENT OF ANIMALS
            SEC. XXX. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
            Secretary of the Interior, with respect to land administered by
            the Bureau of Land Management, or the Secretary of Agriculture,
            with respect to land administered by the Forest Service
            (referred to in this section as the ''Secretary concerned''),
            may transfer excess wild horses and burros that have been
            removed from land administered by the Secretary concerned to
            other Federal, State, and local government agencies for use as
            work animals.
            (b) The Secretary concerned may make a transfer under
            subsection (a) immediately on the request of a Federal, State,
            or local government agency.
            (c) An excess wild horse or burro transferred under subsection
            (a) shall lose status as a wild free-roaming horse or burro (as
            defined in section 2 of Public Law 92-195 (commonly known as
            the ''Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act'') (16 U.S.C.
            1332)).
            (d) A Federal, State, or local government agency receiving an
            excess wild horse or burro pursuant to subsection (a) shall
            not-
                (1) destroy the horse or burro in a manner that results in
                the destruction of the horse or burro into a commercial
                product;
                (2) sell or otherwise transfer the horse or burro in a
                manner that results in the destruction of the horse or
                burro for processing into a commercial product; or
                (3) euthanize the horse or burro, except on the
                recommendation of a licensed veterinarian in a case of
                severe injury, illness, or advanced age.
            (e) Amounts appropriated by this act shall not be available
            for-
                (1) the destruction of any healthy, unadopted, and wild
                horse or burro under the jurisdiction of the Secretary
                concerned (including a contractor); or
                (2) the sale of a wild horse or burro that results in the
                destruction of the wild horse or burro for processing into
                a commercial product.

        The ASPCA requests that the subcommittee include the following
    report language directing the BLM to implement the multi-tiered humane,
    non-lethal and effective management approach for a more humane and
    sustainable program:
        Wild Horse and Burro Program. The bill provides $170,917,000 for
    the Wild Horse and Burro program. These funds are in response to the
    Bureau's May 15, 2020 proposal to institute an aggressive, non-lethal
    population control strategy to address the current unsustainable
    trajectory of on-range wild horse and burro population growth. The
    Committees expect this strategy to continue and to include a robust
    expansion of fertility control utilizing methods that are proven, safe,
    effective, and humane. Such treatments and on-range gathers are to be
    maximized, even if appropriate management levels are not immediately
    achievable. As the Bureau works to substantially increase on-range
    gathers for removal, the Committees encourage the Bureau to continue to
    secure cheaper and longer-term off-range holding facilities and
    pastures. The Committees further expect the Bureau to demonstrate its
    ability to increase its capacity for gathers; procure additional short
    and long term holding facilities; and to ensure that adequate staffing
    requirements are met, both in the field and in a location that will
    facilitate communication with policy makers. The Bureau shall continue
    to abide by the Comprehensive Animal Welfare Program and the statutory
    restrictions on sale without restriction, and the directives contained
    in Fiscal Year 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024 House and Senate
    Reports and Explanatory Statements. Finally, the Committees believe
    that the full and successful implementation of the Bureau's strategy
    will be greatly enhanced with a traditional congressional
    communications policy that includes regular and timely briefings on the
    progress being made and the challenges ahead.
        The ASPCA requests that the subcommittee include the following bill
    language directing the BLM to adhere to the report language below:
        Provided, That the funds for the wild horse and burro program shall
    be expended in accordance with the report accompanying this act.
    Provided further, That the Bureau of Land Management shall submit
    reports to Interior Appropriators in accordance with the report
    accompanying this act.

        [This statement was submitted by Meredith Hou, Director of Federal
    Legislation, Government Relations.]
                                     ______

                       Prepared Statement of AmericaView
        Thank you, Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members
    of the subcommittee, for your past support and the opportunity to
    testify before you today. My name is Christopher McGinty, and I serve
    as the Executive Director of AmericaView. AmericaView is a national
    collaborative non-profit STEM network of 41 member States called
    StateViews. AmericaView's mission is to empower Earth observation
    education through remote sensing science, applied research, workforce
    development, technology transfer, and community outreach. We
    respectfully request that you continue to enable the USGS Remote
    Sensing State Grants Program within the Department of the Interior to
    reach all 50 States and the U.S. territories by including $10 million
    for the program in FY 2025.
        Remote sensing and Earth observation are vital to advancing
    technology and industry, conservation and environmental stewardship,
    and career paths in STEM. By investing in the USGS Remote Sensing State
    Grants Program, Congress will be pivotal in supporting the development
    of the next generation of Earth observation students, scientists,
    innovators, business leaders, problem-solvers, and public sector
    drivers of technological advancements. This crucial investment in the
    grant program will ensure that the United States remains globally
    competitive and has the technological prowess to support solutions that
    address critical issues such as natural resource sustainability,
    industry, and emergency response and recovery.
        The USGS Remote Sensing State Grants Program (also known as the
    National Land Remote Sensing Education, Outreach, and Research Activity
    [NLRSEORA] grant) has been competitively awarded to AmericaView since
    2003. Over the past two decades, this program has significantly
    addressed critical state-specific issues like health, security,
    emergency response, agriculture, and transportation. Each StateView
    provides technology, expertise, and actionable data collected from
    satellites and other means to tackle these challenges. Moreover, the
    program has been instrumental in engaging with educators and students
    to support tomorrow's technological workforce and provide educational
    opportunities for students through scholarships and training
    opportunities. It has also fostered relationships with underserved and
    indigenous communities across the United States, promoting the
    utilization of remote sensing and geospatial technology.
        In just the past 5 years, AmericaView has had an unmistakable
    impact across the remote sensing field, including but not limited to:

      --Trained or shared curriculum with 24,320 K-12 students, 2,621 K-12
            teachers, 29,550 graduate and undergraduate students, and 4,299
            members of the current workforce;

      --Established more than 35 new remote sensing courses or programs at
            the university level and built an education resource portal for
            its website;

      --Delivered hundreds of presentations to thousands of attendees at
            national and international scientific and technology-sharing
            conferences, statewide geospatial data meetings, and other
            venues;

      --Made accessible and/or archived terabytes of publicly available
            remote-sensing imagery and derivative information, hosting more
            than half a million visitors at member websites;

      --Provided 464 funding opportunities for undergraduate and graduate
            research and education positions;

      --Developed online STEM resources that supported tens of thousands of
            educators during COVID pandemic school closures;

      --Funded 189 collaborative, regional projects to address
            environmental challenges using remote sensing and Earth
            observation.

        AmericaView is committed to expanding its program to all 50 States
    and U.S. territories, advocating for consistent funding to support
    state-specific initiatives. The use of remote sensing and geospatial
    data is rapidly expanding, driven by researchers and industries
    developing new applications to address pressing global issues such as
    resource and food security, a changing climate, urban planning, and
    disaster response. This evolution necessitates a workforce skilled in
    advanced technological applications. Thus, increasing funding for the
    USGS NLI Remote Sensing State Grants Program that supports AmericaView
    is essential. This increase will enable AmericaView to cultivate a
    nationwide workforce with the tools and expertise to effectively
    leverage these critical data and tools to address current and future
    challenges.
        For nearly two decades, the USGS NLI Remote Sensing State Grants
    Program has maintained roughly the same funding level, forcing
    reductions in the financial support allocated to each StateView year
    after year. As the number of participating States has increased-from
    just one to 41-the per-state funding has effectively decreased by more
    than 200%, creating a budget that now only allows for about $25,500 per
    State annually. Initially receiving $1.25 million annually since 2003,
    funding slightly increased to $1.465 million in FY 2023. This funding
    model is unsustainable as AmericaView strives to meet expanding
    national needs and USGS NLI grant objectives.
        The House-passed FY 2024 Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies appropriations bill included $3 million for the program. The
    Senate version of this appropriations bill maintained funding at the FY
    2023 enacted level of $1.465 million. The final FY 2024 spending
    package continued funding for the program at the enacted level.
    AmericaView appreciates this support for the Remote Sensing State
    Grants Program. However, we must underscore that for the program to
    make an even more significant, more sustainable impact nationwide and
    meet the current demand in our high-tech world, the Program requires an
    annual funding level of $10 million. Such an investment would
    significantly enhance a national program that has already demonstrated
    success. It would provide ample resources that USGS, NASA, EPA, FEMA,
    DHS, DOT, and State agencies in all 50 States depend on to bolster the
    use of Earth observation data that aids in education, outreach,
    workforce development, and applied research.
        As a nation, we are at an inflection point where our technological
    innovation and workforce can catapult our progress as a global leader
    and competitor in a way that directly impacts the economy and those
    most underserved in our society. The Remote Sensing State Grants
    Program, administered by AmericaView and allocated to the National
    network of StateView members, has not only helped enable the use of
    data throughout society for institutions, businesses, and government
    but has helped develop processes and educational tools that empower
    individuals, businesses, and academia. These processes and tools serve
    as a basis for establishing and responding to the needs of the
    workforce of the future.
        AmericaView and its national network appreciate your consideration
    of our request to include $10 million for the Department of the
    Interior's USGS Remote Sensing State Grants Program in the FY 2025
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill.
        Thank you for considering this request.

        [This statement was submitted by Christopher McGinty, Executive
    Director, AmericaView.]
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Animal Welfare Institute
        The Animal Welfare Institute, a national nonprofit animal welfare
    advocacy organization, asks the subcommittee to provide adequate
    funding levels for crucial wildlife programs and to include measures to
    protect at-risk species.
                       wild horses and burros (blm & fs)
        The BLM, which oversees the vast majority of America's wild horses
    and burros, continues to mismanage herds, relying on an endless cycle
    of costly removals from public lands instead of implementing
    immunocontraceptive vaccines to control fertility rates and manage
    these federally protected animals on the range. From FY22-23, the BLM
    removed over 25,500 wild equines. Historically, the agency has spent
    less than 1 percent of its annual WHB program budget on fertility
    control; yet the BLM spent over $100 million during FY23 alone on
    removals and holding. We ask the subcommittee to include a directive
    for a minimum of 10 percent of the BLM's WHB program budget to go
    towards the administration of proven and safe immunocontraceptive
    vaccines--specifically the widely supported porcine zona pellucida
    (PZP) vaccine, as per the National Academy of Sciences recommendation.
    Moreover, we strongly support the continued inclusion of provisions to
    ensure that both BLM- and U.S. Forest Service-managed wild equines
    cannot be destroyed for commercial purposes in order to protect these
    animals from slaughter, as well as language preventing the destruction
    of healthy, unadopted wild horses and burros.
        Lastly, in recent years, the BLM has pursued attempts to manage
    wild horses via a risky surgical procedure known as ``ovariectomy via
    colpotomy,'' which involves blindly locating the ovaries and severing
    them using a rod-like tool while the animal remains conscious. In its
    report on wild horse management, the NAS explicitly warned the BLM
    against using this procedure due to the risks of serious complications.
    Numerous lawmakers in the House and Senate have criticized the BLM's
    plans to ovariectomize horses and national polling shows overwhelming
    opposition to this procedure. In its FY25 budget justifications, the
    BLM proposes $15 million for a permanent sterilization program--despite
    clear congressional directives to devote a sizeable portion of its WHB
    program budget to implementing proven immunocontraceptive vaccines. We
    ask the subcommittee to include language barring the use of Federal
    funds to conduct ovariectomies on wild horses and burros so that
    taxpayer dollars can be directed towards cost-effective, safe, and
    humane fertility control methods such as PZP.
                  endangered species act implementation (fws)
        We ask the subcommittee to appropriate $857.32 million across five
    programs to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) for the purpose of
    Endangered Species Act (ESA) implementation:

      --$70.1 million for Listing

      --$469.36 million for Recovery

      --$185.56 million for Planning and Consultation

      --$10.5 million for Candidate Conservation in Conservation and
            Restoration

      --$121.8 million for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation
            Fund (CESCF)

        Implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), our Nation's
    most effective law for species conservation, has been severely
    underfunded for years. The Fish and Wildlife Service requires a budget
    of $857.32 million across five programs to begin to make up for lost
    ground and put species on the path to recovery. As we face a worsening
    biodiversity crisis, this funding package will better allow FWS to
    implement the ESA in the way Congress intended when it dedicated our
    country to protecting the most imperiled species and habitats.
        Currently, FWS only receives around one-third of the funding
    required to properly implement the act. The funding levels requested
    above would help FWS process the backlog of approximately 200 species
    on the National Listing Workplan that still need to be reviewed for
    protections under the ESA, with more species petitioned for inclusion
    under the ESA every year. It would also be put toward developing
    recovery plans for the approximately 25% of species currently without
    plans and revising the 890 recovery plans that are now over two decades
    out of date and may no longer contain the best available science.
        In addition, the above funding levels would provide much-needed
    resources for maximizing the efficacy and efficiency of FWS
    consultations with other Federal agencies, States, counties, and
    private landowners, as well as implementing early conservation actions
    that keep species from ever reaching the brink of extinction. Finally,
    the CESCF serves as an essential source of funding for States and
    private landowners, making it a crucial tool for cooperative
    conservation.
                              trophy hunting (fws)
        We urge the subcommittee to include language prohibiting the use of
    funds by the FWS for the issuance of any permit authorizing the
    importation of a trophy-hunted elephant or lion trophy.
        African elephant and lion populations have undergone steep declines
    in recent years. African elephants and lions are both listed under the
    Endangered Species Act (ESA), demonstrating a scientific need for
    heightened protections. Between the early 20th century and 2016, the
    number of elephants in Africa plummeted from 3-5 million to
    approximately 400,000. In 2021, the IUCN Red List reassessed the
    African savanna elephant as endangered, meaning it faces a very high
    risk of extinction in the wild. African lion populations declined by 43
    percent from 1993 to 2014. The subspecies Panthera leo melanochaita,
    comprising the lions of east and southern Africa, is listed as
    threatened under the ESA, with only 17,000-19,000 remaining.
        The FWS responded with a series of vacillating trophy-import
    policies, calling into question the degree to which the agency had
    evaluated whether lion and elephant trophy imports from the countries
    enhanced the survival of the species, as required under the ESA.
    Subsequently, the FWS updated its regulations regarding the importation
    of elephant trophies in March 2024, adding some additional criteria
    that the country of origin must meet. However, it remains permissible
    to import African elephant and lion trophies into the U.S., a policy
    that continues to harm the viability of these species.
        In light of these conservation concerns, no funds should be
    provided for the issuance of import permits for African elephant and
    lion trophies.
                                 trapping (fws)
        We urge the subcommittee to allocate $300,000 to the FWS to
    institute a 3-year pilot program that replaces the use of body-gripping
    traps (Conibears, legholds, and snares) on National Wildlife Refuge
    Service land by agency personnel with non-lethal methods and equipment.
    Furthermore, we hope the subcommittee will encourage the FWS to
    continue reviewing and updating both physical trapping signage and
    trapping information posted on the website, and continue providing
    trapping information to the subcommittee on an annual basis. In
    addition, for each refuge listed online as allowing trapping, the FWS
    should specify whether the trapping is conducted by private trappers
    for recreational/commercial purposes and/or by government personnel for
    management purposes.
        This request builds upon FY20-24 report language directing the FWS
    to conduct an evaluation of trapping practices by Federal personnel on
    Service lands, including an analysis of non-lethal alternatives to
    trapping. Given that FWS has not briefed the Committee on its findings,
    this request includes a directive to begin a pilot program to replace
    body-gripping traps with non-lethal methods for wildlife management
    purposes.
        The use of body-gripping traps by Federal personnel violates the
    mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System and is a threat to the
    safety of wildlife, humans, and pets. The purpose of these protected
    lands is clear: to be an inviolate sanctuary for native wildlife.
        Body-gripping traps, such as snares, Conibear traps, and steel-jaw
    leghold traps, are inhumane and inherently nonselective. The nontarget
    animals caught in these traps include threatened and endangered
    species, as well as family pets. Refuges are a very popular
    destination; the National Wildlife Refuge System attracts more than 61
    million visits every year. Additionally, many wildlife refuges are
    either close to or reside in urban areas. These traps are not an
    appropriate tool for wildlife management on national wildlife refuges
    where families enjoy spending time outdoors, and where anyone who trips
    a trap can become a victim.
        Nonlethal methods are often highly effective and FWS personnel
    would be serving both wildlife and outdoor recreation interests-such as
    hiking and nature photography, which account for approximately 86% of
    total recreation-related expenditures on refuges-by prioritizing their
    use.
                        beaver conflict mitigation (fws)
        Across the country, thousands of beavers are trapped, snared, and
    shot each year in an effort to prevent damage caused to property by
    beaver activity. However, this killing is often unnecessary due to the
    availability of cost-effective, nonlethal devices that can successfully
    prevent such damage. For example, trees can be shielded by encircling
    them with wire mesh fencing or coating their trunks with a mixture of
    paint and sand that deters beavers from chewing. Roads, agricultural
    resources, and other property can be protected from flooding by
    installing water flow control devices, which allow enough water to pass
    through a beaver dam to avoid flooding while ensuring sufficient pond
    depth for beaver use, thus maintaining acceptable water levels.
        Restraining traps and snares used to capture and kill beavers can
    cause prolonged pain and unintentionally injure and kill nontarget
    animals. They are also rarely, if ever, a long term-solution; beavers
    dispersing in search of suitable habitat can quickly recolonize trapped
    areas. By contrast, flow devices can provide long-term relief and
    typically last 10 years before they need to be replaced. Nonlethal
    measures to mitigate beaver conflicts are effective, cost-efficient,
    long-lasting, and ecologically beneficial. These devices can protect
    transportation infrastructure, buildings, agricultural lands, and other
    property. Despite these benefits, no Federal programs currently exist
    to promote or facilitate the use of these techniques.
        We urge the subcommittee to recognize the ecological benefits
    beavers provide to landscapes and ecosystems across the country by
    providing $3,000,000 to the Fish and Wildlife Service to institute a
    pilot program to provide grants to eligible entities for projects that
    seek to use nonlethal measures to achieve a reduction in damage to
    roads, railroads, bridges, buildings, airports, levees, dams,
    agricultural resources, trees, or other public or private property
    caused by beavers. Eligible entities are: States, Tribes; state,
    Federal and Tribal agencies, local governments, nongovernmental
    organizations, and landowners who have sustained property damage due to
    beaver activity in conjunction with one or more of these entities.
    Nonlethal measures are those that are not designed to grip, trap,
    relocate, injure, or kill beavers. Nonlethal measures include, but are
    not limited to, fencing and paint-sand mixtures used to protect trees,
    and water flow control devices used to prevent flooding and maintain
    beaver ponds at acceptable levels. To document the progress of this
    program, FWS should be encouraged to submit a report to the
    subcommittee describing activities under the pilot program each fiscal
    year.
                          prescott grant program (fws)
        We urge the subcommittee to provide no less than $4,000,000 for the
    John H. Prescott Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance grant program. The
    Prescott Program, led by the FWS, provides funding to eligible
    stranding network participants assisting stranded sea otters, manatees,
    Pacific walruses, and polar bears. Congress began to allocate funds to
    the FWS in fiscal year 2019 to implement the program. To date, the FWS
    has awarded $5.2 million in funding to conservation organizations and
    State agencies through the Prescott Grant Program. In fiscal year 2024,
    $2,300,000 was allocated towards this program. Given the rising number
    of strandings and the importance of marine mammals to the health of
    ocean ecosystems, at least $4,000,000 in funding is requested.

        [This statement was submitted by Nancy Blaney, Director, Government
    Affairs, Animal Welfare Institute.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Arctic Research Program at Woodwell Climate
                                Research Center
        On behalf of the Arctic Research Program at Woodwell Climate
    Research Center (``Woodwell Climate''), I am pleased to provide this
    written testimony to the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for the official record.
    Woodwell Climate respectfully requests the subcommittee to (1) approve
    $492,374,000 in funding for the Bureau of Land Management Alaska Fire
    Service (BLM AFS) in Fiscal Year 2025 (FY 2025) so that it may meet its
    fire suppression mission amidst intensifying fire regimes in the Arctic
    and boreal regions; and (2) adopt the following report language:
        "Department of the Interior--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--
    National Wildlife Refuge System. ``The Committee recognizes the
    Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management Commission recommendations to
    prioritize and deploy resources to address extreme wildfires in the
    U.S. As extreme fire regimes intensify across the U.S., there is an
    urgent need to understand evolving ecosystems and related data gaps in
    the Arctic and boreal forests. A standardized monitoring of the
    wildlife refuges is a prerequisite to designing and implementing
    effective and appropriate changes in fire management that the Fish and
    Wildlife Service and partner agencies are considering. The Committee
    directs the Fish and Wildlife Service through the National Wildlife
    Refuge System to conduct a study on ecological change due to fire
    regimes in Alaska wildlife refuges.''
        These requested actions are informed by Woodwell Climate's leading
    scientific research into cost-effective approaches for fire management
    in the high-latitudes; as this testimony explains further, a decision
    by the subcommittee to allocate additional resources for the BLM AFS
    and the National Wildlife Refuge System managed by the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS) will enable the U.S. government to mitigate
    immediate and long-term costs of Alaskan wildfires on infrastructure,
    ecosystems, human health, and the global climate.
      accounting for the costs of intensifying arctic-boreal wildfires in
                                     alaska
        Record-breaking wildfires across the U.S. in recent years have
    highlighted the need for the Federal Government to reconsider the
    efficacy of existing fire management approaches and expenditures. This
    is particularly true for fires in Alaska, where rapid temperature rise
    in the region has led to pervasive intensification of wildfires in
    boreal forest, which have doubled the annual burned area compared to
    the mid-20th century. Wildfires in boreal forests pose significant
    implications for the U.S. carbon budget, as they contain roughly two-
    thirds of global forest carbon, and Alaska wildfires currently
    contribute to half of all U.S. fire carbon emissions each year.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Circumpolar boreal fires emitted roughly 1.8 Gt CO2 in 2021
    alone. See Zheng, B., Ciais, P., Chevallier, F., Yang, H., Canadell, J.
    G., Chen, Y., van der Velde, I. R., Aben, I., Chuvieco, E., Davis, S.
    J., Deeter, M., Hong, C., Kong, Y., Li, H., Li, H., Lin, X., He, K.,
    and Zhang, Q.: Record-high CO2 emissions from boreal fires in 2021,
    Science, 379, 912-917, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ade0805, 2023.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Woodwell Climate is collaborating closely with U.S. government
    agencies in Alaska to more accurately estimate the distinctive and
    outsized carbon emissions of these escalating fires, including the
    projected emissions from circumpolar wildfire and fire-permafrost
    interactions. Our latest research suggests that such emissions may
    reduce the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimates
    of remaining carbon budgets to stay within 1.5 to 2C of global warming
    by 10% or more.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Treharne, R., Gasser, T., Rogers, B. M., Turetsky, M. R.,
    MacDonald, E., Smith, T., and Natali, S.: Comprehensive assessment of
    permafrost carbon emissions indicates need for urgent action to meet
    Paris Agreement temperature goals, Nat. Clim. Change, in prep.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Limiting boreal wildfire emissions to pre-climate change levels
    through targeted suppression and other management approaches would both
    provide a significant natural climate solution and support a suite of
    co-benefits for Alaskan communities and those in the lower 48 who are
    likely to experience smoke exposure as northern fires intensify. Recent
    fire seasons have demonstrated the myriad of detrimental impacts caused
    by intensifying wildfires, including severe degradation of air quality,
    disruptions to air transport and travel, and damage to infrastructure
    (such downstream negative economic impacts are estimated at $30 billion
    to $200 billion per year in the lower 48). In addition to limiting
    these deleterious impacts, increased arctic-boreal fire management
    would create jobs and give fire managers desperately needed resources.
        Our research has found that fire management in Alaska is effective
    at reducing wildfire carbon emissions at a cost of $13 per ton CO2 of
    avoided emissions--comparable to or more cost-effective than many other
    climate mitigation measures.\3\ Yet Federal fire management in the
    state is also severely underfunded--receiving only 4% of Federal
    resources for fire management. The subcommittee therefore has a
    critical opportunity to reconcile this significant discrepancy by
    allocating additional funding to BLM AFS and FWS in FY 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Phillips, C. A., Rogers, B. M., Elder, M., Cooperdock, S.,
    Moubarak, M., Randerson, J. T., and Frumhoff, P. C.: Escalating carbon
    emissions from North American boreal forest wildfires and the climate
    mitigation potential of fire management, Science Advances, 8, eabl7161,
    https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abl7161, 2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       supplemental funds for the bureau of land management alaska fire
                                    service
        Woodwell Climate urges the subcommittee to appropriate $492,374,000
    for the BLM AFS in FY2025, supplementing the AFS' FY2024 funding by $10
    million. This increase is necessary to enable the AFS to effectively
    respond to intensifying fire regimes in the Arctic and boreal; work
    with communities and state/local partners to reduce wildland risk,
    professionalize the AFS workforce, and otherwise support effective
    management of escalating wildland fires.
        For over 30 years, the BLM AFS has been dedicated to providing
    efficient and cost-effective fire suppression services for all DOI
    lands and those conveyed in Alaska under the Alaska Native Claims
    Settlement Act of 1971. Activities of the BLM AFS include, inter alia,
    implementing various services within the framework of approved fire
    management plans and through agreements with the respective land
    managers or owners, developing fire and aviation policy guidance and
    interpretation for BLM Alaska, leading the statewide fire and aviation
    programs, providing fuels management direction, conducting fire ecology
    research, and assisting with fire planning and policy interpretation.
    The BLM AFS also provides logistical and operational support to
    agencies, incident management teams, and individual firefighters;
    oversees initial and extended attack fire-related resources; and
    distributes wildland fire information to the public and news media
    during the fire season.
        Yet despite intensifying fire seasons, the BLM AFS budgets have
    remained at level or decreased over the past decade; current funding
    levels are directly impeding BLM AFS' ability to fully staff positions
    and meet its fire suppression mission against a backdrop of increasing
    fire activity. Unfortunately, Woodwell Climate's robust scientific
    research indicates continued escalation of this activity under our
    current climate trajectory.
        Woodwell Climate therefore recommends that the subcommittee approve
    this modest funding increase of $10 million in FY2025 for BLM AFS to
    measurably improve its fire management response for the subsequent fire
    season. The supplemental funding would better equip BLM AFS amidst a
    changing fire and climate regimes in the Arctic and boreal regions,
    including longer fire seasons and thawing permafrost. With the
    subcommittee's support, BLM AFS will be able to deploy more robust fire
    suppression efforts throughout Alaska, support active fuels management,
    and work with local communities and State and Federal partners to
    reduce wildland fire risk in Alaska, among other needs.
       directed fish & wildlife funding for research of alaska wildlife
                                    refuges
        Woodwell Climate appreciates that increased fire activity across
    the U.S. and projected escalation of fire regimes in the coming years
    has prompted a demand for improved fire management and preparedness.
    The Federal Government has consequently approved dedicated funding for
    strengthening wildfire response in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
    and the Inflation Reduction Act, and funded a Report of the Wildland
    Fire Mitigation and Management Commission, which calls for bipartisan
    support of innovative approaches to wildfire management, additional
    Congressional appropriations for proactive measures, and allocation of
    additional funding for hazard data sets. While this progress is
    welcomed, notably absent from these efforts is sufficient scoping of
    fire impacts on the ecological systems in the Arctic-boreal region.
        Fire ecologists at Woodwell Climate and across the Federal
    Government focusing on the Arctic-boreal region agree that
    understanding such ecological impacts is a prerequisite for identifying
    new and cost-effective methods of fire management in Alaska.
    Accordingly, Woodwell Climate has recommended report language to this
    subcommittee that directs FWS to complete a baseline monitoring report
    on the ecological impacts of expanding wildfire on wildlife refuges in
    Alaska. As new fire management proposals are deployed so will ongoing
    monitoring of the refuges that deliver data on fire management
    protocols. This information will ultimately enable FWS to measure the
    appropriateness and effectiveness of various fire management
    interventions in comparison to the impact they have on ecological
    systems in the region. Capturing this information is increasingly
    important as fire regimes intensify in high latitude forests.
        Woodwell Climate is uniquely positioned to recommend this report
    language to the subcommittee, as our organization has collaborated with
    FWS and BLM AFS on a historic and foundational decision to enhance the
    fire suppression status of 1.6 million acres of Yedoma permafrost-rich
    land on the Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge in January 2023.
    Yedoma permafrost has particularly high ice and carbon content, and is
    highly vulnerable to post-fire thaw, degradation, and carbon emissions.
    This decision was the result of iterative consultation with Alaska
    Native residents within the refuge who are impacted by increasing smoke
    pollution and disruption to subsistence activities. It also addresses a
    growing concern for the loss of old growth habitat within the refuge.
        Support from this subcommittee to advance studies of the Yukon
    Flats National Wildlife Refuge and and others in Alaska would represent
    a monumental step in advancing arctic-boreal fire management and policy
    and indicate that carbon and permafrost protection from intensifying
    wildfires is a specific Federal priority. Over the next few years,
    Woodwell Climate scientists intend to collaborate with FWS and BLM AFS
    to estimate the avoided carbon emissions from reduced wildfires and
    permafrost thaw by combining data on suppression costs with modeled
    estimates of landscape fire progression. The requested report language
    and directive of this subcommittee will signal support for this work,
    thereby ensuring that a new era of Federal fire management is more
    responsive to climate, health, and economic considerations.
                                   conclusion
        Woodwell Climate requests that the subcommittee approve a $10
    million supplemental to BLM AFS for FY25 and to approve report language
    that directs the US FWS, through the National Wildlife Refuge System,
    to conduct a study on ecological change due to fire regimes in Alaska
    wildlife refuges. On behalf of Woodwell Climate, I would like to thank
    you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. Please do not
    hesitate to contact me should you have any questions about Woodwell
    Climate or the Arctic Program's scientific research.

        [This statement was submitted by Dr. Peter Frumhoff, Senior Science
    Policy Advisor.]
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water Supply
                                     System
             fort peck reservation rural water system ($5,248,000)
        The Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water Supply System (ASRWSS)
    submits this testimony in support of $5,248,000 in funding for
    continued Operations, Maintenance, and Replacement (OMR) of part of the
    Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System as authorized by PL 106-382.
    The request consists of an increase of $1,803,000 above the FY 2023/24
    levels of funding as follows:

      --$750,000 to recover under-funding for FY 2024,

      --$750,000 in FY 2025 to maintain last year's base, and a

      --$303,000 in increases between FY 2024 and FY 2025 for inflationary
            and other increases.

        The request for $1,803,000 above FY 2024 level of funding at
    $3,445,000.
        ASRWSS is the tribally chartered entity charged with the planning,
    design, construction, operation, maintenance and replacement (OMR) of
    the Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water Supply System, which is the part
    of the Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System on the Fort Peck Indian
    Reservation. We are strong partners with Dry Prairie Rural Water System
    (DPRWS), which operates the part of the Project that is off the
    Reservation.
        The most basic of governmental functions is the delivery of clean,
    safe, and reliable drinking water. We are honored to provide water and
    service in northeastern Montana to an area of 7,750 square miles
    connected by 3,200 miles of pipeline when completed in 2025.
        Obligation of all construction funding was concluded in FY 2023.
    The project provides drinking water to an area larger than New Jersey
    and just smaller than Massachusetts.
        The United States has invested $370 million in construction of
    ASRWSS and DPRWS through FY 2023 and will invest another $10 million as
    the project is completed. OMR funding is essential to the upkeep of
    this substantial Federal investment.
        The FY 2024 BIA Green Book intended to add $750,000 to the FY 2023
    funding in FY 2024 (see p. IA-CON-OTH-2), but conflicting tables in the
    Green Book requested only a minimal increase of $32,000 above the FY
    2023 level. The FY 2024 Explanatory Statement that ``...funding at the
    fiscal year 2023 enacted level for the project at Fort Peck...'' was
    likely based on the conflicting, unintended, virtually zero increase.
    BIA's $750,000 increase above the FY 2023 level of funding was intended
    to result in a budget of $4.205 million for FY 2024.
        The ASRWSS FY 2024 request of the House and Senate subcommittees
    was for $4.204 million in appropriations for the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA) Construction account ($772,000 above the FY 2023 funding
    of $3,445,000). The increase was an increase over FY 2023 and was due
    primarily to the significant inflation between 2021 and 2023. The
    following factors were listed in our FY 2024 testimony as supported by
    actual cost increases:

      i) inflation for all OMR items, particularly
        (1) chemicals
        (2) fuel
        (3) power and heating
        (4) asset replacement

      ii) continuing construction to advance service to more users on the
        (1) west side of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation
        (2) Scobey area of Dry Prairie

      iii) increase in production of water at treatment plant from 0.795
            billion gallons in 2018 to 1.112 billion gallons in 2022.

        The annual increase in costs between FY 2024 and FY 2025 (not
    counting the 2 years of $750,000 needed) of $303,000 is due primarily
    to inflation. Water treatment production was basically the same in FY
    2022 and FY 2023 at 1.2 billion gallons, and we do not expect more than
    a 10% significant increase in FY 2025, barring severe drought. Chemical
    costs between FY 2022 and FY 2023 increased from $608,000 to $796,000
    and account for most of the additional $303,000 requested. Our power
    bills primarily for treating and pumping water throughout the project
    increased from $379,000 to $420,000. Both the chemicals and the power
    costs are dependent on the gallons of water produced. ASRWSS currently
    employees highly qualified and capable personnel that manage, operate,
    and maintain the system. Two more employees are needed to fill vacant
    points at a cost of about $150,000 for salaries, benefits, and payroll
    taxes or $75,000 each.
        ASRWSS continues to advance construction on the west side of the
    Fort Peck Indian Reservation, which will be completed in 2025 and will
    finish all ASRWSS construction. Dry Prairie is advancing on its
    remaining areas of construction north and west of the Reservation and
    will complete all construction in 2026.
        The funding request of $5,248,000 is necessary to:

      i) safely operate, maintain, repair and replace system features,
      ii) employ the necessary level of qualified and certified staff
      iii) purchase chemicals for treatment
      iv) purchase power for pumping and treatment facilities.

        The Congress (Energy and Water subcommittee) will have appropriated
    $380 million to complete the project through FY 2026. The ASRWSS/DPRWS
    projects are 98% complete, and full funding has been made available to
    complete the project in FY 2025. It is imperative, through Interior
    appropriations (and a DPRWS non-federal cost share), that ASRWSS
    maintain, and replace the investment of Congress in the ASRWSS
    infrastructure valued at $236 million and held in trust by the United
    States on behalf of the Tribes.
        The DPRWS cost share covers the OMR cost of their use common
    facilities as agreed upon between ASRWSS, DPRWS and the Secretary in a
    Water Service Agreement. DPRWS makes monthly payments on a timely
    basis. DPRWS will provide an estimated $789,000 in FY 2025 to
    supplement appropriations.
        ASRWSS provided drinking water to more than 17,400 residents in
    Northeast Montana in 2023. In 2026 when construction is completed in
    ASRWSS and DPRWS, over 19,300 residents will be served. Ultimately,
    31,000 residents will be served as the population of the region grows
    over the next several decades.
        The population served at the end of 2016 was less than 10,000, and
    OMR funding needs have been increasing accordingly. The project also
    serves social and governmental agencies, including the BIA Agency
    Office, schools, clinics, hospitals, Medicine Lake National Wildlife
    Refuge, Fort Union Trading Post National Historic site, U.S.- Canadian
    border stations, and the towns of Poplar, Wolf Point, Frazer,
    Culbertson, Medicine Lake, Scobey, Nashua, St. Marie, Fort Kipp, and
    Brockton. Opheim and will be served in 2024. The small Reservation
    communities of Reserve and Lustre were added in 2022.
        The Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System was authorized by the
    Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System Act of 2000, Pub. L. 106-382.
    The enactment ensured a safe, adequate, and reliable municipal, rural
    and industrial water supply for the residents of the Fort Peck Indian
    Reservation and the residents of Roosevelt, Sheridan, Daniels, and
    Valley Counties outside the Reservation. As noted in the President's
    previous budget requests: ``Groundwater from shallow alluvial aquifers
    ... for the municipal systems . . . is generally poor with
    concentrations of iron, manganese, sodium, sulfates, bicarbonates and
    total dissolved solids above recommended standards.'' This project
    provides a perpetual remedy to historic water quality issues that
    impaired health and stunted economic growth.
        The Project called for the construction of a single treatment plant
    on the Missouri River near Wolf Point, Montana, that will distribute
    water through 3,200 miles of pipeline to both the Reservation Tribal
    system and through three completed and operational interconnections to
    DPRWS. A single water source on the Missouri River replaced nearly two
    dozen individual community water sources and ensured a clean,
    plentiful, and safe water supply.
        The Federal legislation authorizing the Fort Peck Reservation Rural
    Water System requires that the OMR costs of ASRWSS, held in trust by
    the United States, are fully funded. Interior appropriations to BIA are
    the Federal source of OMR funding. This is consistent with the Federal
    trust responsibility to the Tribes who were promised a permanent home
    when the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes agreed to move to the
    Reservation. A permanent home requires safe drinking water. The funding
    request enables ASRWSS to deliver superior drinking water, meeting all
    Federal and State standards, to all the people, towns, and federal,
    Tribal, State, public and private agencies, and businesses.
        Thus, the $5,248,000 requested in FY 2025 for the OMR of this vital
    infrastructure project is critical. The increased funding of $1,803,000
    over the FY 2024 level for the OMR of the Project is needed as the
    Project buildout increases the service population and requires
    additional personnel, power, chemicals, repairs, replacements, and
    improvements to operate the water treatment plant and other facilities.
        We thank the subcommittee for the continued support of OMR funding
    for ASRWSS as authorized by PL 106-382.

        [This statement was submitted by Ashleigh Weeks, Project Manager
    Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water Supply System.]
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies
        The Association of Air Pollution Control Agencies (AAPCA) \1\
    appreciates the opportunity to provide feedback on Fiscal Year (FY)
    2025 appropriations for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
    including State and Local Air Quality Management Grants under the State
    and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) program. AAPCA's State and local air
    agency members are co-regulators with U.S. EPA, responsible for
    implementing Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) rules in their
    jurisdictions.\2\ Funding directed to air agencies--including State and
    Local Air Quality Management Grants under CAA Sections 103 and 105--
    must be adequate for historic CAA obligations as well as the mounting
    number of significant and substantive regulatory actions \3\ from U.S.
    EPA that will further exacerbate existing resource constraints. AAPCA's
    State and local air agency members consider sufficient, stable
    resources to be critical to performing core CAA activities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ AAPCA is a national, non-profit, consensus-driven organization
    focused on assisting State and local air quality agencies and personnel
    with implementation and technical issues associated with the Federal
    Clean Air Act. Created in 2012, AAPCA represents 51 State and local air
    pollution control agencies, and senior officials from 21 state
    environmental agencies currently sit on the AAPCA Board of Directors.
    AAPCA is housed in Lexington, Kentucky as an affiliate of The Council
    of State Governments. More about AAPCA is at: www.cleanairact.org.
        \2\ AAPCA, State Air Trends & Successes: The StATS Report, May
    2024.
        \3\ U.S. EPA's Office of Air and Radiation lists 84 short- and
    long-term regulatory actions in the Fall 2023 Unified Agenda of
    Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress provided a total of $4.418 billion for STAG in the
    Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024 (H.R. 4366), which was signed
    into law on March 9, 2024.\4\ Approximately $61.5 million below the FY
    2023 enacted level, Congress departed from a formerly steady trend of
    annual increases directed to State, local, and Tribal environmental
    agencies through STAG. State and Local Air Quality Management Grants
    under the STAG program--which provide important support to air agencies
    charged with protecting air quality and public health--have been
    subject to stagnant funding levels for more than a decade. Virtually no
    change was seen in enacted funding levels from FY 2014 through FY 2020;
    incremental increases from FY 2021 through FY 2023 brought the
    appropriated amount to almost 11 percent above FY 2013 levels; and FY
    2024 enacted funding levels are only 3 percent higher than they were a
    decade ago. Table 1 includes the enacted State and Local Air Quality
    Management Grants for FY 2014--FY 2024.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ H.R. 4366--Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (Public Law
    118-42). Including rescission of funds.

                     Table 1. FY 2014--FY 2024 Enacted State and Local Air Quality Management Grants

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        State & Local Air Quality Management Grants
                               Fiscal Year                                               (enacted)
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FY 2024..........................................................                               $235.922 million
    FY 2023..........................................................                               $249.038 million
    FY 2022..........................................................                               $231.391 million
    FY 2021..........................................................                               $229.500 million
    FY 2020..........................................................                               $228.219 million
    FY 2019..........................................................                               $228.219 million
    FY 2018..........................................................                               $228.219 million
    FY 2017..........................................................                               $228.219 million
    FY 2016..........................................................                               $228.219 million
    FY 2015..........................................................                               $228.219 million
    FY 2014..........................................................                               $228.219 million
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        In fact, most STAG funding for programs implemented by State,
    local, and Tribal air pollution control agencies saw a decrease or no
    change for FY 2024 compared to the FY 2023 enacted levels, including:

      --$90 million for diesel emissions (DERA) grants ($10 million below
            FY 2023 enacted);

      --$67.8 million for targeted airshed grants ($2.127 million below FY
            2023 enacted);

      --$7 million for wildfire smoke preparedness (equal to FY 2023
            enacted); and

      --$1.106 billion for categorical grants ($54.292 million below FY
            2023 enacted), including:

        --$235.922 million for State and local air quality management
                grants ($13.116 million below FY 2023 enacted);

        --$16.3 million for Tribal air quality management ($115,000 below
                FY 2023 enacted); and

        --No funding for multipurpose grants (no change from FY 2023
                funding levels).\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ See STAG funding tables included in the Interior, Environment,
    & Related Agencies Explanatory Statement (pg. 218-221).

        Contrary to lapses in appropriations, there has been a significant
    increase in the technically complex and resource-intensive work for
    agencies with delegated CAA authority, and increased funding is
    essential to meet the growing complexities of implementing air
    pollution control programs. This is clearly indicated in U.S. EPA's FY
    2025 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on
    Appropriations for the FY 2025 President's Budget, which States:
        The budget includes $1.465 billion for categorical grants, to
    directly support Tribal, State, and local partners. This represents an
    increase of $304.5 million above the FY 2024 [Annualized Continuing
    Resolution (ACR)] level to support our co-implementing partners in
    managing rising costs and advancing progress across core environmental
    programs. Of the total request, [$400.198] million will support the
    State and Local Air Quality Management Grants, an increase of $151.2
    million above the FY 2024 ACR level.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ U.S. EPA, FY 2025 Justification of Appropriation Estimates for
    the Committee on Appropriations, March 2024 (pg.18). See also U.S.
    EPA's ``FY 2025 EPA Budget in Brief'' (pg. 109).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        These grants provide funding which State and local air agencies use
    judiciously by strategically deploying resources, creating efficient
    programing and best practices, and relying on leadership and staff that
    are dedicated public servants. For the prevention and control of air
    pollution, agencies with delegated CAA authority:

      --Develop and update state implementation plans (SIPs) to attain/
            maintain National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
            improve visibility under the Regional Haze Program;

      --Serve as the Nation's primary air quality monitoring entities,
            manage emissions inventories, and perform photochemical and air
            dispersion modeling;

      --Implement Federal rules and standards for hazardous air pollutants,
            including case-by-case maximum achievable control technology
            (MACT) determinations;

      --Review, issue, and enforce air quality permits for a range of
            sources, from small businesses to industrial and commercial
            facilities;

      --Ensure facility compliance through inspection and enforcement
            oversight, including conducting more than 15,800 Full
            Compliance Evaluations (FCE) in 2023, compared to about 200
            FCEs conducted by U.S. EPA \7\;
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ U.S. EPA, Analyze Trends: State Air Dashboard. U.S. EPA defines
    an FCE as ``a comprehensive evaluation of the compliance status of the
    facility. It looks for all regulated pollutants at all regulated
    emission units, and it addresses the compliance status of each unit, as
    well as the facility's continuing ability to maintain compliance at
    each emission unit.'' Data accessed May 20, 2024.

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      --Hire, train, and retain qualified staff; and,

      --Lead public outreach and information campaigns, including
            forecasting air quality, responding to complaints, and
            conducting stakeholder engagement.

        State and local air agencies have led these efforts and continued
    to improve the Nation's air quality \8\ while administering
    progressively complicated and demanding operations that have had to
    accommodate growing inflation in expenses related to personnel, travel,
    equipment and building costs for monitoring sites. Budgetary challenges
    have also been compounded by the achievements of air pollution control
    agencies, as fees collected on a per-ton basis from major sources
    through the CAA Title V Operating Permit program have substantially
    decreased in revenue as the program meets its primary goal: driving
    emissions down to create better air quality.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ U.S. EPA, Air Quality--National Summary. See also: U.S. EPA,
    Our Nation's Air: Trends Through 2022, June 2023.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Administration's latest regulatory agenda indicated there were
    52 forthcoming regulatory actions from U.S. EPA's Office of Air and
    Radiation (OAR).\9\ Of these, 63 percent (33) are expected to be
    completed by the end of the 2024 Federal fiscal year, including 9
    major/economically significant regulations. Once finalized by U.S. EPA,
    State and local air agencies will be (or are already) at the forefront
    of implementation and planning for many of these rules. Apart from
    adopting and implementing these regulations, State and local air
    agencies will be responsible for associated permitting changes and
    engagement with communities, regulated industries, and other
    stakeholders in their jurisdictions. Of concern, State and local
    agencies have indicated difficulties hiring and retaining a qualified,
    technical, and experienced workforce to meet the growing complexities
    of air pollution control work.\10\ Current funding levels coupled with
    other resource constraints and expanding CAA obligations, make meeting
    core CAA responsibilities even more challenging.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ Fall 2023 Unified Agenda of Regulatory and Deregulatory
    Actions, released December 6, 2023. Excluding long- term actions.
        \10\ AAPCA, ``Staffing at State and Local Air Pollution Control
    Agencies,'' November 2023.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        From their on-the-ground expertise, State and local agencies
    understand that melding national environmental regulations with local
    priorities, economic strategies, and social needs requires significant
    resources. Increased funding for State and Local Air Quality Management
    Grants that adequately accounts for new and historic CAA mandates and
    increased responsibilities already imposed
        is critical for State and local air agency budgets as well as
    ensuring the cooperative federalism balance needed for successful
    environmental outcomes. Providing maximum flexibility in air agency
    grants enables programs to determine the best use for addressing air
    pollution control needs in their jurisdiction. Additional
    considerations that may affect State and local resources include how
    U.S. EPA alters the regional and state allocation formula for State and
    Local Air Quality Management Grants as well as maintaining funding for
    PM2.5 monitoring under CAA Section 103, rather than Section 105.\11\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ U.S. EPA's FY2023 and 2024 National Program Manager Guidance
    Monitoring Appendix States: ``Per appropriation language since the
    beginning of the PM2.5 monitoring program, EPA intends to continue to
    make grants available under Sec. 103 of the Clean Air Act to support
    PM2.5 monitoring activities. Should this appropriation language change,
    EPA will revisit this issue.''
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Thank you for your attention to this letter. AAPCA's State and
    local air agency members appreciate the recognition of your Committee
    in recent funding legislation and look forward to working with you as
    Congress develops its priorities for FY 2025 appropriations for U.S.
    EPA. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Morgan Dickie,
    Interim Executive Director, at mdickie@csg.org or (859) 244-8042.

        [This statement was submitted by E. Morgan Dickie, Interim
    Executive Director, AAPCA.]
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Association of California Water Agencies
        Chair Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski, members of the Committee,
    thank you for the opportunity to provide outside witness testimony on
    the Fiscal Year 2025 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    appropriations bill. This testimony is submitted on behalf of the
    Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA). ACWA is the largest
    statewide coalition of public water agencies in the country. Our more
    than 470 public agency members collectively are responsible for 90
    percent of the water delivered to communities, farms, and businesses in
    California.
                     environmental protection agency (epa)
        We respectfully request the subcommittee provide $2.75 billion for
    the EPA's Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and $2.75 billion
    for the Environmental Protection Agency's Drinking Water State
    Revolving Fund (DWSRF). The CWSRF is a vital program that finances
    infrastructure for public wastewater systems to improve water quality.
    The DWSRF is a highly successful program that helps publicly owned
    water systems invest in drinking water infrastructure and comply with
    Federal Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. Every state in the Nation
    benefits from CWSRF and DWSRF programs. Unfortunately, the
    Administration's request of $1.239 billion for the CWSRF program, and
    $1.126 billion for the DWSRF program is not sufficient to meet the
    demand for these highly successful programs.
        In addition, we respectfully encourage the subcommittee to allocate
    $100 million to the EPA Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act
    (WIFIA), this is $20 million above the Administration's budget request.
    Over the last 10 years the WIFIA program has become a important tool
    for investing in water infrastructure. The innovative program leverages
    public and private dollars. To date the program has provided $19
    billion in credit assistance which has helped finance over $43 billion
    in water infrastructure projects.
        An investment in water infrastructure is an investment in our
    Nation, its future, and its economy. Water infrastructure funding is a
    powerful economic driver and provides significant return on investment.
    Funding water infrastructure is not only a sound economic decision, but
    also an essential investment in the health of every American. We
    appreciate the subcommittee's efforts to invest in our Nation's water
    infrastructure.
                           department of the interior
        We also respectfully request the subcommittee provide at least $1.6
    billion for the Department of the Interior (DOI) Wildland Fire
    Management Program. This reflects an increase of approximately 14.4
    percent over the fiscal year 2024 Annualized Continuing Resolution and
    is consistent with the President's budget request. Funding for the DOI
    Wildland Fire Management program will help improve forest health across
    DOI lands benefiting millions of Americans. This funding will help
    protect communities, improve forest and watershed health, and
    importantly provide increased pay for the wildland firefighters that
    are on the front lines protecting communities.
        The Federal Government owns approximately 45 million acres of land
    in California making up over 45 percent of California's total land
    mass. Only two States, Alaska and Nevada, have more Federal land inside
    their boundaries than California. The management of Federal lands is
    critically important to ACWA's members as we work to provide safe,
    reliable, and affordable water to tens of millions of Americans in
    California.
        The management of Federal forested lands is especially important
    because healthy forests are necessary to ensure healthy watersheds.
    Years of drought combined with a significant increase in tree mortality
    have degraded forest health and increased the risk of catastrophic
    wildfire in vital headwater areas. ACWA's members and the State of
    California regularly partner with Federal agencies in efforts to
    address forest health needs. The DOI, which manages over 22 million
    acres of land in California, is an especially important partner in this
    effort. Providing robust funding for the DOI Wildland Fire Management
    Program will benefit communities in California and throughout the
    United Sates.
        Thank you very much for considering our perspective and please let
    us know if we can provide any additional information.

        [This statement was submitted by Ian Lyle, Director of Federal
    Relations, Association of California Water Agencies.]
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit recommendations for Fiscal
    Year 2025 (FY25) Congressional appropriations. The Association of Fish
    and Wildlife Agencies' (AFWA) mission, since our founding in 1902, is
    to protect and enable state fish and wildlife agencies (States) to
    exercise their statutory authority to conserve and manage the fish and
    wildlife within their borders. All 50 States, the District of Columbia,
    Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands are members.
        Further, we support and endorse appropriations recommendations that
    are submitted by regional associations of fish and wildlife agencies.
    While we offer justifications for our highest priority recommendations
    in the narrative for this testimony, please refer to table 1.1 provided
    on pages 3-4 for the remainder of our recommendations, for which we
    would be glad to provide further information.
                 united states fish and wildlife service (fws)
        Aquatic Habitat, Assessments, Restoration, and Species
    Conservation--We support no less than (NLT) funding at FY23 levels for
    Fish and Aquatic Conservation and support the FWS' FY25 budget request
    of $7.6 million for the National Fish Habitat Action Plan (NFHP), which
    includes funding for the NFHP grant program and $400,000 for the FWS to
    provide scientific and technical assistance support to the program.
    Further, we respectfully request full funding for the USGS, USFS, EPA,
    and NOAA to provide scientific and technical assistance to the program,
    as well as the inclusion of report language recommending that the USGS,
    USFS, EPA, and NOAA each provide the full authorized level of $400,000
    for scientific and technical assistance for the NFHP as authorized
    under Public Law 116-188. With full funding at congressionally
    authorized levels, this would ensure the NFHP's continued ability to
    advance aquatic conservation projects that benefit all Americans.
    National Fish Hatchery Systems (NFHS) Operations is a high priority,
    and we recommend no less than FY23 funding levels.
        State and Tribal Wildlife Grants and Partnership Grants--The State
    and Tribal Wildlife Grants program is the only Federal program
    available to States to leverage non-federal funds to conserve over
    12,000 state Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) identified in
    congressionally-required State Wildlife Action Plans to prevent them
    from becoming threatened or endangered. Funding for the State and
    Tribal Wildlife Grant program was cut by 2% in FY24, has been
    relatively flat since FY21, and remains 20% below FY10 funding levels
        As costs rise due to inflation, state, territorial, and Tribal fish
    and wildlife agencies are seeing an erosion in their ability to
    proactively conserve rare and declining fish and wildlife which is
    critical to the prevention and recovery of endangered species. This
    investment in voluntary, proactive, and state-led conservation is
    needed now to accelerate conservation of declining species to preclude
    an increase in Federal expenditures in the future under the Endangered
    Species Act (ESA). AFWA recommends the highest possible funding for the
    State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program in FY25 and supports enactment
    of legislation consistent with the Recovering America's Wildlife Act as
    introduced in the 117th Congress.
        AFWA also recommends NLT $60 million for the North American
    Wetlands Conservation Fund to conserve vital wetlands and other
    habitats important to migratory birds and other wildlife. Since 1991,
    the NAWCA program has been a highly popular and successful conservation
    effort that protects and restores wetlands and associated habitats. It
    has leveraged more than $4 billion to benefit more than 31 million
    acres from 3,200 projects in the U.S., Canada, Mexico, contributing to
    the long-term recovery of many wetland-dependent birds. We also
    recommend full funding at $15 million for the Grant Program for Losses
    of Livestock Due to Federally Protected Species, as authorized by
    Public Law 116-188.
        Science Applications--USFWS' Science Applications (SA) program has
    evolved into an important collaborator with state fish and wildlife
    agencies, and we request NLT $55M for SA in FY25, including $27.274
    million for Science Partnerships. SA provides science, landscape
    design, and coordination capacity for the co-development of regional
    conservation blueprints and provides support for regional fish and
    wildlife association landscape conservation collaboratives. This work
    is improving the efficiency and effectiveness of State-based fish and
    wildlife conservation by facilitating work at landscape scales. SA also
    supports other state priorities including revision of State Wildlife
    Action Plans, at-risk species conservation, grassland and pollinator
    conservation, climate adaptation, and One Health. Chronic Wasting
    Disease (CWD) is a critical focus for Science Support, and we request
    robust funding for USFWS to fulfill CWD responsibilities, including
    implementation of the Interstate Action Plan, prioritized research,
    monitoring, and studies of CWD in wild, free-ranging deer species.
        Migratory Bird Management (MBM)--We support robust funding for MBM,
    including funding for Conservation and Monitoring at NLT $53 million.
    This element provides critical conservation needs for the Program,
    including by supporting partnerships, working groups, and bird
    conservation planning efforts. This element also supports key needs for
    population monitoring and surveys, research, technical assistance and
    guidance, species conflict reduction. We recommend funding of the
    Migratory Bird Joint Ventures at $25 million. The network of Migratory
    Bird Joint Ventures provides highly valuable partnerships that bring
    together stakeholders to focus on landscape-level bird conservation
    delivery. Since 1986, partners have invested more than $4.5 billion in
    conserving 27 million acres to benefit birds and people.
        To help meet the Program's responsibilities for permitting,
    including under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald and Golden Eagle
    Protection Act, at least $13.3 million is needed for staff capacity for
    the Permits element, along with further support for the ePermits
    program, to help promote efficient, modernized, and coordinated
    permitting efforts, including to address incidental take. We also
    recommend NLT $1.12 million for the Duck Stamp program, which has
    raised more than $1 billion in funding since its inception, which has
    been invested back into wetland habitat conservation to benefit the
    National Wildlife Refuge System and the birds it supports.
                     united states geologial survey (usgs)
        Ecosystems--We respectfully request no less than $36 million for
    the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Program (CRU) in FY24.
    This request is a step towards ensuring the program has more of the
    funding it needs to robustly implement its mission in support of
    partners and their fish and wildlife science needs. Additional funds
    would enable USGS to address vacancies across the units and address the
    safety equipment and training backlog. The core of the CRU program are
    the staff scientists. Each unit typically has 3 scientists, and there
    are >120 scientist positions across the program. Funds are needed to
    account for growth in existing staff salaries, fill existing and
    anticipated vacancies, and fill positions at newly established units to
    fulfil Federal commitments to cooperators. We support the National
    Cooperators' Coalition's testimony on CRUs.
        BUREAU OF LAND MANAGMENT (BLM)--AFWA supports the administration's
    request of $170.9 million for the BLM's Wild Horse and Burro (WHB)
    Program but recognizes that the need is much higher and recommends
    restoring BLM's authority for sale and transfer of WHB. BLM estimates
    there are over 73,500 WHB across habitats with a total appropriate
    management level of less than 27,000. The harm inflicted on public
    lands from excess wild horses and burros compounds yearly as on-range
    population growth rates and off-range holding costs outstrip the BLM's
    ability to manage herds. Further, there are 62,000 horses and burros in
    off-range holding facilities at a taxpayer expense exceeding $100
    million annually.
        UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE (USFS)--AFWA recommends that USFS
    begin to receive dedicated funding for WHB management within a newly
    specified line-item, as funds are currently reallocated internally from
    other budgets. While USFS is responsible for 20% of the Nation's WHB,
    we understand that a gradual ramp-up in funds will be necessary but
    encourage that the 80/20 ratio eventually be reflected for WHB
    appropriations across BLM and USFS.

                                               TABLE 1.1--OTHER PRIORITIES

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Agency                       Program Area            Suballocation             FY25 Request
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    USFWS                                  Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund                   Robust
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Multinational Species Conservation Fund                          NLT FY23
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Neotropical Migratory                      $6.5M
                                                                     Bird Conservation Fund.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Habitat Conservation                                             NLT FY23
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Partners for Fish and                   NLT $79M
                                                                     Wildlife.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           National Wildlife Refuge System                                 $602.331M
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Delaware River Basin/                     Robust
                                                                     Klamath Basin/
                                                                     Chesapeake Bay/
                                                                     Everglades/Great Lakes.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Aquatic Animal Drug                        $1.2M
                                                                     Approval Partnership.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fish Health Centers/                      Robust
                                                                     Fish Technology
                                                                     Centers/Wild Fish
                                                                     Health Survey/Mass
                                                                     Marking Program.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Great Lakes/Pac                         NLT FY23
                                                                     Northwest Mass Marking
                                                                     Initiative.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Aquatic Invasive Species and Law Enforcement      .......................
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Aquatic Nuisance               NLT FY23; without
                                                                     Species--State           compromising other ANS
                                                                     Management Plan
                                                                     Implementation.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Mississippi River--       NLT FY21; continuation
                                                                     Invasive Carp           of FY21 report language
                                                                     Management/Control
                                                                     Plan.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Combat Wildlife                        Increased
                                                                     Trafficking.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BLM                                    Management of Lands and Resources                                  Robust
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Wildlife and Aquatic Habitat Management                          NLT FY23
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Sage Grouse/Rangeland                  Increased
                                                                     Improvement/Bighorn
                                                                     Sheep Disease
                                                                     Prevention.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Wildlife Habitat                       Increased
                                                                     Management--Combat
                                                                     Invasive Species.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    OSMRE                                  Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund                                    Robust
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    USFS                                   Regulation and Technology                                           Level
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Wildland Fire Management                                           Robust
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Wildfire Suppression Operations Reserve Fund                    Increased
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           State and Private Forestry                                          $328M
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Forest Stewardship                      Plus $1M
                                                                     Program.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           National Forest System                                              $252M
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Hazardous Fuels Management                                         Robust
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    USGS                                   Water Resources                                                    Robust
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Groundwater and                           Robust
                                                                     Streamflow Information
                                                                     Program.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Federal Priority                            $33M
                                                                     Streamgages.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Cooperative Matching                        $68M
                                                                     Funds.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Streamgage Support.....                     $33M
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Next Generation Water                       $35M
                                                                     Observing System.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    National Water Quality                  NLT FY21
                                                                     Program.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Harmful Algal Bloom                          $2M
                                                                     Research.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Ecosystems                                                          $394M
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Land Management                          $60.55M
                                                                     Research Program.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Migration Corridor                           $5M
                                                                     Research.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Species Management                       $66.85M
                                                                     Research Program.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Climate Adaptation                        $69.3M
                                                                     Science Center.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Biological Threats and                  $45.446M
                                                                     Invasive Species
                                                                     Research.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Invasive Carp Research.                  $10.62M
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    EPA                                    Geographic Programs                                              NLT FY23
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Great Lakes Restoration                   Robust
                                                                     Initiative.
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund/Nonpoint                     Robust
                                            Source Grants/Pollution Control Grants
                                          --------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           National Estuaries Program, Beach/Fish Safety                    NLT FY23
                                            Program
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        [This statement was submitted by Ronald J. Regan, Executive
    Director.]
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums
        Thank you Chairman Merkley and Ranking Member Murkowski for the
    opportunity to submit testimony about the priorities of the Association
    of Zoos and Aquariums for Fiscal Year 2025. My name is Dan Ashe, and I
    am the President and CEO of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums
    (AZA). Founded in 1924, the AZA is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization
    dedicated to ensuring that our more than 250 accredited zoos and
    aquariums reflect the global standard of excellence in animal care and
    welfare, conservation, education, science, and guest experience. AZA's
    member facilities are examples of how economic and environmental
    prosperity can work hand-in-hand. Our members welcome nearly 200
    million visitors annually, generating more than $22 billion in economic
    activity, and supporting more than 198,000 jobs across the country.
    They also contribute well over $250 million in direct support for field
    conservation each year. They support work in 119 countries benefiting
    more than 998 species and subspecies, of which 232 are listed under the
    Endangered Species Act (ESA).
        At the heart of AZA is its mandatory accreditation requirement,
    which assures that only those zoos and aquariums--like Oregon Zoo--that
    are committed to meeting the world's highest standards can become
    members. The independent and objective AZA accreditation process
    includes self-evaluation, rigorous on-site inspection, and critical
    peer review. Our standards are publicly available and are continuously
    evolving and improving as we learn more about the needs of the animals
    in our care. Once earned, AZA accreditation confers best-in-class
    status, an important message for local, State, and Federal Governments
    and the visiting public. All AZA members are accredited every 5 years,
    ensuring that AZA members continue to grow as standards improve. AZA
    accreditation is the global gold standard for modern zoological
    facilities.
        AZA and its members are leaders, partners, and participants in
    species conservation. We work in concert with Congress, the Federal
    agencies, conservation organizations, State governments, the private
    sector, and the general public to conserve our wildlife heritage. AZA's
    Wildlife Trafficking Alliance is a coalition of private companies, non-
    profit organizations, and AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums working
    closely with U.S. government agencies to combat wildlife trafficking
    worldwide. AZA and its member facilities have long-standing
    partnerships with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National
    Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and the U.S. Department
    of Agriculture (USDA). Our collaborative efforts have focused on:

      --Engaging in endangered species recovery and reintroduction,
            including some of the most successful and heralded recovery
            efforts, such as California condor, black-footed ferret,
            Florida manatee, and southern sea otter;

      --Carrying out rescue, rehabilitation, and confiscation of tens of
            thousands of animals in collaboration with Federal and State
            agencies, including USFWS, to the benefit of many threatened
            and endangered species;

      --Supporting conservation domestically and internationally through
            multinational species conservation funds and state wildlife
            grants; and

      --Partnering with USFWS, the National Park Service and others on
            migratory birds, freshwater and saltwater fisheries, national
            marine sanctuaries, illegal wildlife trade, amphibians, and
            invasive species.

        I am submitting testimony in support of the following key programs
    funded through the annual Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    appropriations bill.
                     u.s. fish and wildlife service budget
        The 198,000 jobs and $22 billion in economic contributions, as well
    as the vital conservation work supported by AZA-accredited facilities
    depends on adequate USFWS staff levels. During the past several years,
    lengthy permitting delays have become the rule, rather than the
    exception. Often, these delays put the welfare of animals and crucial
    conservation projects at jeopardy. They are a serious hinderance to
    AZA's science-based conservation breeding programs that require animals
    to be moved in an efficient, humane, and timely manner. This is
    particularly acute and serious within the International Affairs program
    (Management and Scientific Authorities). AZA members are keenly
    interested in expanding their critical work in support of rescue,
    rehabilitation, and reintroduction of threatened and endangered
    species, care and placement of live confiscated wildlife seized at
    ports and borders, and on scientific and conservation research on
    species like polar bears in AZA facilities. The success of these
    important initiatives depends on much improved permitting from USFWS.
        For this reason, we request $31 million in Fiscal Year 2025 for the
    International Affairs program at USFWS. We also ask that the
    subcommittee include specific direction for the Management and
    Scientific Authority to enter into a Memorandum of Agreement, and hire
    and support a dedicated and qualified employee to facilitate zoo and
    aquarium permitting.
        We also request $110.8 million in Fiscal Year 2025 for the Office
    of Law Enforcement. As we battle the global epidemic of wildlife
    trafficking, and as the USFWS continues to improve detection and
    interruption of trafficking routes and syndicates, confiscated animals
    are the casualties. They are the unfortunate refugees from this crisis
    and need to be placed, and often held for lengthy periods, as evidence.
    Their care often requires very specialized and expensive expertise.
        Increasingly, USFWS looks to AZA and its members for this
    assistance. In response to this need, AZA has partnered with USFWS to
    launch the Wildlife Confiscations Network, a new conservation
    initiative to create a coalition of reputable and trusted animal care
    facilities with capacity to provide immediate medical care and housing
    for wildlife that are trafficked through U.S. ports of entry. The
    Wildlife Confiscations Network currently operates as a pilot project in
    Southern California. Expanding the Wildlife Confiscations Network
    nationwide will allow wildlife law enforcement across the country to
    concentrate on their core functions: the investigation and prosecution
    of criminals.
           endangered species recovery and recovery challenge grants
        We express our gratitude for the subcommittee's continued support
    for endangered species through the Recovery account and working with
    our partners at USFWS to create the Endangered Species Recovery
    Challenge Grant program in Fiscal Year 2018. This program recognizes
    the critically important role of nonprofit partners to the Service's
    endangered species recovery efforts, and it is a mechanism, through
    merit-based matching grants, to provide funding in a more commensurate
    manner to support and enhance these efforts. Recovery Challenge Grants
    are limited to nonprofit organizations implementing the highest
    priority recovery actions identified in recovery plans, such as for
    genetically sound breeding, rearing, and reintroduction programs.
        We urge you to continue to provide robust funding for endangered
    species recovery and prioritize longstanding recovery efforts in which
    existing resources and partner expertise can be most effectively
    leveraged. Specifically, we are requesting an increase in funding for
    the Recovery Challenge Grant program to at least $12 million in Fiscal
    Year 2025. This funding will power recovery partnerships and inspire
    their work to better recover critically endangered species.
        Additionally, we urge you to provide at least level funding of $2.3
    million in Fiscal Year 2025 for the John H. Prescott Marine Mammal
    Rescue and Response Grant Program. With increasing numbers of marine
    mammal strandings, the Prescott Program provides competitive grants to
    support the rescue and rehabilitation of marine mammals.
                    multinational species conservation funds
        AZA supports the inclusion of $30 million for the Multinational
    Species Conservation Funds (MSCF) administered by USFWS. These programs
    support public-private partnerships that conserve wild tigers, Asian
    and African elephants, rhinos, great apes, freshwater turtles,
    tortoises, and marine turtles in their native habitats. Through the
    MSCF programs, the United States supplements the efforts of developing
    countries that are struggling to balance the needs of their human
    populations and endemic wildlife. These programs help to sustain
    wildlife populations, address threats such as poaching and illegal
    trade, reduce human-wildlife conflict, and protect essential habitat.
    USFWS is seen as a global conservation leader in large part due to its
    commitment to international conservation efforts. This Federal program
    supports AZA-accredited facilities in their field conservation efforts
    and partnerships with USFWS.
                             endangered species act
        AZA and its members enthusiastically support the ESA, which has
    saved hundreds of listed species from extinction. Like AZA
    accreditation, the ESA is the global ``gold standard.'' It reflects our
    National commitment to species and ecosystem conservation, and it is
    working. Since its inception in 1973, it has prevented the extinction
    of 99% of the species it protects. However, we know that the challenges
    facing our planet in the 21st century are as complex as they are
    urgent. Scientists estimate that the total number of mammals, birds,
    reptiles, amphibians, and fish has declined by more than 50% since
    1970, and many believe, including me, that we are living amidst the
    planet's sixth mass extinction. Climate change is accelerating this
    crisis. Without critical intervention today, we are facing the very
    real possibility of losing some of our planet's most magnificent
    creatures such as lions, cheetahs, elephants, gorillas, sea turtles,
    and sharks.
        AZA-accredited facilities have a unique opportunity and
    responsibility to help others understand this crisis. It is our
    obligation--to these animals and to all life on earth--to take bold
    action now to protect our planet's biodiversity. One achievement that
    has gone unnoticed by most people is that zoos and aquariums have
    played a significant role in bringing over 25 species, including
    California condor, Florida manatee, and black-footed ferret, back from
    the brink of extinction.
        Although we have made significant progress in saving endangered
    species, this work is far from done. Species protection and
    conservation requires long-term commitment by all of us. It is through
    the ongoing work related to species recovery plans that we will
    conserve these species for future generations. The AZA and its members
    support the ESA, and we encourage you to assure that the agencies
    responsible for carrying out the mandates of the act receive the
    necessary funding and human resource capacity to succeed.
        AZA and its members look forward to continuing to work with this
    subcommittee and Congress to assure that as a nation we are devoting
    the necessary resources to conserve wildlife at home and globally.
    Thank you.

        [This statement was submitted by Dan Ashe, President and CEO
    Association of Zoos and Aquariums.]
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers
        On behalf of Backcountry Hunters & Anglers (BHA), the voice for our
    wild public lands, waters, and wildlife, I write in support of robust
    funding levels and critical funding increases for many key programs
    within the fiscal year 2025 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    Appropriations bill. Programs within your subcommittee directly drive
    important economies related to our Nation's hunting, fishing and
    outdoor recreation industries with millions of Americans annually
    generating $1.1 trillion.
        As we enter the FY2025 appropriations cycle, BHA encourages this
    subcommittee to invest in the natural resource programs within the U.S.
    Department of Interior and the U.S. Forest Service that sustain fish
    and wildlife habitat, drive hunting and fishing opportunities, and
    enhance public access. BHA is motivated to work with you and the
    authorizing committees on identifying strategic funding solutions that
    benefit our public lands and waters for future generations of hunters
    and anglers.
                      doi land and water conservation fund
        BHA strongly supported the passage of the Great American Outdoors
    Act which permanently and fully funded the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund (LWCF). The $900 million floor for LWCF doesn't burden taxpayers
    and in fact expands economic support to rural communities, enhances
    public recreational access, and conserves quality fish and wildlife
    habitats.
        BHA supports the allocation of an additional $450 million in
    discretionary funding to take advantage of the tremendous opportunities
    to leverage funding and prioritize projects with partners in the land
    trust community that would eliminate landlocked public lands currently
    closed to hunters and anglers. We specifically support the use of funds
    to address projects that consolidate fragmented ownership of Federal
    public lands, connect wildlife corridors, enhance recreational access
    in addition to complementing State-based investments in natural
    resource management.
                doi abandoned hardrock mine reclamation funding
        BHA supports funding levels of at least $287 million to be provided
    for the abandoned hardrock mine reclamation program created by Sec.
    40704 of the Infrastructure, Investment, and Jobs Act. It is critical
    that this program receive funding to address the estimated 500,000
    abandoned hardrock mines in the West. According to the Government
    Accountability Office, Federal agencies spent, on average, about $287
    million annually from 2008 through 2017 identifying, cleaning up, and
    monitoring abandoned hardrock mine sites. However, at this rate it
    would still take nearly two centuries to clean up all our Nation's
    abandoned mines which represent the largest single source of pollution
    with 40% of Western headwaters contaminated by mine tailings and
    runoff.
                               blm land resources
        BHA supports an increase in funding levels to $317 million for the
    Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Land Resources subaccount. This
    subaccount includes funding for BLM's high priority planning efforts
    across more than 247 million acres of land the agency manages,
    including the initiation of new resource management plans, address the
    need for planning updates and amendments, and implementation
    strategies. It is essential to ensure that BLM has the resources
    necessary to integrate the most recent State and Federal fish and
    wildlife science, outdoor recreation needs, and balancing energy
    development and resource extraction uses within the planning process.
    We recommend an additional increase of $5 million that would be
    directed to Resource Management Planning budgets for RMP revisions,
    amendments, and evaluation.
                  blm wildlife and aquatic habitat management
        BHA supports an increase in funding levels to $213 million for the
    BLM Wildlife and Aquatic Habitat Management account. The work conducted
    through this account supports the maintenance, restoration, and
    enhancement of fish, wildlife, and their habitats on BLM administered
    public lands. Important BLM activities such as conducting inventories
    of fish and wildlife resources and developing cooperative management
    plans while providing for responsible recreation and commercial uses
    are critically important for BLM's ongoing work with state fish and
    wildlife agencies and local communities across the West.
                           blm wild horses and burros
        BHA supports an increase in funding levels to $170 million for the
    BLM's Wild Horse and Burro Program as current funding does not provide
    enough resources for control efforts to outpace population growth
    rates. Additionally, we recommend that funds no longer be borrowed from
    other budget line items to fund the program. The BLM estimates there
    are over 73,000 wild horses and burros across habitats with a total
    appropriate management level of less than 27,000. The harm inflicted on
    public lands from excess wild horses and burros compounds yearly as on-
    range population growth rates and off-range holding costs outstrip the
    BLM's ability to manage herds.
                        greater sage-grouse conservation
        BHA supports the removal of the harmful sage-grouse rider that
    compromises the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) ability to
    utilize important conservation tools within the Endangered Species Act
    should populations continue to decline. Greater sage-grouse habitat has
    experienced concerning degrees of fragmentation and degradation across
    the West and new planning from the BLM would build on historic
    collaborative efforts for conservation plans tailored to 11 States
    across nearly 70 million acres of sagebrush steppe. In turn, the
    conservation of sage-grouse habitat will provide direct benefits for
    species such as mule deer, pronghorn, and elk. This rider ties the
    hands of wildlife managers across the country and threatens the
    livelihood of rural communities that depend on sagebrush country for
    economic stability. BHA encourages you to oppose efforts to include any
    limiting sage-grouse rider language in FY25 appropriations bills.
                 usfws north american wetlands conservation act
        BHA supports funding the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund
    at its fully authorized amount of $60 million. This one-of-a-kind
    program leverages 1:4 ratio in contributions from nonfederal partners
    to restore migratory birds and other wildlife habitat within FWS
    allocations. To date NAWCA has already conserved more than 30 million
    acres of wetland habitat to the benefit of waterfowl enthusiasts
    nationwide.
             usfws national fish habitat action plan & partnerships
        This USFWS account funds the National Fish Habitat Partnership, a
    coalition of outdoor, hunting, angling, industry, and other
    conservation organizations, that work together to address the loss and
    depletion of fish habitat in critical waterways throughout America. BHA
    supports funding this partnership at its fully authorized amount of
    $7.2 million to further water restoration efforts across our country.
                     usfws national wildlife refuge system
        BHA supports an increase in funding levels to $602 million for the
    USFWS National Wildlife Refuge System's (NWRS) Operations and
    Maintenance account. Adjusting for inflation, this level of funding is
    necessary to return to the level established for operations more than a
    decade ago. The NWRS currently allows hunting on 436 wildlife refuge
    units and fishing on 378. Additionally, BHA supports the dedication of
    $10 million to complete Comprehensive Conservation Plans, 40% of which
    are outdated despite the requirement by law to be updated every 15
    years.
                  usfws partners for fish and wildlife program
        BHA supports an increase in funding levels to $68 million for the
    Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. This program that provides
    technical and financial assistance to private landowners and help
    implement critical projects that restore grasslands, wetlands, and
    other habitats important to wildlife species such as grouse,
    canvasbacks, and mule deer.
               usfws neotropical migratory bird conservation fund
        BHA supports continuing funding levels of $5 million for the
    Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund. This competitive grant
    program benefits more than 3.7 million acres of habitat, promoting
    long-term conservation of neotropical migratory birds through partner-
    based conservation and energizing local, on-the-ground conservation
    efforts through their migratory life cycles across North and South
    America.
                      usfws state & tribal wildlife grants
        BHA supports an increase in funding levels to $82 million for USFWS
    State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. This will provide state fish and
    wildlife management agencies the resources they need to continue
    managing and restoring critical habitats for species at risk of
    becoming endangered. In doing so the program facilitates collaboration
    between state, Tribal and Federal interests to invest in conservation
    efforts that prevent more expensive management costs in the future.
                          usfs legacy roads and trails
        BHA supports robust funding for the U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
    Legacy Roads and Trails Program. This will ensure major contributions
    to improve water quality and aquatic habitat while making USFS roads
    and trails more durable through road and trail repair and maintenance,
    necessary road decommissioning, and removal of fish passage barriers.
    This program creates important recreation and conservation jobs across
    the Nation and saves America's taxpayers millions in road maintenance
    costs.
                          usfs wild horses and burros
        BHA supports robust, dedicated funding for Wild Horse and Burro
    management within a newly specified USFS line-item, as funds are
    currently reallocated internally from other budgets. As USFS is
    responsible for 20% of the Nation's wild horses and burros, we
    recommend that the 80/20 ratio is continued for these appropriations
    across BLM and USFS.
        While we understand the need to be fiscally responsible with
    taxpayer dollars, we believe that conservation programs are key
    economic drivers, providing large returns on investment in addition to
    ensuring that America has clean drinking water. Therefore, we ask you
    to support stable, annual funding for our Nation's public land and
    waters to support healthy communities and habitat for fish and
    wildlife.
        Thank you for your consideration of Backcountry Hunters & Angler's
    fiscal year 2025 recommendations for the Interior, Environment, and
    Related Agencies Appropriations bill.

        [This statement was submitted by Kaden McArthur, Government
    Relations Manager, Backcountry Hunters & Anglers.]
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation
                                recommendations
    1.Provide full funding and advance appropriations for the Indian Health
    Service (IHS)
    2. Reduce dependence on competitive grants for Indian Country
    3. Permanently exempt the IHS from cuts, sequestrations, and
    rescissions
    4. Ensure mandatory funding for Contract Support Costs (CSC) and
    section 105(l) leases.
    5. Amend Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
    (ISDEAA) to clarify CSC provisions.
    6. Fund Critical Infrastructure investments for the IHS.
    7. Increase funding and extend self-governance to the Special Diabetes
    Program for Indians.
    8. Increase funding for behavioral and mental health programs.
        Introduction. Thank you, Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member
    Murkowski, and Members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to share
    our funding priorities for FY 2025. My name is Robert Clark and I am
    the President/CEO of the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC).
    BBAHC was created in 1973 to provide health care services to Alaska
    Natives of Southwest Alaska. We began operating and managing the
    Kanakanak Hospital and the Bristol Bay Service Unit for the IHS in 1980
    as the first Tribal organization to do so under ISDEAA. BBAHC is a co-
    signer to the Alaska Tribal Health Compact with the IHS under the
    ISDEAA and is now responsible for providing and promoting health care
    to the people of twenty-eight Alaska Native Villages.
        We are grateful for the historic investments Congress has made in
    the Indian health system in recent years via the CARES Act, American
    Rescue Plan Act, and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The direct funding
    model and successful implementation of these laws prove that when
    Tribal sovereignty is honored, Tribal communities thrive. We would also
    like to thank this subcommittee for its bipartisan effort to protect
    the IHS from cuts during the 2024 appropriations process. Furthermore,
    we urge you to remember that Congress' trust and treaty responsibility
    to provide for the health and wellbeing of Tribal Nations exists
    irrespective of any self-imposed budgetary caps. It is imperative that
    this subcommittee appropriate the full amounts necessary to fulfill its
    obligations. To that end, I offer the following recommendations for
    your consideration for FY 2025 appropriations for the IHS.
        Provide Full Funding for the Indian Health Service: The IHS and its
    Tribal partners under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act strive to provide Tribal people with access to high
    quality and comprehensive medical services, in line with the Federal
    Government's trust and treaty obligations. However, chronic
    underfunding of the Indian health system has had detrimental impacts on
    our communities. Alaska Natives are disproportionately affected by
    obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, substance-use disorder and
    other largely preventable conditions. We therefore urge the
    subcommittee to work towards full and mandatory funding for the IHS, in
    line with the IHS Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup.
        The Workgroup has calculated it will take $54 billion to fully-fund
    the IHS. We understand that this represents a dramatic increase in
    funding; however, it is essential that Congress address the true needs
    of the Indian health system. We support their full request and
    reiterate the following four priorities for program expansion as
    follows:

    1) Hospitals and Clinics: $13.6 billion
    2) Mental Health: $4.5 billion
    3) Alcohol & Substance Abuse: $4.9 billion
    4) Dental Services: $3.2 billion

        Continued Support for Advance Appropriations for IHS: If full,
    mandatory appropriations cannot be achieved for FY 2025, we continue to
    support advance appropriations for the IHS in the short-term. This
    year's tumultuous appropriations cycle clearly demonstrates why advance
    appropriations are critical-IHS clinical services remained continuous
    throughout the volatile political process. We urge the subcommittee to
    extend advance appropriations to all IHS accounts, including Electronic
    Health Records Modernization, Health Care Facilities Construction, and
    Sanitation Facilities Construction for FY 2026.
        Reduce Dependence on Federal Grants: We also support moving away
    from competitive grants for Federal funding mechanisms. Grants unfairly
    pit Tribes and Tribal organizations against each other for resources we
    are all entitled to. The Federal trust responsibility does not require
    that we jump through a myriad of hoops and onerous applications to see
    that services are provided to our people. Too often, Indian County is
    under-resourced to apply for Federal grants and comply with their
    reporting requirements. Our staff must divert time to apply and report,
    thereby diluting the usefulness of the resources. Instead, we request
    wide-spread, formula-based funding across all programs. Tribes and
    Tribal organizations must also be granted the flexibility needed to
    respond to the specific needs of their own communities, not those
    prescribed by Federal grants. This also means appropriating enough
    resources so funds are provided in meaningful amounts across all Tribes
    and Tribal organizations. We join other Tribal leaders in calling for
    broad based funding for Indian Country.
        Permanently Exempt the IHS from Cuts, Sequestrations, and
    Rescissions: As demonstrated above, the Indian health system is
    chronically underfunded, with current appropriations sitting around
    one-seventh of need. Nevertheless, Congress routinely threatens and
    enacts additional budget cuts, sequestrations, and rescissions
    affecting the IHS. As recently as FY 2024, this Congress rescinded $350
    million marked for public health infrastructure from the IHS.
    Furthermore, the IHS is the only federally funded services providing
    direct patient care not exempt from sequestration.
        We remind this subcommittee again that its trust obligations to
    Tribal Nations exist regardless of any self-imposed budget control
    measures. In fact, the IHS budget remains so small in comparison to the
    National budget that cuts, rescissions, and sequestrations do not
    result in any meaningful savings in the National debt, but they do
    devastate Tribes and their citizens. We urge Congress to ensure that
    any budget cuts, whether automatic or explicit, hold the Indian health
    system harmless.
        Mandatory Funding for Contract Support Costs and 105(l) lease
    payments: We appreciate the subcommittee's commitment to ensuring that
    CSC and section 105(l) lease payments are fully funded. However, these
    line items continue to take up a larger and larger percentage of the
    IHS discretionary budget, thereby leaving little room to expand other
    services given tight budget environment. We strongly agree with the
    subcommittee's words in the explanatory statement for the Further
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Public Law 116-94) regarding
    105(l) costs which said, in part: ``Obligations of this nature are
    typically addressed through mandatory spending, but in this case since
    they fall under discretionary spending, they are impacting all other
    programs funded under the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill,
    including other equally important Tribal programs.''
        Therefore, we ask you to continue to advocate with your colleagues
    on authorizing committees to enact mandatory appropriations for CSC and
    105(l) lease costs. Doing so will ensure that other areas of the IHS
    budget are held harmless by these costs and true increases in critical
    services line items can move forward. This will enhance care for Tribal
    patients and reduce health disparities.
        Amend ISDEAA to Clarify CSC provisions. We also request that the
    committee consider amending the ISDEAA to clarify that when agency
    funding paid to a Tribe for program operations is insufficient for
    contract and compact administration, CSC will remain available to cover
    the difference. In the recent court decision Cook Inlet Tribal Council,
    Inc. v. Dotomain,\1\ a Federal appeals court held that costs for
    activities normally carried out by IHS are ineligible for payment as
    CSC-even if IHS transfers insufficient, or even no, funding for these
    activities in the Secretarial amount. Under this new ruling, if
    facility costs are higher for a Tribe or Tribal Health Program than for
    IHS, the former is forced to cover the difference by diverting scarce
    program dollars. Recently, this serious misinterpretation of the ISDEAA
    that has been applied to one Tribal organization resulting in a 90%
    reduction of CSC reimbursement threatens Tribal self-governance and
    self-determination. Therefore, we call upon Congress to provide a
    legislative fix to clarify the intent on Congress for this matter, and
    ensure consistency with precedent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Inc. v. Dotomain, 10 F.4th 892 (D.C.
    Cir. 2021).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Fully fund critical infrastructure investments: We were
    disappointed to see that this subcommittee approved cuts to Electronic
    Health Records Modernization, Health Care Facilities Construction, and
    Sanitation Facilities Construction in FY 2024. The Indian health
    system's infrastructure is among the oldest and most dilapidated in the
    country. This is especially true in Alaska, where more than half of
    homes in thirty-one Alaska Native communities lack proper sanitation
    infrastructure. Additionally, we continue to experience significant
    challenges finding adequate housing for staffing for health
    professionals in our community. As you know, health staffing shortages
    across the Indian health system are dire, and providing adequate living
    spaces for professionals is directly linked with our ability to recruit
    and retain staff.
        Therefore, we request that this subcommittee restore and fully-fund
    these accounts. To implement an interoperable Electronic Health Records
    and telehealth system, $801 million is needed for FY 2025. As you are
    aware, this investment is especially critical as the Veterans'
    Administration and Department of Defense move to modernize their
    systems. It is also critical that Congress make significant investments
    in Health Care Facilities Construction and Sanitation Facilities
    Construction. IHS and Tribal facilities are severely outdated, and we
    appreciate Congress' investment in IHS sanitation facilities through
    the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Yet, with a multi-billion-dollar
    backlog and growing inflation, funding to close out the list is not
    keeping pace with need. This creates situations where facilities are
    unfit and unsafe. Therefore, consistent with the Workgroup's request,
    we recommend $2.8 billion for Health Care Facilities Construction and
    Equipment and $2.2 billion for Sanitation Facilities Construction in FY
    2025.
        Extend Self-Governance Funding Options to the Special Diabetes
    Program for Indians (SDPI) and increase funding to $250 million/year.
    While we understand that SDPI is not under the jurisdiction of the
    subcommittee, we appreciate that Congress included a short-term
    extension of SDPI in FY 2024 appropriations at a $160 million
    annualized rate. We recognize that this is the first increase for SDPI
    in two decades. Communities like ours across Indian Country rely on
    SDPI resources to address the alarming rates of diabetes and diabetes-
    related health complications among our people. SDPI's success rests in
    the flexibility of its program structure that allows for the
    incorporation of culture and local needs into its services. Consistent
    with this model, Congress should authorize SDPI participants the option
    of receiving their Federal funds through either a grant (as currently
    used) or self-governance funding mechanisms under ISDEAA.
        Additionally, SDPI has not had a meaningful increase in funding
    since FY 2004 despite its overwhelming success. Short term
    reauthorizations continue to destabilize this program and make staffing
    and program continuity difficult. For this reason, we recommend
    permanent reauthorization for SDPI at a minimum base of $250 million
    per year with annual adjustments for inflationary increases. We urge
    you to work with your Congressional colleagues to enact this important
    priority.
        Behavioral Health: Our community, like all of Indian Country, has
    been devastated by the ongoing fentanyl and opioid epidemic.
    Nevertheless, funds for these services are extremely limited. For
    example, in FY 2024, Congress only appropriated $2 million to fund
    essential detoxification related services. That's less than $1 per IHS
    patient. We urge the subcommittee to dedicate resources to
    detoxification and reemphasize the importance of fully-funding the
    following accounts: Health Care Facilities Construction, Alcohol &
    Substance Use, and Mental Health. We also fully support the President's
    Domestic Supplemental Request, which includes a $250 million investment
    in the IHS to address the fentanyl and opioid epidemic. Recognizing
    that Indian Country cannot wait any longer, Congress should consider
    this request as soon as possible.

        [This statement was submitted by Robert J. Clark, President/CEO of
    Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation.]
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Business Council for Sustainable Energy
        The Business Council for Sustainable Energy (BCSE) requests funding
    in FY2025 for offices and programs impacting clean energy at the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of Interior
    (DOI) in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
    Bill. As a diverse coalition, not all BCSE members endorse or take a
    position on the set of recommended requests.
        BCSE welcomes the opportunity to share information from the 2024
    edition of the Sustainable Energy in America Factbook\1\, published by
    BCSE and BloombergNEF, which shows the growth of renewable energy and
    natural gas in electricity generation, along with a decline in U.S.
    energy consumption due to energy efficiency investments. We encourage
    you to build upon this momentum and success with sustained support for
    clean energy programs at the U.S. Department of Interior and the
    Environmental Protection Agency in FY2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://bcse.org/market-trends/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
           u.s. environmental protection agency clean energy programs
        As a business group working to advance clean energy policies, BCSE
    has seen firsthand the importance of the Federal role the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) fills in sharing information
    about new technologies and practices that help speed the adoption of
    clean energy and allow consumers to make more informed decisions about
    energy usage. EPA initiatives help businesses manage environmental
    issues, foster transparency and best practices in emissions and water
    management and develop leadership in environmental stewardship and
    sustainability. The EPA provides transparent, standardized, and
    independent data and expertise that cannot be replicated with the same
    credibility by the private sector or non-governmental organizations.
        BCSE requests funding for EPA programs including the CHP
    Partnership, Green Power Partnership, ENERGY STAR, Natural Gas Star,
    AgStar, Methane Challenge, Center for Corporate Climate Leadership,
    SmartWay Transport Partnership, and more, which embody longstanding
    public-private endeavors that benefit American businesses and help them
    continue to compete on a global scale. These EPA initiatives provide
    market transparency, encourage voluntary action, and identify companies
    that are leaders in businesses and in environmental protection.
    Additionally, the EPA's laboratories lead the world in capabilities
    that make the United States preeminent in research and analysis,
    supporting private sector capabilities to enhance economic growth and
    emissions reductions simultaneously.
        The ENERGY STAR program serves many market sectors and is the
    foundation for energy efficiency programs across the country, from tax
    incentives and utility incentive programs to local building performance
    standards. While it is best known for the blue label on consumer
    products, the ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager program is also critical
    for tracking and improving the energy performance of our Nation's
    building stock, which accounts for at least one-third of U.S.
    greenhouse gas emissions. ENERGY STAR programs for new homes and
    manufacturing facilities are also growing in popularity and delivering
    increased impact. BCSE and our members support funding for the ENERGY
    STAR program that maintains a fuel neutral approach to energy
    efficiency. The EPA's recent proposal to eliminate certain natural gas
    products from the ENERGY STAR program is worrisome. This goes against
    the fundamental principles of the program and threatens the
    effectiveness of the fuel neutral energy efficiency home rebate program
    (HOMES rebates). The EPA should reiterate the importance of efficient
    natural gas products in the ENERGY STAR program and enable it to
    function as it was intended, in a fuel neutral manner.
        The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS), which is implemented by the
    Office of Transportation and Air Quality, has enabled the biomass and
    biogas industry to help meet lower carbon energy needs. The EPA has
    finally proposed the framework to enable electricity from biogas to
    qualify for renewable identification number (RIN) generation when
    biogas electricity is used to power electric vehicles. This is a great
    first step, but the program must be expanded to allow all RFS-
    qualifying feedstocks to participate in the electricity program. BCSE
    encourages funding for the EPA for the processing of pathways and
    applications to enable biomass and waste-to-energy projects to
    participate in the program at the earliest possible opportunity.
    Electricity derived from renewable biomass and solid forms of biomass
    is currently being used as a transportation fuel and should be credited
    accordingly under the RFS program. Congress should appropriate $1
    million in funding for the EPA to take final action within 90 days on
    any registration application or pathway petition to participate in the
    Renewable Fuels Pathway II Rule.
        The EPA's State and Local Climate and Energy Program offers
    expertise about energy efficiency, renewable energy, and climate change
    policies and programs to interested State, local, and Tribal
    governments. By providing these resources, EPA removes barriers that
    would otherwise prohibit action at the local level due to resource
    constraints or lack of information on best practices. Through its
    programs on renewable energy, renewable natural gas (RNG), natural gas,
    combined heat and power, and energy efficiency, the EPA encourages the
    use of clean, efficient, and market-ready technologies that can lower
    costs and improve resilience in addition to lowering emissions.
        The EPA is also engaged in a variety of international activities to
    advance climate change science, monitor our environment, and promote
    activities that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA establishes
    partnerships, provides leadership, and shares technical expertise to
    support these activities.
               u.s. department of interior clean energy programs
        The U.S. Department of Interior has a critical role in renewable
    energy production on public lands and waters. BCSE requests funding to
    facilitate this transition to clean energy.
        The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's (BOEM) Office of Renewable
    Energy Program (OREP) plays a crucial role in the development of
    offshore wind energy. Providing additional resources will help the
    processing of permits for offshore wind projects while allowing the
    Department to conduct additional lease sales and identify new lease
    areas on the Outer Continental Shelf. Funding is needed for the Bureau
    of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) to ensure safety while
    deploying offshore wind projects. BCSE also supports funding for the
    Bureau of Land Management renewable energy management program, funding
    for planning and consultation services and staff at the Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS), funding for the National Park Service Historic
    Preservation Fund, and funding for the U.S. Geological Survey program
    to support supply chain research for emerging technologies.
                                   conclusion
        BCSE looks forward to working with you throughout the FY2025 budget
    cycle. Please feel free to reach out to Ruth McCormick at
    rmccormick@bcse.org with any questions.
                                 about the bcse
        BCSE is a coalition of companies and trade associations from the
    energy efficiency, energy storage, natural gas, renewable energy,
    sustainable transportation, and emerging decarbonization technology
    sectors. It includes independent electric power producers, investor-
    owned utilities, public utilities, equipment manufacturers, commercial
    end users, and service providers in energy and environmental markets.
    Founded in 1992, the coalition's diverse business membership is united
    around the revitalization of the U.S. economy and the creation of a
    clean, secure, and reliable energy future in America.
        The Clean Energy Business Network (CEBN), comprising independent
    small- and medium-sized businesses, is an independent affiliate of
    BCSE. Together, BCSE and CEBN encompass a broad range of the clean
    energy economy, from Fortune 100 companies to small businesses working
    in all 50 States and more than 400 Congressional districts. On a
    national basis, these industries support more than 3 million U.S. jobs.

        [This statement was submitted by Lisa Jacobson, President, Business
    Council for Sustainable Energy.]
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of Carbon Utilization Research Council
                     summary of curc fy2025 recommendation
        The Carbon Utilization Research Council (``CURC'') is an industry
    coalition focused on technology solutions for the responsible use of
    our fossil energy resources in a balanced, low carbon generation
    portfolio.\1\ CURC recommends $9,000,000 for the Environmental
    Protection Agency's Office of Water Underground Injection Control
    Program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ For more information, please visit www.curc.net.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Benefits of Investment in Carbon Management Technologies:
    Deployment of carbon management technologies including carbon capture,
    utilization, and storage (CCUS) will have emissions reductions
    benefits, contribute to a growing economy, and play a critical role in
    the ongoing energy transition. In addition to providing low-carbon,
    dispatchable electricity to load follow intermittent renewables on the
    electric grid, CCUS provides a means to reduce emissions from hard-to-
    decarbonize industrial processes including cement production and
    steelmaking and can help to create low- and zero- carbon fuels
    including hydrogen that have a wide variety of applications to
    decarbonize transportation, hard-to-abate industries, and provide long
    term, seasonal storage for the grid.
        Federal Support of CCUS Research, Development & Demonstration
    (RD&D) Programs: In its Net Zero by 2050 report, the International
    Energy Agency (IEA) States government spending needs to be increased
    and reprioritized in critical areas such as decarbonized hydrogen and
    CCUS, which receive less than one-third of the level of public R&D
    funding of the more established low-carbon electricity generation and
    energy efficiency technologies.\2\ IEA also States this is in addition
    to funding support that is also needed to accelerate the roll-out of
    demonstration projects (in the case of the US, this would be funding
    for CCUS included in the Infrastructure Investment & Jobs Act (IIJA)
    and the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)), to leverage private investment
    in R&D, and to boost overall deployment levels to help reduce costs.
    This is because IEA determined that reaching economywide net-zero
    emissions in any scenario is ``virtually impossible'' without CCUS.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ IEA (2021), Net Zero by 2050, IEA, Paris https://www.iea.org/
    reports/net-zero-by-2050
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Federal investment in CCUS RD&D will also substantially benefit
    U.S. economic competitiveness, as the technology will allow us to
    maintain existing jobs and expertise in incumbent industries in
    addition to creating new, high-wage jobs in the energy and
    manufacturing sectors.
        CURC-EPRI Roadmap: CURC and the Electric Power Research Institute
    (EPRI) continuously evaluate technology needs that reflect changing
    markets and policies that impact fossil fuel use in the electric
    sector, which are communicated through an Advanced Technology Roadmap.
    The Roadmap identifies a suite of CCUS technologies that, if
    implemented, can deliver low carbon emission, fossil-fueled power
    plants between 2030-2035 that are cost-competitive with other sources
    of electricity. The Roadmap recommends robust funding for CarbonSAFE
    and ongoing CO2 storage activities for which EPA has responsibility in
    managing injection well permit applications. The recommendations
    provided are guided by those CO2 storage recommendations include in the
    Roadmap.
               curc fy2025 office of water program recommendation
        EPA, Underground Injection Control Program Class VI. CURC
    recommends $9,000,000.
        These funds are necessary to administer and expedite the Agency's
    processing of permit applications for Class VI injection wells, and to
    help develop expertise and capacity at the Agency to process the
    growing number of applications for both state primacy of the program
    and for Class VI applications submitted to EPA.

        [This statement was submitted by Shannon Angielski, Executive
    Director, Carbon Utilization Research Council.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Center for Invasive Species Prevention
        We seek your support for funding two programs of the USDA Forest
    Service that play vital roles in protecting the resilience of the
    Nation's forests in the face of invasive pests.
        We also support $20 million for efforts under State of the Birds
    Activities and associated National Park Service and U.S. Geological
    Survey to protect endangered Hawaiian forest birds

                                                   USDA Forest Service

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                       FY 2025 Pres
                         Program                          FY 2023         FY 2024         Budget          Our Ask
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Research and Development........................          $307.3            $300            $316            $316
        Forest Inventory & Analysis.................           $32.2           $31.5  ..............           $31.5
    Forest Health Protection
        Federal lands...............................             $17             $16  ..............             $20
        Cooperative lands...........................             $33             $32  ..............             $35
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        Specifically, we ask that the subcommittee appropriate to the
    Forest Health Management Program (FHM) $20 million for the Federal
    Lands subprogram and $35 million for the Cooperative Lands subprogram.
    Both subprograms must be funded adequately in order to ensure
    continuity of protection efforts--which is the only way they can be
    effective.
        We also ask that the subcommittee adopt report language requiring
    that the USFS begin a phased increase in funding allocated to research
    on invasive species. We seek an allocation of five percent of the
    overall Research Program's budget request by FY27. Invasive species
    imperil forest health independently of increased fire intensity and
    frequency, or climate change. The enhanced research will improve
    understanding of invasive species' invasion pathways and impacts,
    thereby enabling development of effective management strategies.
       background: urban, rural, and wildland forests: indispensable and
                                   threatened
        The many economic and ecological benefits provided by America's
    forests are threatened by a growing number of non-native insects and
    pathogens. About 60% of these forests are owned by States, Tribes, or
    private entities, so the Forest Service must address threats to forests
    outside the National Forest System if it is to achieve its mission of
    sustaining ``the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation's
    forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future
    generations.''
        Non-native pests already undermine these benefits. They threaten
    more than 41% of forest biomass in the ``lower 48'' States.\1\ The loss
    of live biomass is at rates similar to that attributed to fire. The
    majority of these non-native pests attack trees in Eastern forests--the
    very forests that store the majority of forest carbon stocks in the
    U.S.\2\ The non-native pests also destroy unique ecosystems and
    critical watersheds in the upper Midwest, California and Oregon, the
    Appalachians, and western mountain States.\3\ Recently detected pests
    add to the damage. Rapid ?ohi?a death is killing the most widespread
    tree species in Hawai`i, threatening the islands' water supplies. Beech
    leaf disease is killing a numerous and ecologically important tree
    species in the eastern deciduous forest. Oaks on the West coast are
    being killed by sudden oak death, goldspotted oak borer, Kuroshio shot
    hole borer, and the Mediterranean oak borer.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Fei, S., R.S. Morin, C.M. Oswalt, and A.M. 2019. Biomass losses
    resulting from insect and disease invasions in United States forests.
    PNAS August 27, 2019. Vol. 116 No. 35 17371-17376
        \2\ United States Department of Agriculture Forest Service. 2023.
    Future of America's Forests and Rangelands: The Forest Service 2020
    Resource Planning Act Assessment. GTR-WO-102 July 2023
        \3\ Invasive Species in Forests and Grasslands of the United
    States: A Comprehensive Science Synthesis for the United States Forest
    Sector, available here https://www.fs.usda.gov/treesearch/pubs/61982
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Over the decade 2011--2020, tree mortality was detected on 59
    million acres.\4\ While three-quarters of the area was caused by native
    phloem feeders, especially the mountain pine beetle, nearly 10 million
    acres was lost to primarily non-native wood borers such as the emerald
    ash borer (EAB). Sap feeders such as the hemlock woolly adelgid (HWA)
    killed trees on another 635,000 hectares. The foliage feeders,
    primarily spongy moth, killed trees on 948,000 acres.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Coleman, T.W, A.D. Graves, B.W. Oblinger, R.W. Flowers, J.J.
    Jacobs, B.D. Moltzan, S.S. Stephens, R.J. Rabaglia. 2023. Evaluating a
    decade (2011-2020) of integrated forest pest management in the United
    States. Journal of Integrated Pest Management, (2023) 14(1): 23; 1-17
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        To counter this crisis the Forest Service must grow its pest-
    control efforts substantially. Current funding levels do not allow
    this. We hope the Congress will correct this problem.
      usda forest service forest and rangeland research program: falling
                                     short
        Currently the Research stations spend just 1% of the total research
    budget studying a few of the dozens of non-native pests. Low funding
    does not allow the Service to develop effective programs to prevent,
    suppress, and eradicate the majority of non-native pests. The funds
    have been decreased 70% since FY2010 even as new pests enter our
    forests.
        The Administration's research priorities--nature-based solutions
    for climate risk reduction, watershed resiliency, forest ecology, and
    forest genetics--cannot be achieved without greater understanding of
    bioinvasion and development of effective mitigation strategies.
    Adequate funding might allow adaptation of successful programs, e.g.,
    spongy moth Slow the Spread and Southern Pine Beetle Prevention
    programs, to suppress other pests (see Coleman et al.). Funding
    shortfalls particularly undercut efforts to breed trees able to thrive
    despite introduced pests. The R&D program currently supports only a few
    such projects--for eastern hemlocks, ashes, beech and elms. Even these
    projects require outside funding.
        Therefore, CISP supports the Administration's request to increase
    funding for R&D. We urge allocating 2% of the total R&D budget in FY25
    ($6.32 million) to research focused on invasive species. This increase
    would enable the Service to respond to the threats identified by the
    Forest Inventory and Analysis program--which has received additional
    funding in recent years.
        forest health management: supporting the full continuum of pest
                                   management
        Because they arrive on imported goods, non-native pests usually
    first appear in cities or suburbs. The immediate result is enormous
    damage to urban forests and associated ecosystem services. These pests
    then spread to rural forests, including National forests. Examples of
    tree-killing pests that have spread from urban areas to our National
    forests include the hemlock woolly adelgid, emerald ash borer,
    polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers, goldspotted oak borer, and
    sudden oak death.
        Protecting America's forests from these killers begins where they
    are first found--usually in urban or semi-rural forests. The FHM
    Cooperative Lands subprogram assists the States and other partners in
    doing so. Our request for $35 million for work on cooperative lands
    would partially restore missing capacity lost through the 50% cut in
    funding over the past decade.
        Of course, management of the numerous non-native and native pests
    threatening our rural and wildland forests, including National forests.
    CISP supports $20 million for the Federal Lands subprogram to realize
    the full pest management continuum.
        Among projects deserving continued funding are those addressing the
    multiple strains of the sudden oak death pathogen in Oregon and
    California and emerald ash borer-caused mortality of black (or brown)
    ash in the Great Lakes and Northeastern States.
        The number of FHM projects and areas treated each year have shrunk
    since 2011--reflecting cuts in funding. Two-thirds of projects are on
    National Forest lands. Only a small proportion of the trees and areas
    at risk are addressed. Native forest pests are addressed by three
    quarters of projects. While 53 tree taxa are threatened, four--eastern
    oaks, loblolly and ponderosa pines, and hemlocks--are targetted by 95%
    of the projects. Nearly all--84%--of the area treated for non-native
    pests concerns only one--the spongy moth. To address threats to 50
    additional tree taxa under threat, the FHM program needs additional
    resources (Coleman et al.).
              breeding resistant trees: critical--and underfunded
        A critical component of a comprehensive pest-management strategy is
    breeding threatened trees to increase their resistance to non-native
    pests. Perhaps surprisingly, much of the (inadequate) funding is from
    FHM or the National Forest System, rather than the Research account.
    CISP advocates a substantial increase in USFS funding for resistance
    breeding programs.
        The model program is the Dorena Genetic Resource Center. Beginning
    in the 1960s, the Dorena center has bred western white pine seedlings
    resistant to white pine blister rust that are now being planted. A 30-
    year effort has produced Port-Orford cedar trees sufficiently resistant
    to its root rot; they are being planted by National forests, the Bureau
    of Land Management, and others.
        Most breeding programs rely on identifying and cross-breeding
    ``lingering'' trees--those that survive the pest's onslaught. Promising
    projects target whitebark pine, American chestnut, American elm, and
    Hawaiian koa. Programs at earlier stages address ash, beech, and
    ?ohi?a; they are benefitting from the expertise of scientists at the
    Dorena Center.

      --Whitebark pine is listed as threatened under the Endangered Species
            Act. Under Dorena's breeding program, begun in 2002, resistant
            seedlings have been planted experimentally.

      --The American Chestnut Cooperators' Foundation (ACCF) has crossed
            ``lingering'' American chestnuts for several generations. Some
            are more than 50 years old and producing seeds.

      --American elms were once large, long-lived trees keystone species in
            riparian forests. Dutch elm disease jeopardizes their ecosystem
            role. USFS scientists are testing whether planting disease-
            tolerant elms into canopy gaps created by dying ash trees can
            restore it.

      --Several species of ash trees face functional extinction due to the
            emerald ash borer invasion. After a decade of effort,
            scientists have proved that about 1% of green ash trees survive
            years of heavy EAB attack. Scientists have begun breeding these
            trees to raise the level of resistance. This phase of the
            project will require another decade to ensure that the
            seedlings will have sufficient resistance to thrive in the
            forest.

        These accomplishments show what Federal dollars, wisely invested,
    can do. CISP is convinced that, with further investment, we can do even
    more to restore threatened trees to our forests.
     u.s. department of interior--state of the birds--protecting hawaiian
                                     birds
        Funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law allowed the Department
    to launch it's Strategy for Preventing the Extinction of Hawaiian
    Forest Birds. The Strategy represents the most promising approaches for
    halting the imminent extinction of all the species of honeycreepers
    still extant on the Islands.
        Most urgent is curtailing spread of two diseases vectored by non-
    native mosquitoes. Applying the Incompatible Insect Technique (IIT),
    scientists genetically modify strains of a naturally-occurring
    bacterium carried by the mosquitoes. This alteration makes the
    mosquitoes sterile. Treated mosquitoes must be released each year.
    Scientists are also preparing to translocate two immediately endangered
    species to higher-elevation, mosquito-free, habitats on Hawai`i Island.
    Finally, aviaries are being expanded so that they can house 80 more
    birds.
        Realizing the promise--restoring the bird species--requires
    continued funding through appropriations in FY25 and beyond.

        [This statement was submitted by Faith T. Campbell, President.]
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Chippewa Cree Tribe
    Recommendations:

    1. Provide full, mandatory funding for the Indian Health Service (IHS).

    2. Ensure mandatory funding for Contract Support Costs (CSC) and
        section 105(l) leases.

    3. Restore critical infrastructure investments for the Indian health
        system.

    4. Increase funding and extend self-governance to the Special Diabetes
        Program for Indians.

    5. Increase funding for behavioral and mental health programs.

    6. Fully Fund the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Public Safety and
        Justice Account

    7. Adequately fund the North Central Regional Water System

    8. Action needed to address contamination at a BIA site.

    9. Reduce dependence on competitive grants for Indian Country.

        Introduction: Thank you, Chair Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski,
    and Members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to share our
    funding priorities for the FY 2025 Federal budget. My name is Joseph
    Rosette Jr., and I serve as a Business Committee Member of the Chippewa
    Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation. Ours is the smallest of
    the seven Indian reservations in Montana. We have a total enrollment of
    6,862, including 4,031 who reside on the Reservation. Our community is
    isolated-the nearest supermarket is in Havre, 30 miles from Rocky Boy,
    and the nearest international airport and major shopping facilities are
    located in Great Falls, 110 miles away.
        In 1993, the Chippewa Cree Tribe was one of the first to achieve
    self-governance under a pilot program that preceded the Tribal Self-
    Governance Act of 1994. As a result, our Tribal governing body was able
    to take over administration of all the programs, and their associated
    funds, that were previously under the management of the Federal
    Government. This includes the Rocky Boy Health Center, which is the
    sole health care facility on the Reservation. It provides integrated
    primary health care, including behavioral health and substance use
    services, dental care, and pharmacy access, to all American Indian
    people within the catchment area.
        We are grateful for the historic investments Congress has made in
    Indian Country in recent years via the CARES Act, American Rescue Plan
    Act, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and Inflation Reduction Act. The
    direct funding model and successful implementation of these laws prove
    that when Tribal sovereignty is honored, Tribal communities thrive. We
    would also like to thank this subcommittee for its bipartisan effort to
    protect Indian Country from cuts during the 2024 appropriations
    process. Furthermore, we urge you to remember that Congress' trust
    responsibility to provide for the health of Tribal Nations exists
    irrespective of any self-imposed budgetary caps. It is imperative that
    this subcommittee appropriate the full amounts necessary to fulfill its
    obligations. To that end, I offer the following recommendations for
    your consideration for FY 2025 appropriations for the IHS and BIA.
        Provide Full Funding for the Indian Health Service: The IHS and its
    Tribal partners under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act strive to provide Tribal people with access to high
    quality and comprehensive medical services, in line with the Federal
    Government's trust and treaty obligations. However, chronic
    underfunding of the Indian health system has had detrimental impacts on
    our communities. American Indians and Alaska Natives are
    disproportionately impacted by obesity, diabetes, heart disease,
    cancer, substance-use disorder and other largely preventable
    conditions. We therefore urge the subcommittee to work towards full and
    mandatory funding for the IHS, in line with the IHS Tribal Budget
    Formulation Workgroup.
        The Workgroup has calculated it will take $54 billion to fully-fund
    the IHS. We understand that this represents a dramatic increase in
    funding; however, it is essential that Congress address the true needs
    of the Indian health system. We support their full request and
    reiterate the following four priorities for program expansion as
    follows:

        1) Hospitals and Clinics: $13.6 billion

        2) Mental Health: $4.5 billion

        3) Alcohol & Substance Abuse: $4.9 billion

        4) Dental Services: $3.2 billion

        Continue Advance Appropriations for IHS: If mandatory
    appropriations cannot be achieved for FY 2025, we support advance
    appropriations in the short-term. This year's tumultuous appropriations
    cycle demonstrates why advance appropriations are critical-IHS clinical
    services remained continuous throughout the volatile political process.
    We urge the subcommittee to extend advance appropriations to all IHS
    accounts, including Electronic Health Records Modernization, Health
    Care Facilities Construction, and Sanitation Facilities Construction
    for FY 2026.
        Fully fund critical infrastructure investments: We were
    disappointed to see that this subcommittee approved cuts to Electronic
    Health Records Modernization, Health Care Facilities Construction, and
    Sanitation Facilities Construction in FY 2024. The Indian health
    system's infrastructure is among the oldest and most dilapidated in the
    country. Therefore, we request that this subcommittee restore and
    fully-fund these accounts. To implement an interoperable Electronic
    Health Records and telehealth system, $801 million is needed for FY
    2025. As you are aware, this investment is especially critical as the
    Veterans' Administration and Department of Defense modernize their
    systems. It is also critical that Congress make significant investments
    in Health Care Facilities Construction. IHS and Tribal facilities are
    severely outdated. This creates situations where facilities are unsafe
    or not appropriate for the size of the patient populations they serve.
    Therefore, consistent with the Workgroup's request, we recommend $2.8
    billion for Health Care Facilities Construction and Equipment. We still
    do not have ready access to clean, potable water. This creates
    significant health risks for the Tribal members living on the Rocky Boy
    reservation. We appreciate Congress' investment in IHS sanitation
    facilities through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Yet, with a
    multi-billion-dollar backlog and growing inflation, funding to close
    out the list is not keeping pace with need. We urge Congress to
    prioritize $2.2 billion for Sanitation Facilities Construction.
        Mandatory Funding for Contract Support Costs and 105(l) lease
    payments: We appreciate the subcommittee's commitment to ensuring that
    CSC and section 105(l) lease payments are fully funded. However, these
    line items continue to take up a larger and larger percentage of the
    IHS discretionary budget, thereby leaving little room to expand other
    services given the tight budget environment. We strongly agree with the
    subcommittee's words in the explanatory statement for the Further
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Public Law 116-94) regarding
    105(l) costs which said, in part: ``Obligations of this nature are
    typically addressed through mandatory spending, but in this case since
    they fall under discretionary spending, they are impacting all other
    programs funded under the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill,
    including other equally important Tribal programs.'' Therefore, we ask
    you to continue to advocate with your colleagues on authorizing
    committees to enact mandatory appropriations for CSC and 105(l) lease
    costs. Doing so will ensure that other areas of the IHS budget are held
    harmless by these costs and true increases in critical services line
    items can move forward. This will enhance care for Tribal patients and
    reduce health disparities.
        Extend Self-Governance Funding Options to the Special Diabetes
    Program for Indians (SDPI) and increase funding to $250 million/year:
    While we understand that SDPI is not under the jurisdiction of the
    subcommittee, we appreciate that Congress included a short-term
    extension of SDPI in FY 2024 appropriations at a $160 million
    annualized rate. SDPI's success rests in the flexibility of its
    structure. Consistent with this model, Congress should authorize SDPI
    participants the option of receiving their Federal funds through either
    a grant (as currently used) or self-governance funding mechanisms.
    Additionally, SDPI has not had a meaningful increase in funding since
    FY 2004 despite its overwhelming success. Short term reauthorizations
    continue to destabilize this program and make staffing and program
    continuity difficult. For this reason, we recommend permanent
    reauthorization for SDPI at a minimum base of $250 million per year
    with annual adjustments for inflationary increases. We urge Congress to
    enact this important priority.
        Behavioral Health: Our Tribe, like all of Indian Country, has been
    devastated by the ongoing fentanyl and opioid epidemic. We are in dire
    need of in-community sober living homes and detox centers for our
    Tribal members. In FY 2024, Congress only appropriated $2 million to
    fund essential detoxification related services. That is less than $1
    per IHS patient. We urge the subcommittee to dedicate resources to
    detoxification and reemphasize the importance of fully-funding the
    following accounts: Health Care Facilities Construction, Alcohol &
    Substance Use, and Mental Health. We also fully support the President's
    Domestic Supplemental Request, which includes a $250 million investment
    in the IHS to address the fentanyl and opioid epidemic. Recognizing
    that Indian Country cannot wait any longer, Congress should consider
    this request as soon as possible.
        Public Safety and Justice funding at the BIA: Like many Tribes we
    are seeing a drastic increase in drug trafficking and related crime
    coming onto our lands. There is a significant need for the Federal
    Government to improve law enforcement resources and bring State and
    local authorities to the table with Tribes to address public safety.
    Congress needs to provide additional resources to the BIA for law
    enforcement programs, the U.S. Attorney's Offices, the Federal Bureau
    of Investigation (FBI), and other agencies to help us stem the flow of
    illegal drugs, investigate crimes, and prosecute offenders. The
    underfunding of Tribal law enforcement and justice systems is well-
    documented. Earlier this year, the BIA submitted a report to Congress
    required by the Tribal Law and Order Act estimating that to provide a
    minimum base level of service to all federally recognized Tribal
    nations, $1.3 billion is needed for Tribal law enforcement, $1.2
    billion is needed for Tribal courts, and $240.6 million is needed for
    existing detention centers. Based on enacted funding provided in FY
    2024--a total of just over $555 million was provided for BIA PS&J
    programs. This means that Tribal law enforcement, detentions/
    corrections, and Tribal courts are funded at a staggeringly low amount
    of less than 20% of estimated need!
        The funding short falls for Tribal law enforcement endangers public
    safety on our reservation and forces us to use Tribal discretionary
    funds which means less resources in other areas and it hamstrings
    future business development. Another complicating factor is that our
    police and detention officers are required to be federally trained,
    however the state of Montana has an excellent officer training program,
    and it would be more efficient financially and logistically to take
    advantage of the Montana Law Enforcement Academy. The BIA needs to
    provide more flexibility in allowing officers to train at state
    academies rather than at the Federal training center in New Mexico,
    which often has a long wait list and requires recruits to spend weeks
    away from their homes and families. In line with recommendations put
    forth by the Tribal Interior Budget Council (TIBC) we urge this
    subcommittee to provide a total of $2.924 billion for BIA Public Safety
    and Justice funding, with approximately $1.77 billion for BIA Law
    Enforcement and $1.155 billion for Tribal courts in FY 2025.
        Rocky Boy's--North Central Regional Water System: The Rocky Boy's/
    North Central Montana Regional Water System Project is critical to
    addressing the health impacts of poor water quality on the Rocky Boy's
    Reservation and surrounding off-reservation communities. This Project,
    the construction of which is funded by the Bureau of Reclamation, has
    been ongoing for over 20 years since being authorized by Congress in
    2002. Today, Tribal members are still waiting to receive safe drinking
    water as part of the Tribe's 1998 Water Rights Settlement. As portions
    of the Tribal components of infrastructure have been complete, the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) has been required to engage with, and
    pay for the Operations, Maintenance, and Repair (OM&R). This was part
    of the 2002 law authorizing the project and a Tri-Partite Cooperative
    Agreement established in 2005 between the BIA and the Chippewa Cree
    Tribe. As part of that agreement, a Trust Fund was established to pay
    for OM&R costs which have been sufficient to account for the interim
    costs while the Tribe awaits water service, however the Trust fund is
    estimated to be drastically insufficient once the new Water Treatment
    Plant and water system comes online.
        Due to the significant funding boost made to the Bureau of
    Reclamation for rural water projects in recent years through annual
    discretionary appropriations and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,
    substantial construction progress is being made on both the Tribal and
    non-Tribal water system, including substantial completion of the new
    Water Treatment Plant Building at Tiber Reservoir. Numerous pipelines,
    a pump station, and water storage tanks are in stages of progress, all
    with a goal to turn on water service in the 2027 time period. At that
    time, the additional funding will be required to pay for the BIA OM&R
    costs obligations under the Tri-Partite Agreement, which would be
    several million dollars annually. The Chippewa Cree Tribe is working
    actively with the BIA in the Rocky Mountain Regional Office to begin
    for preparations for full scale water system operations, and Tribal and
    non-Tribal residents are looking forward to receiving a clean, safe,
    and abundant water supply within the next few years.
        Contamination at the BIA road maintenance compound: There is a BIA
    road maintenance compound located in the heart of Rocky Boys agency,
    which is the hub of our community. Following a 2017 ``Soil and
    Groundwater Focused Feasibility Study''--fully funded by the BIA--we
    discovered hydrocarbons/gasoline in the soil, groundwater, and surface
    water downgrade and adjacent to the compound. The investigation also
    revealed Benzyne in the soil directly below the compound. These
    contaminants should not be allowed to continue to pollute the surface
    water, and drinking water and risk the health of the people of Rocky
    Boy and surrounding areas. Is this allowable in other communities in
    the country? Remediation is necessary, and the estimated cost of
    remediation is roughly $10,800,000. The remediation would involve a
    combination of excavation and removal of contaminated material as well
    as an interception trench, and pump and treatment of site and
    materials. So far, the BIA has failed to act and address this issue
    through remediation. If this were City Hall in your hometown, would
    this injustice go unchecked? The Chippewa Cree people demand justice in
    its simplest form. The Federal Government must step up and right this
    wrong.
        Reduce Dependence on Federal Grants: In addition to the critical
    funding needs that are outlined above, we also support moving away from
    competitive grants for Federal funding mechanisms. Grants unfairly pit
    Tribes against each other for resources we are all entitled to. The
    Federal trust responsibility does not require that we jump through a
    myriad of hoops and onerous applications to see that services are
    provided to our citizens. Too often, Tribes are under-resourced to
    apply for Federal grants and comply with their reporting requirements.
    Our staff must divert time to apply and report, thereby diluting the
    usefulness of the resources. Instead, we request wide-spread, formula-
    based funding across all programs. Tribes must also be granted the
    flexibility needed to respond to the specific needs of their own
    communities, not those prescribed by Federal grants. This also means
    appropriating enough resources so funds are provided in meaningful
    amounts across all Tribes. We join other Tribal leaders in calling for
    broad based funding for Indian Country.

        [This statement was submitted by Joseph Rosette, Councilman,
    Chippewa Cree Tribe.]
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Conservation Fund
        Chair Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of the
    Appropriations subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies, thank you for this opportunity to submit outside witness
    testimony on behalf of The Conservation Fund (TCF). TCF supports the
    mandatory funding request of $900 million and additional discretionary
    funding in Fiscal Year 2025 for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    (LWCF), which includes the Federal land acquisition programs of the
    Bureau of Land Management ($85 million), National Park Service ($115
    million), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ($125 million), U.S. Forest
    Service ($134 million), as well as three State grant programs, among
    others: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's Cooperative Endangered
    Species Conservation Fund ($32 million); National Park Service's State
    Assistance Grants program ($260 million); and the U.S. Forest Service's
    Forest Legacy Program ($100 million). TCF also supports a funding
    request for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's North American
    Wetlands Conservation Fund ($50 million); U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service's State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Programs ($100 million); U.S.
    Fish and Wildlife Service's Chesapeake Watershed Investments for
    Landscape Defense Program ($15 million); National Park Service's
    Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Program ($3 million); and the
    U.S. Forest Service's Community Forest and Open Space Conservation
    Program ($7 million); and the Department of Interior's (DOI) Natural
    Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Program ($10 million). TCF
    requests funding for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Great
    Lakes Restoration Initiative ($425 million) and Chesapeake Bay Program
    ($100 million).
        TCF is a national, non-profit conservation organization dedicated
    to conserving America's land and water legacy for future generations.
    Established in 1985, TCF works with landowners; federal, State and
    local agencies; and other partners to conserve our Nation's important
    lands for people, wildlife and communities. To date, TCF has helped our
    partners to conserve over 9 million acres. These accomplishments are
    due, in large measure, to the leadership of this subcommittee over many
    years to appropriate funds to acquire lands for future generations,
    working forests, recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat, and many
    other benefits.
        Below are highlights of some benefits of the LWCF and land
    acquisition programs. While these projects show the tremendous
    diversity of benefits of land acquisition for the public, they have one
    thing in common: each of these projects is driven by landowners. Many
    farmers, ranchers and forestland owners have significant financial
    equity in their land. By enabling a landowner to sell a conservation
    easement or fee title, the LWCF program provides landowners with funds
    to stay in business, reinvest in businesses, or meet other financial
    goals.
        As the subcommittee crafts its Interior, Environment and Related
    Agencies Appropriations bill, there are several key points we
    respectfully request you to consider, listed below.
        Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900 million in
    mandatory and additional discretionary funding: The enactment of the
    Great American Outdoors Act is a top momentous land conservation
    victory in a generation. The Conservation Fund applauds Congress for
    passing the bipartisan, bicameral legislation that provides full and
    mandatory funding (at $900 million) for the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund. We also encourage Congress to provide discretionary funding to
    address emerging needs and opportunities. Funding the Nation's premier
    conservation program with both mandatory and discretionary funding in
    FY2025 will ensure LWCF continues to fulfill its mission to safeguard
    natural areas, water resources, and our cultural heritage, and to
    provide recreation opportunities to all Americans.
        The Conservation Fund applauds the Senate and House Committees for
    its support for land acquisition and appraisal process improvements, as
    was included in the Fiscal Year 2023 and 2024 reports. TCF urges the
    Committees to continue working with the Departments to streamline and
    improve processes, particularly appraisal timelines and partnerships
    with non-federal parties, to deliver on priority land conservation
    efforts and effectively implement the Great American Outdoors Act.
        The Conservation Fund also urges the Senate and House Committees to
    support reprogramming of prior years' funding from the LWCF, as opposed
    to rescinding the funding as that practice undermines this critical
    conservation program. It is common for Federal land acquisition funds
    to remain ``unobligated'' until the last step in an acquisition
    project-this can reasonably take up to 5 years. Unobligated balances
    are not a problem in and of themselves, but funding should be moved to
    other acquisition projects if it is no longer needed for acquisitions
    within the Federal unit originally receiving the LWCF funding. To this
    end, Congress should continue to encourage the agencies to use a tool
    they already have-reprogramming-rather than rescissions to ensure LWCF
    funds are spent on critical conservation needs, fulfilling the purpose
    of the LWCF and the intent of the Great American Outdoors Act.
        LWCF-Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Land Acquisition at $85
    million. The BLM and its National Conservation Lands provide some of
    our Nation's best recreation and historic areas, such as opening new
    recreational access to sportsmen and protecting water quality and
    riparian resources in the Dominguez Canyon Wilderness in Colorado. We
    request $85 million to fund BLM's land acquisition program and
    projects.
        LWCF-National Park Service (NPS) Federal Land Acquisition at $115
    million. Hosting more than 325 million visitors in 2023, the 429
    National Park units provide an economic boost to their local
    communities and those employed directly and indirectly. Funding for NPS
    LWCF will help protect key access points for recreation, historic
    areas, trails and more. We respectfully request $115 million to fund
    NPS's land acquisition program and projects.
        LWCF-U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Land Acquisition at $125
    million. National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) are our Nation's protectors of
    clean water, clean air, abundant wildlife, and world-class recreation.
    Funding for FY2025 FWS LWCF will help protect critical wildlife
    habitat, provide public access and recreation, and improve water
    quality at Refuges, including Maryland's Blackwater National Wildlife
    Refuge and Georgia's Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge; as well as
    preserving our Nation's working lands, such as at Montana's Rocky
    Mountain Front Conservation Area. We respectfully request $125 million
    to fund FWS's land acquisition program and projects.
        LWCF-USDA Forest Service (FS) Land Acquisition at $134 million. FS
    LWCF funding is an important forest management tool, as it protects key
    inholdings and reduces fire threats. As a national partner facilitating
    transactions, we are working with willing landowners at priority
    project areas and respectfully request $134 million to fund FS's land
    acquisition program and projects.
        LWCF State Grant Programs: FWS-Cooperative Endangered Species Fund,
    NPS- State Conservation Grants, and USFS-Forest Legacy: We encourage
    the subcommittee to fund:

      --FWS-Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund: $32 million
            (for the LWCF-funded portion)

      --NPS-State Assistance Grants program: $260 million

      --USFS-Forest Legacy Program: $100 million

        DOI and FS Conservation and Land Acquisition Programs: TCF
    encourages the Committee to fund:

      --FWS-North American Wetlands Conservation Fund at $50 million

      --FWS-State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Program at $100 million. The
            State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Program is the only Federal
            funding source available to States that leverages non-federal
            funds to help protect critical habitat for over 12,000 species
            in greatest conservation need identified in state wildlife
            action plans. To build upon the State and Tribal Wildlife
            Program, TCF urges Congress to enact the Recovering America's
            Wildlife Act. This legislation aims to provide critical
            resources to conduct proactive, non-regulatory fish and
            wildlife conservation efforts nationwide.

      --FWS-Chesapeake Watershed Investments for Landscape Defense Program
            at $15 million

      --NPS-Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Watertrails Program at $3.075
            million

      --FS-Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program at $7
            million

        Department of the Interior-Natural Resource Damage Assessment and
    Restoration Program at $10 million. The Restoration Program leads the
    National response for recovery of natural resources that have been
    injured or destroyed because of oil spills or releases of other
    hazardous substances. Recoveries from responsible parties can only be
    spent to implement restoration plans developed by the Trustee Council
    for each incident. These funds are one hundred percent private and
    represent the amount needed to restore environmental resources or
    compensate for lost public use since the damage in question. The FY2024
    funds would allow the Program to add carefully targeted staff allocated
    to Interior bureaus and offices through its Restoration Support Unit to
    accelerate restoration activities.

        Environmental Protection Agency Programs: TCF encourages the
    Committee to fund:

      --Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GRLI) at $425 million. TCF
            urges funding of GLRI at $425 million. The Initiative provides
            critical support for on-the-ground restoration programs and
            projects targeted at the most significant environmental
            problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem.

      --Chesapeake Bay Program at $100 million: TCF urges funding of the
            Chesapeake Bay program at $100 million. This program brings
            together a diverse partnership to support the Bay's
            restoration.

        The Conservation Fund stands ready to work with you to secure full
    and consistent funding for the LWCF and the other critically important
    programs that help protect the environment, economies, forests, and
    community values across our Nation. Thank you for the opportunity to
    provide this testimony and your consideration of our request.

        [This statement was submitted by Kelly Reed, Senior Vice President
    of Government Relations, The Conservation Fund.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Chugach Regional Resources Commission
        Thank you to the members of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee
    on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies for the opportunity to
    be heard today. My testimony is about accounts within the Bureau of
    Indian Affairs (BIA)--Natural Resources Management--Tribal Management/
    Development Program (TMDP) and line items within the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (USFWS) budget \1\ on behalf of the Chugach Regional
    Resources Commission (CRRC), an inter-Tribal organization in
    southcentral Alaska that provides crucial natural resource management
    and subsistence support to seven Tribes and nearly 3,000 Alaska Natives
    in a region the size of West Virginia.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The related USFWS accounts include: Resource Management:
    Ecological Services: Conservation and Restoration account and Fish and
    Aquatic Conservation: Aquatic Habitat and Species Conservation:
    Subsistence Managers and Tribal Trust Responsibilities accounts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Today, I am asking that the subcommittee take action on three
    issues affecting CRRC's budget that have arisen through historical
    inequities. Taking action on these issues will not only honor your
    Federal trust responsibilities to the Alaska Natives we serve but will
    also result in sound fiscal oversight of the Federal budget.
        First, we ask that our TMDP base funding be increased to a level
    comparable to the increases that Congress has provided for other TMDP
    programs over the past 10 years. Second, we ask that this subcommittee
    fund the USFWS line items for co-stewardship and co-management and
    require USFWS to set aside a portion of the funding to support co-
    management agreements for species and regions that have been left out
    of existing agreements. Third, we request this subcommittee to exercise
    fiscal oversight to ensure that BIA's spending of the funds aligns with
    Congress's intentions in forming and passing the Federal budget.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Subsistence is a way of life that describes the rich
    relationship between Alaska Natives and the gathering, fishing, and
    hunting of plants, fish, and animals (often referred to by the Service
    as resources). Subsistence harvests continue to sustain the cultural,
    nutritional, economic, and spiritual well-being of Alaska Natives.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        CRRC is an inter-Tribal fish and wildlife commission authorized as
    a Tribal consortium under the Indian Self Determination and Education
    Assistance Act (ISDEAA. For forty years, CRRC has provided support for
    subsistence advocacy and natural resource management for seven Alaska
    Native villages in the Prince William Sound and Lower Cook Inlet
    regions of southcentral Alaska: the Native Village of Eyak, Qutekcak
    Native Tribe, Valdez Native Tribe, Native Village of Port Graham,
    Native Village of Chenega, Native Village of Nanwalek, and Native
    Village of Tatitlek. CRRC protects the subsistence lifestyle of the
    Native people of the Chugach region--a massive area that covers 20,000
    square miles of marine waters and includes more than 5,000 miles of
    coastline--where all of the natural resources are still recovering from
    the disastrous 1989 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. As part of this mission,
    CRRC operates the Alutiiq Pride Marine Institute (APMI), which is the
    only shellfish hatchery in all of Alaska and one of only two Tribal
    hatcheries in the state.
        CRRC supports the health, economic stability, food security, and
    continuity of traditional ways of life for people throughout the entire
    Chugach region--both Native and non-Native. We perform all of these
    duties working with our federal, State, and local partners. By
    providing stable and sufficient Federal funds for our work, the
    benefits reach far beyond the local level. Every dollar provided to
    CRRC results in decreased need for Federal services in a remote region
    of Alaska. Most of the region is not on the road system and can only be
    reached by boat or air. It costs much more for the Federal Government
    to conduct program activities, and arrange travel, lodging, local
    support, and transportation, than for CRRC to locally manage such
    activities.
                       request for parity in tmdp funding
        We request that the line item for CRRC's TMDP funding be increased
    to $1.18 million, which is less than 1/4 of our current annual
    operating budget. This amount would bring CRRC's budget back in line
    with the other programs in the TMDP account, and would allow us to
    establish stable programs in habitat protection and enhancement,
    conservation of fish, wildlife and plant resources, subsistence
    management, surveys and stock assessments, and technical capacity
    building at the local level; support the documentation and appropriate
    use of traditional Alaska Native ecological knowledge; monitor the
    ecosystem to ensure access to traditional foods; incubate kelp
    mariculture farms for Tribal entrepreneurs; expand hydroponics and game
    processing facilities for food security in our remote communities; and
    operate and maintain the only Tribally-operated shellfish hatchery in
    Alaska.
        Over the past 10 years, Congress has laudably more than doubled the
    budget for TMDP programs. This is sound fiscal management, because
    every dollar provided to a Tribal organization for natural resource
    management at the local level results in far more savings to the
    Federal Government in terms of staffing, project costs, travel,
    research, data collection, and duplication of efforts. Unfortunately,
    though, our TMDP line-item funding level did not keep pace with the
    other programs. Our budget was increased only once, by an amount that
    works out to less than one percent per year in the same period.
        Over the past 4 years, our annual operating budget has grown from
    about $1 million to over $5 million from other sources. This money goes
    right back into the Chugach region, resulting in economic development
    and entrepreneurship for our Tribal people; employment opportunities
    through full-time, seasonal, and contract work; support for food
    security; data on wildlife and plants that enhances community, state,
    and Federal agency management decisions; and monitoring of ocean
    conditions and subsistence resources. It is no coincidence that this
    growth parallels increases in funding that we have received through
    one-time, competitive grants from BIA through the Alaska Inter-Tribal
    Subsistence Cooperative Management Program for special subsistence
    projects.\2\ A conservative analysis of our subsistence special
    projects funding shows that every $1 of Federal money we received for
    this work resulted in more than 3 1/2 times that amount returned on
    investment. We were able to use these special project funds to leverage
    other public and private funds and resources. We have been able to
    conduct surveys and stock assessments that Federal and State agencies
    have neglected in our region for many years: moose, marine mammals,
    salmon, and vegetation and wetlands surveys. Our efforts are informing
    Federal and State agencies' natural resource management decisions and
    directly impacting and enhancing the data compiled by USFWS, NOAA, and
    other agencies.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Subsistence is a way of life that describes the rich
    relationship between Alaska Natives and the gathering, fishing, and
    hunting of plants, fish, and animals (often referred to by the Service
    as resources). Subsistence harvests continue to sustain the cultural,
    nutritional, economic, and spiritual well-being of Alaska Natives.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        But our lack of increase in recurring, base funding means that we
    can't make this a sustainable growth pattern. These efforts are
    severely limited by the short duration of the funds, the administrative
    burden of compiling applications and reporting, and the lack of budget
    certainty inherent in year-to-year fundraising. A stable, fair increase
    in our recurring TMDP base fundswould allow us to increase the Federal
    return on investment and build sustainable natural resource development
    foundations in the region.
                    request for co-management opportunities
        We support USFWS's current requests for co-management and co-
    stewardship funding. In addition, we request that the subcommittee
    allocate a portion of funding for regions or species for which there
    are no current arrangements. There are vast areas of Alaska that are
    not covered by existing co-management agreements, including our own
    Chugach region. We have had difficulty with USFWS when requesting new
    agreements because they have no budget to support those agreements.
    This means that Alaska Natives in Alaska's southcentral region have no
    ability to co-manage species that are critical to our people's
    cultural, spiritual, economic, and nutritional sustenance. Without such
    agreements, there is no direct channel for compiling and sharing
    information that we have with USFWS about species and the changing
    climate and effects on the ecosystem. This also means that Federal
    efforts to gather data, produce reports, and manage species are less
    effective, more expensive and more duplicative than they can and should
    be.
        Without meaningful, robust collaboration with the Native people who
    hold essential knowledge about the ecosystem, Federal efforts will
    continue to be less focused and effective than they could otherwise be.
        We focus our work on bio-cultural restoration. As the original
    managers of the lands and waters in our region, our people have an
    unparalleled knowledge base and strong cultural ties that have been
    developed through systematic observation and use over hundreds and
    thousands of years. These observations have been honed and refined as
    our Native people developed and adapted their subsistence practices.
    For decades, we have framed our work around this rich understanding of
    the Chugach region ecosystem to conduct research, collect data, produce
    high-quality hatchery technology, and repopulate animal and plant
    resources that were devastated by the 1989 Exxon Valdez Oil Spill and
    continue to be affected by climate change. APMI's marine research work
    is founded on our Tribal communities' rich understanding of the Chugach
    region ecosystem. We have dedicated significant resources towards
    research on our subsistence populations, ocean acidification, kelp
    mariculture, hydroponics farming, and development of large-scale
    hatchery enhancement models. This work centers on the need to protect
    and provide subsistence resources. Our Federal partners should be able
    to share the knowledge from our efforts, rather than duplicating or
    overlooking them.
        Far too often, decisions regarding subsistence resource management
    are made based on data collected in years past. But climate change
    means that conditions on the ground are rapidly deteriorating. In our
    region, climate change is manifesting as shoreline erosion, glacial
    retreat, early spring thaws, and warmer temperatures in both summer and
    winter. All of these changes are impacting the availability, location,
    and timing of subsistence resources. Yet there are no existing
    communication channels to exchange this type of up-to-date information
    between Tribes and Federal partners. This is a prime opportunity for
    co-management and co-stewardship agreements to bolster collaboration,
    and to create a better result through cooperative efforts between
    Federal agencies and Tribal organizations who possess the local
    knowledge and expertise.
                         agency oversight is necessary
        Federal agencies must be required to have systems that implement
    Congress's budget appropriations in the ways they are intended. Our
    experience shows that these systems are not properly functioning.
    Although the members of this subcommittee worked hard to ensure the
    continuity of government through continuing appropriations this year,
    we did not benefit from those efforts. Even now, we are 8 months into
    FY2024 and have not received any funds, or any responses to our
    inquiries about when we may expect payment. We are paying the Federal
    Government's bills and performing our work without payment and without
    even a promise of a payment date. These delays and uncertainties
    undermine our ability to carry out services for our region's Native
    population. This in turn undermines the Federal work in our region,
    since it jeopardizes CRRC's work on the government's behalf.
        Every year, BIA is months late paying our program funds, and is
    unresponsive to our requests for information. We have no budget
    certainty, and we are forced to leave positions unfilled and consider
    furloughs, with no communication from our Federal trustee about when
    our funds may be issued. As far as we can tell, the only way we can
    remedy our situation is to file a lawsuit, which we do not want to do.
    We want to work with our Federal partners, not against them. We
    urgently request that you address this situation through report
    language instructing BIA to make timely payments to all Tribes and
    Tribal Organizations and to report to you on any payments that are not
    made to the designated Tribes/Tribal Organizations within 30 days of
    BIA receiving the funding allocated by Congress under ISDEAA for
    FY2025.
        In closing, I would like to emphasize the important work that I
    have briefly described that has taken place because of your support
    over the past few years. Thank you for fully funding the President's
    budget for BIA's ISDEAA programs. With some of those funds, we have
    been able to make a difference in the lives of the Native people of our
    region, and to make a start on enhancing the work of the Federal
    agencies responsible for our region. We ask that you fully fund our
    necessary operations, so that we can lay a good foundation and sustain
    this work, and that we can collaborate with Federal agencies to
    effectively manage the precious natural resources of our vast region.

        [This statement was submitted by Willow Hetrick-Price, Executive
    Director, Chugach Regional Resources Commission.]
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Coalition to Protect America's National Parks
        Chair Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
    subcommittee, I am Philip A. (Phil) Francis, Jr., Chair of the
    Executive Council of the Coalition to Protect America's National Parks
    (Coalition). The Coalition is a non-profit organization composed of
    more than 2,500 retired, former and current employees of the National
    Park Service (NPS) who collectively have over 40,000 years of
    experience managing and protecting our National parks. The Coalition
    studies, educates, speaks, and acts for the preservation of America's
    National Park System. We appreciate the opportunity to present this
    statement for the record about the FY 2025 appropriations for the NPS,
    our National parks, and their partnership grant and assistance
    programs.
        Our membership and the Executive Council of the Coalition speak on
    a regular basis with the leadership of the NPS, park superintendents
    and park staff, program managers in central and regional offices, as
    well as park partners and volunteers. The messages we receive are very
    similar with a sense of desperation setting in as annual appropriations
    and available funding have not kept up with the NPS mission Congress
    has mandated and entrusted to park employees.
        Visitation has grown by 10 percent over the past 10-12 years while
    park staff has been reduced by over 2,500 full-time equivalents.
    Congress recognized this situation and appropriated additional funds in
    some of the recent years' appropriations bills, allowing the NPS to
    hire additional staff. Unfortunately, the current FY 2024
    appropriations reversed this progress with $150 million less than the
    previous year's funding, while also requiring NPS to absorb $125
    million in fixed costs. The president's budget for FY 2025 attempts to
    reverse this slide by requesting an additional $101 million for the
    NPS, which is appreciated, but still is inadequate to meet the needs of
    the NPS.
        The NPS is at a crossroads, and your subcommittee will determine
    the direction the agency will take. At the same time, your decisions
    will inform the American public of the importance you place on the
    protection of these nationally significant historical, cultural, and
    natural resources. In addition, you will be sending an important signal
    to those who visit our parks for recreational activities, for
    experiencing the historic buildings and related artifacts, and for
    learning about the stories told, what they can expect when they arrive.
        The NPS is facing an increasingly complex situation in managing
    park resources, as with the growing impacts from climate change. For
    example, recreational activities have been restricted at many of our
    water-based parks due to declining water levels at our lakes,
    reservoirs, rivers, and seashores. This is happening while both the
    House and Senate authorizing committees are considering comprehensive
    legislation to encourage more recreational activities among the
    visiting public at our National parks and public lands.
        On top of fewer programs being available for the visiting public,
    the parks also are experiencing growing traffic and parking issues,
    overcrowding, the degradation of natural and cultural resources, and
    increasing safety and public health concerns for both visitors and
    employees. Staff are less able to carry out basic functions that are
    important to visitors, such as frequent cleaning of restrooms and
    emptying of refuse containers. In program offices, reduced staffing has
    resulted in less support for parks and programs. All of this has led to
    loss of employees through attrition, unfunded positions, and low staff
    morale; problems that are compounded by the increasing challenges
    presented by an inefficient hiring process.
        Below are specific actions we recommend the subcommittee take as it
    prepares the FY 2025 Interior appropriations bill to address the needs
    of the NPS.
        1) Continuing to Enhance and Build Operational Capacity (ONPS). The
    Coalition believes the top priority is providing an adequate
    appropriation for park operations that will allow the NPS to hire
    additional employees to replace some of those lost over the past 12
    years. The president's budget recommends only an additional $21 million
    above the current year's appropriation in this account. The Coalition
    recommends this be increased to at least an additional $250 million.
        We place special emphasis on urging the subcommittee to provide the
    amount needed for fixed costs to ensure park, regional, and program
    offices do not further deteriorate by having to absorb those costs in
    their base budgets. Additionally, the Coalition recommends the
    increased funding focus on staffing for new parks, parks experiencing
    dramatic increases in visitation, and those with new programs enacted
    by Congress. We also urge any increased funding provide adequately for
    youth programs and Americorps, which help develop our next generation
    of conservation stewards. These programs are so important for alerting
    young people to the gateways available for working in our National
    parks through park ranger, laborer, and wildland firefighting
    positions.
        The Coalition continues to be concerned about the loss of almost 30
    percent of cultural resource management positions in our National
    parks, regional, and program offices over the past decade. Many
    cultural resources, including historic buildings, museum objects, and
    archeological sites, are unmaintained, severely threatened, or degraded
    due to a lack of funding.
        Protection of these resources and the many compelling stories
    associated with our country's history remain an important part of the
    NPS mandate. We urge the subcommittee to continue to work with NPS on
    ways to address these issues within available funding. We recommend the
    subcommittee include committee report language accompanying the FY 2025
    bill that directs NPS to provide the subcommittee with the status of
    vacant cultural resource positions, their anticipated ability to fill
    any of the vacant positions in the current fiscal year, and any
    recommendations they might have for prioritizing vacant positions for
    hiring in future fiscal years.
        Further, the Coalition urges that the provision that has been
    repeated for multiple years in appropriations bills concerning the NPS
    being prohibited from reducing, mitigating, and implementing
    educational awareness regarding the use of toxic lead be removed so
    that the NPS can appropriately address the continuing human and
    wildlife threat of toxic lead in parks where firing ranges and
    recreational hunting and fishing activities occur. This will enable the
    parks to protect and restore resources while ensuring a safe and
    healthy public environment.
        2) Construction. The president's budget recommends $237.2 million
    for the Construction account, which is an increase of $65 million over
    the FY 2024 enacted level. The Coalition supports this funding as a
    needed partner to the mandatory funding provided by the Great American
    Outdoors Act (GAOA). The NPS construction funding helps to ensure
    cyclic maintenance and repair/rehab activities are carried out in a
    timely manner so that the backlog of NPS maintenance does not continue
    to grow.
        Of particular importance to the Coalition is funding to address the
    NPS' park housing needs. The FY 2025 budget recommends building on last
    year's momentum by increasing the housing request by $9 million. The
    Coalition strongly supports this proposed increase to assist the parks
    in attracting and retaining the needed permanent and seasonal staffing
    who can live in affordable housing. Rental housing for temporary
    employees in resort areas has become almost non-existent due to the
    takeover of the rental market by weekly rentals. When government
    housing is unavailable, prospective employees either turn down jobs or
    quit when they cannot find a place to live.
        The Coalition continues to work with the House and Senate
    authorizing committees on additional authorities that the NPS and other
    Federal land management agencies may need to address the critical
    housing needs of the parks. To help advance this effort, we recommend
    the Interior appropriations subcommittee include in the bill a
    provision to authorize the NPS to fill vacant positions using local
    people who already live in the area and know the area well. Having this
    expanded authority, outside of the usual competitive process, would
    help reduce the need for providing some of the additional housing while
    taking advantage of the knowledge and experience of local people near
    the park. It also would reduce the number of times individuals are
    offered permanent positions at individual parks in remote, or high-
    priced areas, only to have the offers declined due to the inability of
    the individuals to find and/or afford the cost of available housing.
        3) National Recreation and Preservation (NR&P) and the Historic
    Preservation Fund (HPF). Within the president's budget, various
    programs such as the National Register of Historic Places, Rivers,
    Trails, and Conservation Assistance, and several grant programs
    including the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation,
    Japanese American Confinement Sites, and National Heritage Areas, are
    funded under this account.
        The Coalition notes that these programs are critical to the
    partnership work of the NPS; they need adequate staff to fulfill their
    partnership responsibilities in a timely manner, which has been an area
    of critical concern in recent years. The president's budget recommends
    a decrease in funding for these programs of almost $7 million. However,
    it recognizes that the work of administering these grant programs
    continues to grow with the addition of the African-American Burial
    Grounds Preservation program in the most recent Congress and,
    therefore, requests an additional $500,000 to assist with this
    increased workload. The Coalition recommends maintaining at least level
    funding for these programs in FY 2025 to confirm the importance of
    these partnership opportunities and the resources being protected.
        An excellent example of NPS partnership activity is the
    collaboration through the Historic Preservation Fund, which preserves
    historically and culturally significant sites and provides competitive
    grants to non-Federal entities, including our Tribal nations. These
    partnerships have been of increasing importance to more and more parks
    through the Centennial Challenge program, with its matching funds from
    park partners for individual park projects. The Coalition supports
    these critical partnership opportunities as they often double the
    funding provided by Congress and increase the impact on park and
    associated historic and cultural resources.
        4) Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA). We note that the president's
    budget outlines its priorities for using the mandatory funding
    appropriated through the GAOA in FY 2025. The NPS is appropriated $1.3
    billion for various deferred maintenance programs through the Legacy
    Restoration Fund. This includes $25 million directed to Maintenance
    Action Teams (MAT) that carry out projects among the small and medium-
    sized parks throughout the Nation. The Coalition believes this amount
    is too limited and we continue to emphasize that the needs of these
    smaller parks are just as important as the large parks and urge that
    the capacity of the MAT be increased to help these parks.
        The Coalition is supportive of the $104 million in mandatory
    appropriations through the Land and Water Conservation Fund, also
    coming from the GAOA. We remain disappointed that only $58 million is
    recommended for NPS Federal land acquisition when so many parks have
    private inholdings that are waiting to be acquired. We also note how
    the division of the $900 million available LWCF funding is heavily
    biased in the president's recommendation with over $335 million being
    dedicated to NPS state assistance grants, and almost half of the total
    available funding being dedicated to this and other grant programs. We
    urge the subcommittee to use its authority to redirect some of this
    funding to Federal land acquisition to balance these funds more
    equitably commensurate with the need.
        Thank you for consideration of our request. We look forward to
    continuing to work with you during the consideration of the FY 2025
    Interior appropriations bill.

        [This statement was submitted by Philip A. Francis, Jr., Chair of
    the Executive Council, Coalition to Protect America's National Parks.]
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Coalition of Refuge Friends and Advocates
        This testimony is being submitted on behalf of the Coalition of
    Refuge Friends and Advocates, which was formed in 2020 to support the
    National Wildlife Refuge System. We appreciate the opportunity to
    submit comments on the fiscal year (FY) 2025 Interior Appropriations
    bill. We request Congress to allocate $602.3 million in funding for
    National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance account
    under the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
        ``National Wildlife Refuges are places where the music of life has
    been rehearsed to perfection, where nature's colors are most vibrant,
    where time is measured in seasons, and where the dance of the crane
    takes center stage. They are gifts to ourselves and to generations
    unborn- simple gifts unwrapped each time a birder lifts binoculars, a
    child overturns a rock, a hunter sets the decoys, or an angler casts
    the water.'' This is a quote taken from Fulfilling the Promise in the
    forward by then U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)Director Jamie
    Clark.
        The Coalition of Refuge Friends and Advocates(CORFA) is a not-for-
    profit organization that supports more than 180 officially designated
    Friends Groups by FWS that support an individual or complex of National
    Wildlife Refuges across the United States. They are comprised of local
    citizens that volunteer and passionately support ``their'' refuge as
    well as citizens across the country that have visited a refuge and
    enjoyed that ``gift'' so beautifully described by Director Clark.
        The gifts to the American public are not just in connecting with
    nature. National Wildlife Refuges provides billions of dollars in
    ecosystem services. Storm water attenuation, groundwater recharge,
    protection of important oil and gas infrastructure, and carbon storage
    are all important benefits that refuges provide to local communities as
    well as the country.
        The Friends Community that supports Refuges is upset by the current
    conditions on refuges and concerned for their future due to the
    continual erosion in funding and staffing for the refuge system. Refuge
    staffs have been cut in half or have one staff person and most refuges
    are now part of a refuge complex with other refuges that have less
    staff. Trails are closed or poorly maintained, visitor centers are open
    only a couple days a week if at all. Worse yet is the unhealthy
    condition of habitats the refuges manage...rusting or inoperable water
    control structures, increasing spread of invasive exotics, the
    inability to use important habitat management techniques such as
    prescribed fire or impoundment management. The significant loss of
    biologists to monitor wildlife populations and provide the needed
    scientific expertise to ensure healthy wildlife populations, as well as
    the loss of refuge law enforcement officers to ensure the safety of the
    visiting public and stop poaching of wildlife have greatly impacted
    Refuges, the ``gifts'' Congress authorized over the last 121 years.
        In order to continue to be the greatest network and lands and
    waters in the world set aside for wildlife, increased funding to
    operate the National wildlife refuge system is desperately needed.
    Although the funding need is huge, CORFA understands the current budget
    climate. A minimum of $602.3 million is needed to begin the road to
    recovery of the refuge system and the billions of dollars in ecosystem,
    economic, and recreational values to the American public.

        [This statement was submitted by Mark J Musaus, Vice President,
    Board Member for the Coalition of Refuge Friends and Advocates.]
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program
        This testimony is in support of Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 funding for
    the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Land Management (BLM)
    associated activities that assist the implementation of Title II of the
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-320).
    This long-standing successful and cost-effective salinity control
    program in the Colorado River Basin is being carried out pursuant to
    the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act and the Clean Water Act
    (Public Law 92-500). Congress has directed the Secretary of the
    Interior to implement a comprehensive program for minimizing salt
    contributions to the Colorado River from lands administered by the BLM.
    BLM funds these efforts through the Aquatic Resources Program. BLM's
    efforts are an essential part of the overall effort. A funding level of
    $2.0 million for salinity specific projects in FY-2025 is requested to
    prevent further degradation of the quality of Colorado River water
    supplies and increased environmental and economic damages.
        The Colorado River Board of California (Colorado River Board) is
    the state agency charged with protecting California's interests and
    rights in the water and power resources of the Colorado River system.
    In this capacity, California participates along with the other six
    Colorado River Basin States through the Colorado River Basin Salinity
    Control Forum (Forum), the interstate organization responsible for
    coordinating the Basin States' salinity control efforts. In close
    cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
    pursuant to requirements of the Clean Water Act, the Forum is charged
    with reviewing the Colorado River water quality standards every 3
    years. Every 3 years the Forum adopts a Plan of Implementation
    consistent with these water quality standards. The report ``2023
    Review: Water Quality Standards for Salinity, Colorado River System''
    contains both the water quality standard and the Plan of
    Implementation, and can be found at:

        https://coloradoriversalinity.org/docs/
    2023%20Review%20(final%20with%20
    appendices%20to%20print).pdf.

        If adequate funds are not appropriated, significant damages
    associated with increasing salinity concentrations of Colorado River
    water will become more widespread in the United States and Mexican
    portions of the Colorado River Basin.
        The EPA has determined that more than sixty percent of the salt
    load of the Colorado River comes from natural sources. Through passage
    of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in 1974, Congress
    recognized that much of the salts in the Colorado River originate on
    federally owned lands, much of which is administered by BLM. Title I of
    the Salinity Control Act deals with the U.S. commitment to efforts
    related to maintaining the quality of waters being delivered to Mexico
    pursuant to the 1944 Water Treaty. Title II of the act deals with
    improving the quality of the water delivered to water users in the
    United States. In 1984, Congress amended the Salinity Control Act and
    directed that the Secretary of the Interior develop a comprehensive
    program for minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from
    lands administered by BLM. In 2000, Congress reiterated its directive
    to the Secretary and requested a report on the implementation of BLM's
    program (Public Law 106-459). In 2003, BLM employed a Salinity
    Coordinator to coordinate BLM efforts in the Colorado River Basin
    States to pursue salinity control studies and to implement specific
    salinity control practices. BLM is now working to create a
    comprehensive Colorado River Basin salinity control program as directed
    by Congress. In January 2018 BLM issued A Framework for Improving the
    Effectiveness of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program,
    2018-2023. This document lays out how BLM intends to implement Colorado
    River Basin salinity control activities over the next 5 years.
        With a significant portion of the salt load of the Colorado River
    coming from BLM-administered lands, the BLM portion of the overall
    program is essential to the success of the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Program. Inadequate support for BLM salinity control
    efforts will result in significant additional economic damages to water
    users downstream.
        Over the fifty years since the passage of the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Act, much has been learned about the impact of salts
    in the Colorado River system. As described in the 2023 Plan of
    Implementation, the salinity concentration of Colorado River water
    causes about $348 million in quantifiable economic damages in the
    United States annually. Economic and hydrologic modeling by Reclamation
    indicates that these economic damages could rise to more than $447
    million by the year 2040 without continued implementation of the
    salinity control program. For example, damages can be incurred related
    to the following activities:

      --A reduction in the ability and increased costs to reclaim and reuse
            water due to high salinities in the water delivered to water
            treatment and reclamation facilities;

      --A reduction in the yield of salt-sensitive crops and increased
            water use to meet the leaching requirements in the agricultural
            sector;

      --Increases in the amount of imported water;

      --Increased costs of desalination and brine disposal for recycled
            water in the municipal sector;

      --A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
            water heaters, faucets, and other household appliances, and
            increased use of bottled water and water softeners in the
            residential sectors;

      --Increased costs of cooling operations and the cost of water
            softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
            commercial sector;

      --Increases in the use of water and cost of water treatment, and an
            increase in sewer fees in the industrial sector;

      --Decreased life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the utility
            sector;

      --Increasing difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements
            to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
            permit terms and conditions; and

      --Increased desalination and brine disposal costs due to accumulation
            of salts in groundwater basins.

        Based on current program cost levels, a funding level of $2.0
    million for salinity specific projects in FY-2025 is requested to
    continue this longstanding program for minimizing salt contributions to
    the Colorado River from lands administered by the BLM.
        The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital
    water resource to the nearly 20 million residents of southern
    California, including municipal, industrial, and agricultural water
    users in Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San
    Diego, and Ventura Counties. The protection and improvement of Colorado
    River water quality through the continued implementation of this very
    effective salinity control program avoids, or reduces, additional
    environmental and economic damages to California, the other Colorado
    River Basin States, and Mexico that rely on Colorado River water
    resources.
        Thank you for your consideration of this testimony.

        [This statement was submitted by Christopher S. Harris, Executive
    Director, Colorado River Board of California.]
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program
        Waters from the Colorado River are used by nearly 40 million people
    for municipal and industrial purposes and for irrigation of
    approximately 5.5 million acres in the United States. Natural and
    human-induced salt loading to the Colorado River causes environmental
    and economic damages. Though past efforts have reduced annual damages
    to water users by several hundred million dollars per year, in 2023 the
    Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) estimated the quantifiable damages
    to Lower Basin water users due to elevated salinity levels still at
    about $348 million per year (unquantifiable damages add to this
    amount). Congress authorized the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
    Program (Program) through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act
    (Act) (Public Law 93-320) in 1974 to offset increased damages caused by
    development and use of the waters of the Colorado River. Modeling by
    Reclamation indicates that the quantifiable damages would rise to
    approximately $447 million by the year 2040 without continuation of the
    Program. Congress has directed the Secretary of the Interior
    (Secretary) to implement a comprehensive program for minimizing salt
    contributions to the Colorado River from lands administered by the
    Bureau of Land Management (BLM). BLM has funded these efforts as
    directed by Congress through its Aquatic Resources Program. BLM's
    efforts are an essential part of the overall effort. A funding level of
    $2.0 million for salinity specific projects in 2025 is requested to
    prevent further degradation of the quality of the Colorado River and a
    commensurate increase in downstream economic damages.
        The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified that
    more than 60 percent of the salt load of the Colorado River comes from
    natural sources. The majority of land within the Colorado River Basin
    is federally owned, much of which is administered by BLM. In
    authorizing Program (Public Law 93-320, Act) in 1974, Congress
    recognized that most of the salts in the Colorado River originate from
    federally owned lands. Title I of the act deals with programs
    downstream of Imperial Dam that enable the U.S. to meet its commitment
    regarding the quality of waters being delivered to Mexico (Minute No.
    242 of the International Boundary and Water Commission, United States
    and Mexico). Title II of the act addresses measures upstream from
    Imperial Dam, thus improving the quality of the water delivered to
    users in the United States. This testimony deals specifically with
    Title II efforts. In 1984, Congress amended the Salinity Control Act
    (Public Law 98-569) and directed the Secretary to develop a
    comprehensive program for minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado
    River from lands administered by BLM. In 2000, Congress reiterated its
    directive to the Secretary and requested a report on the implementation
    of BLM's program (Public Law 106-459). Beginning in 2003, BLM employed
    a Salinity Coordinator to increase BLM efforts in the Colorado River
    Basin to pursue salinity control studies and to implement specific
    salinity control practices.
        BLM is now working on a comprehensive Colorado River Basin salinity
    control program as directed by Congress. In January 2018 BLM issued A
    Framework for Improving the Effectiveness of the Colorado River Basin
    Salinity Control Program, 2018-2023. This document lays out how BLM
    intends to implement Colorado River Basin salinity control activities
    over the 5-year period. Meaningful resources have been expended by BLM
    in the past few years to better understand salt mobilization on
    rangelands. With a significant portion of the salt load of the Colorado
    River coming from BLM administered lands, the BLM portion of the
    overall program is essential to the success of the effort. Inadequate
    BLM salinity control efforts will result in significant additional
    economic damage to water users downstream.
        Damages to water users in the United States and Mexico, caused by
    the concentration of salt in the Colorado River, by water usage sector,
    include the following:

      --a reduction in the ability to reclaim and reuse water for
            beneficial uses, including drinking water and irrigation water
            supplies, due to high salinities in the water delivered to
            water treatment and reclamation facilities,

      --a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops, increased water
            use to meet leaching requirements and additional actions
            necessary to comply with the Clean Water Act for the
            agricultural sector,

      --an increased use of imported water and cost of desalination and
            brine disposal for recycling water in the municipal sector,

      --a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems,
            water heaters, faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers and
            dishwashers, and increased use of bottled water and water
            softeners in the household sector,

      --an increase in the cost of cooling operations and the cost of water
            softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the
            commercial sector,

      --an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment,
            and a corresponding increase in sewer fees in the industrial
            sector,

      --a decrease in the lifespan of treatment facilities and pipelines in
            the utility sector, and

      --difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply
            with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit
            terms and conditions, and an increase in desalination and brine
            disposal costs necessary to minimize accumulation of salts in
            groundwater basins.

        The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed
    of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada,
    New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming. The Forum is charged with reviewing the
    Colorado River's water quality standards for salinity every 3 years to
    facilitate compliance with Section 303(c) of the Clean Water Act
    (Public Law 92-500). In so doing, it adopts a Plan of Implementation
    consistent with these standards. The level of appropriation requested
    in this testimony is consistent with the adopted Plan of
    Implementation. If adequate funds are not appropriated, significant
    damages from higher salinity concentrations in the water will be more
    widespread in the United States and Mexico.
        In summary, implementation of salinity control practices through
    BLM is a cost-effective method of controlling the salinity of the
    Colorado River and is an essential component of the overall Program.
    Continuation of adequate funding levels for salinity control within the
    Aquatic Resources Program will assist in preventing further degradation
    of the Colorado River's water quality and a commensurate significant
    increase in economic damages to municipal, industrial and irrigation
    users. A modest investment in source control pays huge dividends in
    improved water quality to nearly 40 million Americans. The Forum
    requests that this committee direct BLM to continue its support of the
    Program and expend at least $2.0 million in 2025 from its Aquatic
    Resources Program for Colorado River salinity-control specific
    activities.

        [This statement was submitted by Don A. Barnett, Executive
    Director, Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of
                            the Flathead Reservation
        My name is Carole Lankford and I am a member of the Tribal Council
    of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead
    Reservation. We appreciate the Senate Interior Appropriations
    subcommittee for its dedication to the needs of Indian Country and the
    opportunity to present testimony concerning these important
    appropriations.
        For thousands of years the Bitterroot Salish, Upper Pend d'Oreille,
    and Kootenai people thrived in portions of what is now Montana, Idaho,
    and British Columbia. Under the Hellgate Treaty of 1855, the Flathead
    Reservation was reserved as our permanent homeland and encompasses over
    1.2 million acres in western Montana situated around the southern half
    of Flathead Lake, the largest freshwater lake west of the Great Lakes.
    Our Tribes are made up of approximately 8,000 enrolled Tribal members,
    with approximately 5,000 Tribal members living on the Reservation. Our
    Reservation has a total Reservation population of roughly 30,000
    people.
        As a Self-Governance Tribe we have for decades carried out all
    functions of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Services on
    our Reservation, as well as the functions of the Environmental
    Protection Agency under the Treatment as States authorities for many
    years. Local control and wise fiscal management have allowed us to
    stretch limited resources far beyond the capabilities of the Federal
    Government. Despite the efficiencies our Tribal government can achieve,
    limitations on Federal resources present significant challenges for the
    delivery of services. These challenges have been exacerbated by
    unprecedented drought, mental health, and addiction facing our
    communities.
                         indian health service funding
        Our Reservation continues to face a serious mental health and
    addiction crisis worsened by the introduction of fentanyl and other
    opioids to our Reservation. Existing resources and methods are
    inadequate to effectively combat the complexities associated with
    opioid abuse. We are dedicated to providing needed mental health care
    and substance abuse treatment. We are engaged in several promising
    initiatives that, with adequate resources, will produce results.
    However, full funding for the Indian Health Service is a critical
    component to adequately address this mental health and addiction
    crisis.
                            bureau of indian affairs
        Social Services, Public Safety and Housing. Our Tribal Council has
    undertaken an aggressive response to the mental health, addiction and
    housing crisis faced by our people. Perhaps the most significant
    component of our response is our participation in the Tiwahe
    Initiative. Tiwahe was established in 2015 to improve the health and
    wellbeing of families in Tribal communities by reducing poverty,
    substance abuse, domestic violence, and associated outcomes, such as
    youth suicide.
        We appreciate the subcommittee's support for Tiwahe, and strongly
    encourage additional support for Fiscal Year 2025. The President's 2025
    budget requests an increase of $28.6 million for additional support for
    Tiwahe Social Services, Housing, Tribal Justice Support, Tiwahe Indian
    Child Welfare Act programs, services, functions, and activities,
    including support for Tribal capacity building, and direct funding
    opportunities to Tribes seeking to develop and operate Healing to
    Wellness courts. At CSKT we have had tremendous success with our
    efforts to reduce recidivism and with our drug and wellness courts.
    Through our participation in Tiwahe, we intend to expand these
    important programs to help families and individuals struggling with
    substance abuse to access critical services so that they can be
    successful in housing, employment, and sobriety.
        Since joining Tiwahe we have made significant strides in the
    development steps leading to a well-coordinated system of change
    resulting in positive outcomes for our children and families. We have
    identified the need to create a coordinated service delivery system to
    break through silos and have implemented a cross-disciplinary team to
    co-case manage children in need of care and services. We are working to
    incorporate Tribal language and cultural perspectives into our
    programming, reviewing our codes and policies to address current
    challenges, and eager to begin subsequent phases through action and
    strategic planning.
        In addition to the President's FY 2025 requested increases, we also
    encourage the subcommittee to provide an additional $2 million in
    Tiwahe Job Placement/Training funds and $5 million to establish a
    Tribal Economic Development component within the Tiwahe Initiative to
    further development and deployment of multi-disciplinary socioeconomic
    solutions. Funding will support Tribes in developing and operating
    comprehensive, integrated economic and community development programs.
        In addition to Tiwahe funding, we support increased resources for
    social services, housing, Tribal Court, law enforcement and
    corrections. Homelessness and overcrowding are at all-time highs across
    Indian country. The housing situation on our Reservation is further
    complicated by the drug and mental health crisis we face, as
    eligibility for Tribal housing may be impacted by addiction issues and
    drug and mental health events of one individual may have wide-reaching
    impacts on all members of that individual's household. The average home
    price on our Reservation far exceeds what a typical Tribal family can
    afford with a price tag of $725,000. Increased Federal funds are
    necessary to enable the Tribal government to increase housing
    availability for Tribal members on the Reservation. And importantly,
    housing funding must include the resources for infrastructure to ensure
    all new housing has water, sewer, electricity, and broadband access.
        Social services are critical to the wellbeing of families on the
    Reservation. For example, we provide services that support Tribal
    people in entering into and staying in the workforce, as well as
    parenting programs that help parents acquire the tools and practices of
    good parenting, which in turn helps keep many children out of the
    foster care system.
        Tribal courts are essential to a strong economy and safe
    communities. Our Tribal Court system provides an important venue for
    resolution of conflicts on the Reservation. And our Tribal Defender's
    office is leading several cutting-edge efforts to reduce recidivism
    which include novel approaches to case management and the provision of
    wraparound services like supportive housing. But these efforts need
    additional funding. This is especially the case because the Tribal
    Court system faces additional burdens and significant challenges
    associated with mental health and addiction.
        Similarly, law enforcement and corrections are in dire need of
    additional funding throughout Indian country, especially as opioid and
    other illegal substance use increases as people self-medicate to treat
    mental illness. Most cases handled by our law enforcement and in our
    jail have a substance abuse component.
        In addition, the Tribal Council is facing significant uncertainty
    as the State of Montana and its political subdivisions are anticipated
    to seek retrocession of felony criminal jurisdiction under Public Law
    280 within the next few weeks. If the State is successful in
    withdrawing from its public safety obligations, CSKT will necessarily
    need to assume a dramatic increase in public safety related services.
    Full funding for law enforcement and corrections is imperative if we
    are to adequately police our communities.
        Importantly, if CSKT is required to assume additional public safety
    obligations due to State retrocession, existing infrastructure will be
    wholly inadequate. Our criminal justice programs are spread out among
    different buildings and locations, hindering collaboration. Funding for
    Tribal justice centers with space aligned with the Tribal restorative
    justice values and objectives will be vital in consolidating justice-
    related programs, ensuring adequate detention capacity, implementing
    effective treatment programs to address addiction and reduce
    recidivism, and providing vocational and other training and educational
    services to help people to leave the justice system with the ability to
    return to their communities and find meaningful work.
        Natural Resources: Wildland Fire and Aquatic Invasive Species. We
    thank the Committee for recent increases in Federal wildland fire
    appropriations and appreciate continued attention to additional funding
    for future challenges particularly in light of unprecedented drought
    conditions. We also encourage continued support for parity, equity, and
    inclusion of Tribal wildland fire management programs during the Agency
    allocation of these funds. Current criteria limits funding to full-
    time, permanent wildland firefighters. However, due to our remote
    location and limited resources we regularly rely on part-time and
    seasonal employees as well as employees with other responsibilities in
    addition to just firefighting to fight fires when they arise.
        CSKT's Division of Fire was stretched to the breaking point during
    with fires in 2021 and 2022 that ravaged our homelands due in large
    part to inadequate infrastructure to support an evolving fire
    landscape. Lack of available space and facilities for permanent and
    emergency personnel and equipment is a problem that has grown
    exponentially over the past few years. With dry conditions expected
    this season we continue to see the critical need for a single engine
    air tanker base facility, personal facilities, vehicle bays for
    engines, and training and assessment facilities.
        We also are keenly concerned with the detection, prevention and
    eradication of invasive species and on the resiliency of our Tribal
    lands. There has been little to no coordinated effort across the
    Columbia River Basin for the protection against the introduction of
    Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS), such as the zebra and quagga mussels.
    Because it only takes one boat to infect an entire watershed, every
    potential vector is a threat to the entire region. It is therefore
    critical to empower local parties who are best suited to guard against
    invasion with additional resources and to build strong partnerships
    throughout the Basin. In our view, Federal monetary support and
    assistance in enhancing coordination are key to adequately protecting
    the vital water resources of the Pacific Northwest. Because of the
    interconnectedness of waterways, protection against AIS is an area
    where Federal funds can match or supplement local efforts in a cost-
    effective manner.
        Additionally, and just as importantly, because the Federal Highway
    system is the primary vector for transmission of invasive species,
    including AIS, any robust line of defense against invasive species must
    involve the establishment of permanent check stations on all Federal
    highways in and out of the Columbia Basin. Working in tandem, the
    Transportation and Interior Departments could ensure that traffic is
    safely and efficiently moved into check stations, where watercraft can
    be inspected safely by local staff from Tribes, States, and local
    governments. These check stations could be constructed in conjunction
    with rest areas and weigh stations throughout the Basin.
        CSKT operates a number of programs that defend against the
    introduction of invasive species and mitigate the invasions that have
    already occurred. But funding for our efforts is sparse and
    inconsistent. We must have adequate resources and support for
    coordinated efforts among the various sovereigns in the region.
                        environmental protection agency
        Finally, we thank the Committee for additional resources provided
    in recent cycles for Solid and Hazardous Waste and the Brownfields
    Program. However, we strenuously urge Congress to prioritize adequate
    funding for the Environmental Protection Agency programs for Tribal
    communities. Tribal EPA programs steadily decreased for nearly a decade
    and a half, placing an unreasonable drain on our government and our
    ability to sustain vital programs to monitor, reduce, and prevent
    pollution on our Reservation. The Federal trust responsibility requires
    the United States to ensure the Tribes continue to have a livable
    homeland where pollution levels are safe for people, wildlife, and the
    environment. Without stable funding, CSKT cannot build sustainable and
    effective programs to protect our environment and community.
        Critical programs for protecting the Tribes' permanent homeland
    have seen stagnation or decreases in funding over the past decade or
    so. These critical programs include the Clean Water Act Section 106
    Water Quality Program, the Wetland Program Development Grant program,
    the Clean Air Act Section 103 and Section 105 Air Quality Program, the
    Underground Storage Tanks and Leaking Underground Storage Tanks
    Program, and Tribal Federal Insecticide Fungicide Rodenticide Act
    (``FIFRA'') Program.

        [This statement was submitted by Carole Lankford of the
    Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes.]
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis
                                  Reservation
        On behalf of the Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation
    (the ``Tribe''), thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony to
    the subcommittee. My name is Dustin Klatush, and I serve as the
    Chairman of the Chehalis Business Committee, the governing body of the
    Tribe.
        The Tribe requests that the subcommittee prioritize the need for
    increased funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA) law
    enforcement and Housing Improvement Program (HIP), as well as ensuring
    that the BIA has the necessary staff and processes to make timely
    payments of contract support costs (CSC).
        The Chehalis Reservation was established by Executive Order in 1864
    and is located between the confluence of the Chehalis River and the
    Black River. Geographically, the Tribe is located approximately halfway
    between Seattle and Portland, just off Interstate 5. The Tribe's 5,500-
    acre reservation is largely checkerboarded, and spans three different
    counties in southwestern Washington state. The Tribe has approximately
    996 Tribal members, with forty percent of them being under the age of
    eighteen.
                                law enforcement
        The Chehalis Tribal Police Department (PD) carries out law
    enforcement and detention services under a contract with the BIA under
    the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975. Our
    BIA law enforcement contract allows us to have greater control and
    flexibility in the use of funds, program designs, services, functions,
    and activities, as needed, to address our local public safety and
    justice needs.
        The Tribe's PD has 13 commissioned officers who are certified under
    state law to enforce State and local criminal laws, in addition to
    Chehalis Tribal criminal laws. Currently, the Chehalis PD has two
    vacant positions. According to the BIA Tribal service population model
    for the Scalable Law Enforcement Budget \1\, the Tribe receives funding
    for a full-time basic program. Like most Tribes, however, the BIA
    portion of the Tribe's law enforcement represents a fraction of the
    actual need.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Report to the Congress on Spending, Staffing, and Estimated
    Funding Costs for Public Safety and Justice Programs in Indian Country,
    2020. Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of Justice Services. March 2023;
    pages 4-5.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Tribe is responsible for more than just its service population.
    The Tribe daily sees an influx of approximately 5,000 to 10,000
    employees and visitors to the Tribe's reservation. As noted above, the
    Tribe's reservation spans 5,500 acres and is checkerboarded with
    parcels up to 20 miles apart. The distance traveled to cover the area
    and reach all parcels is much larger than just the Tribe's land base of
    5,500 acres. The increase in visitor traffic to the reservation and the
    actual distance traveled should justify an increase in BIA law
    enforcement funding, so that the Tribe can hire more officers.
        Most Tribes also need additional resources to assist with the
    recruitment and retention of experienced law enforcement officers. The
    Tribe has lost experienced law enforcement officers to neighboring
    jurisdictions offering more competitive pay and benefits. This
    competition has been amplified by the shortage of officers in
    Washington and the recruiting efforts of neighboring jurisdictions. The
    Tribe currently offers a competitive salary only because it supplements
    the funding it receives from the BIA with significant Tribal funds.
    More BIA law enforcement funding is needed to allow Tribes to be more
    competitive with neighboring jurisdictions.
        In FY 2024, most BIA law enforcement programs received level
    funding compared to the FY 2023 enacted levels. The FY 2025 President's
    Budget Request seeks a $45.5 million increase in Criminal
    Investigations and Police Services, with $33.5 million specifically
    allocated to increase the number of officers and investigators in
    Indian Country. The Tribe is requesting that the subcommittee fund the
    Criminal Investigations and Police Services account with at least the
    FY 2025 requested levels.
                          housing improvement program
        Forty percent of Chehalis Tribal members are under the age of
    eighteen, demonstrating a need for new housing for Tribal members that
    will only become more acute over time. The Chehalis Tribal Housing
    Authority (CTHA), the Tribe's tribally designated housing entity,
    estimates that fifty low-income houses are required to meet the current
    waiting list demand. The CTHA primarily relies on funding from the
    Department of Housing and Urban Development's Indian Housing Block
    (IHBG) grant program.
        The IHBG grant program, however, does not cover all housing-related
    needs. The BIA's HIP program provides funds to Tribal members with
    substandard or no housing and no immediate housing assistance. HIP
    funds can be used for home repair, renovation, replacement, and new
    housing. HIP funds are allocated to BIA area offices based on an
    inventory of housing needs, including the number of units in
    substandard condition and the number of units needing renovation or
    replacement.
        When the Tribe receives HIP funds it provides them to the CTHA.
    Last year, the CTHA used HIP funds to provide plumbing upgrades in nine
    low-income homes. Like most Tribes with unmet housing needs, it could
    use more resources from the HIP program to improve and extend the life
    of its existing housing stock. In FY 2024, the HIP program received
    $11.9 million, which is a $280,000 decrease in funding from the FY 2023
    enacted levels. The President's FY 2025 Budget Request seeks $18
    million for FY 2025. The Tribe requests that the Committee fund the HIP
    program at the requested levels or higher levels.
                             contract support costs
        In the BIA's Northwest Regional Office, there is an acute shortage
    of contracting officers to process various types of transactions,
    including processing payments for CSC. The Tribe is awaiting payment
    for its CSC for fiscal years 2021, 2022, 2023, and 2024, which
    collectively amount to more than $4 million. Timely payments of CSCs
    assist in keeping our contracted programs, such as law enforcement,
    housing, and other programs and services, operating smoothly.
        Based on discussions with the BIA, the reason for the delay is the
    shortage of contracting officers in the BIA. We understand that this
    problem is not limited to the Northwest Region but is nationwide. Given
    the backlog in payments that the Tribe (and likely other Tribes) are
    experiencing, the Department should deploy contracting officers from
    other agencies within the Department to assist the BIA in clearing the
    backlog of late CSC and other payments that Tribes are waiting for. We
    request that the Committee include the following language in the report
    that will accompany the FY 2025 bill:

                    The Committee is aware that a lack of contracting
                    officers has resulted in a backlog of payments of
                    contract support costs and other types of payments to
                    Tribes, in some cases going back multiple fiscal years.
                    The Committee directs the Department to deploy
                    contracting officers from other bureaus and agencies to
                    the Bureau of Indian Affairs on a short-term basis to
                    assist in resolving this backlog.

        I want to thank the subcommittee for allowing me to provide
    testimony. Please feel free to contact me directly with any questions.

        [This statement was submitted by Dustin Klatush, Chairman,
    Confederated Tribes of the Chehalis Reservation.]
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville
                                  Reservation
        On behalf of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
    (the ``Colville Tribes'' or the ``CCT''), I thank you for this
    opportunity to provide testimony on the subcommittee's FY 2025 spending
    bill.
        The CCT has three recommendations for the subcommittee's
    consideration:

        (1) Indian Health Service (IHS): The CCT would like the
    subcommittee to include report language directing the Government
    Accountability Office (GAO) to investigate and report on IHS's
    management of the Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) program at IHS managed
    facilities, specifically on why IHS has allowed such a large amount of
    carryover PRC funds in most IHS Area Offices.

        (2) Public Safety and Justice: the Colville Tribes has a fraction
    of the number of officers it needs to patrol its 1.4-million-acre
    (2,200 square mile) reservation. The CCT urges the Committee to provide
    a significant increase to the applicable accounts for law enforcement
    officer salaries to enable Tribes nationwide to hire more officers and
    retain the officers that they have.

        (3) Prioritize Tribal Wildland Fire Funding Requests: Approximately
    half of the 1.4-million-acre Colville Reservation has burned due to the
    wildfires during the past decade, yet Tribes routinely must compete for
    resources within DOI for funding from other DOI land management
    agencies. Tribes, on a per acre basis, receive a fraction of what is
    spent on U.S. Forest Service and other Federal lands for forest
    management and wildfire preparedness. The CCT urges the Committee to
    include language that would require DOI to prioritize funding requests
    from Tribes for preparedness and other on-reservation fire prevention
    purposes.
                       background on the colville tribes
        By way of background, although now considered a single Indian
    Tribe, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation is a
    confederation of 12 aboriginal Tribes and bands from across eastern
    Washington state, northeastern Oregon, Idaho, and British Columbia. The
    present-day Colville Reservation is in north-central Washington state
    and was established by Executive Order in 1872. The Colville
    Reservation covers more than 1.4 million acres and its boundaries
    include portions of both Okanogan and Ferry counties. Geographically,
    the Colville Reservation is larger than the state of Delaware and is
    the largest Indian reservation in the pacific Northwest.
     direct gao to investigate ihs's administration of the prc program at
                             ihs managed facilities
        The Colville Tribes is a ``direct service'' Tribe, which means that
    IHS provides all health services, from delivery of care to billing,
    using Federal IHS employees. For this reason, IHS has total control
    over the delivery of health care services on the Colville Reservation.
    The Colville Tribes in recent years have endured service delivery
    problems related to IHS's management of the PRC program that have
    directly resulted in Tribal member deaths.
        For an approximately 5-year period that ended in October 2022, the
    Portland Area IHS Office administered the PRC program for the Colville
    Service Unit in using Portland Area Office staff, not local IHS
    employees located on-reservation. Many problems ensued, including the
    following:

      --Onerous documentation requirements not required by the IHS handbook
            or any other IHS authority were imposed on Colville Tribal
            members to prove they were eligible for PRC. This meant that
            Tribal elders, on an annual basis, had to produce utility
            bills, blood quantum and other proof of Tribal enrollment, and
            other information not required by the IHS regulations or
            handbook in order to get referrals for specialty care. Those
            who were unable to produce this information either went without
            care or obtained care on their own and subsequently faced
            collection agencies when IHS refused to pay.

      --During the 5-year period when the Portland Area IHS office
            administered the CCT's PRC program, thousands of unreconciled
            PRC purchase orders accumulated that have yet to be closed out.
            The Colville Tribes estimates that of the $33 million in PRC
            carryover funds in the IHS Portland Area, as much as $24
            million is attributable to open PRC purchase orders from the
            Colville Service Unit.

      --Private health providers have stopped participating in the PRC
            program and others have informed the CCT that they are
            considering abandoning it because the administrative
            difficulties in getting paid for services from IHS is no longer
            worth it for them.
        IHS has been on GAO's high risk program list since 2017 and it
    would appear that many of the issues that prompted GAO to classify IHS
    as high risk continue on the Colville Reservation. We request that the
    Committee direct GAO to investigate IHS's administration of PRC program
    at IHS managed service units and obtain input from affected Tribal
    governments in the preparation of the report.
                    increase funding for bia law enforcement
        There is a constant need for additional funding for Tribal law
    enforcement and detention operations. The CCT requests that the
    Committee provide a $100 million increase for the Criminal
    Investigations and Police Services account to enable Tribes in all BIA
    regions to hire more police officers and retain their existing police
    officers.
        As the Committee is aware, large land-based Tribes often lack a
    sufficient number of Tribal police officers. This often results in
    police response times in excess of four hours. There are occasions when
    the Colville Tribes has only a single officer on duty for the entire
    1.4-million-acre Colville Reservation.
        Collectively, the Colville PD has a 30 percent vacancy rate for
    both commissioned and non-commissioned officer positions. Nationwide,
    BIA law enforcement is funded at only a fraction of the actual need.
    Recruitment and retention remain acute issues even with the Colville
    Tribes supplementing the BIA funding allocation by more than 200
    percent annually.
     include report language directing the secretary to prioritize tribal
                requests for wildland fire preparedness funding
        The Colville Tribes suggests that the subcommittee include language
    in its FY 2025 spending bill that directs the Secretary of the Interior
    to prioritize Tribal requests for preparedness funding from the
    Wildland Fire Management Account. During the past decade, more than
    half of the 1.4 million acre Colville Reservation has burned in
    wildfire events and the CCT has been at the forefront of recommending
    policy changes to enable the Colville Tribes and similarly situated
    Tribes to protect their on-reservation forests.
        Tribal forest managers are in the best position to assess the
    danger and risk to on-reservation Tribal forests. Tribes rely on their
    forest resources for many uses and purposes, including economic
    development, and have a motivation to protect them from wildfires that
    distinguishes them from other Federal land managers. If Tribes are able
    to receive preparedness funds quickly and without having to navigate
    bureaucratic red tape, they can prevent fire events from becoming
    massive wildfires.
        Please feel free to contact me directly with any questions. Thank
    you again for the opportunity to provide this testimony.

        [This statement was submitted by the Confederated Tribes of the
    Colville Reservation.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement
        The following members of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge
    Enhancement urge Congress to allocate at least $602.3 million in
    funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and
    Maintenance account under the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
    (USFWS). This funding is necessary for the Refuge System to effectively
    fulfill its conservation mission, provide opportunities for wildlife-
    dependent recreation, and connect communities to nature.
        Since 1995, the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE)
    has worked to showcase the value of the Refuge System and to secure a
    strong congressional commitment to conserving these special landscapes.
    The CARE members listed below have endorsed this testimony and our
    request to your subcommittee. We represent millions of users of the
    National Wildlife Refuge System-wildlife watchers, hunters, anglers,
    wildlife professionals and conservationists, and Refuge Friends
    members.

    American Birding Association
    American Fisheries Society
    Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
    Backcountry Hunters & Anglers
    Congressional Sportsmen's Foundation
    Defenders of Wildlife
    Ducks Unlimited, Inc.
    Izaak Walton League of America
    Marine Conservation Institute
    National Audubon Society
    National Wildlife Federation
    National Wildlife Refuge Association
    Safari Club International
    The Nature Conservancy
    The Corps Network
    The Wilderness Society
    The Wildlife Society
    Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership Trout Unlimited
    Wildlife Forever
    Wildlife Management Institute

        The National Wildlife Refuge System is the world's largest network
    of lands and waters dedicated to wildlife conservation, and the only
    set of Federal lands in the Nation set aside for the management of
    America's native wildlife. Found in every U.S. state and territory,
    national wildlife refuges conserve a diversity of America's
    environmentally sensitive and vital ecosystems, including wetlands,
    coasts, forests, prairie, tundra, deserts, and oceans. These public
    lands and waters are important recreational and tourism destinations in
    communities across the United States, and offer a variety of
    recreational opportunities, including sustainable hunting and fishing,
    wildlife observation, photography, and environmental education and
    interpretation.
        Funding for the Refuge System has only increased by 4.7 percent
    since FY2010 and currently sits at $527 million, or $5.55 per land
    acre. In today's dollars, the appropriations allocated in FY2010
    equates to approximately $765 million. Because funding has not kept up
    with inflation, accounted for annual fixed costs, or correlated with
    the growth and increased needs of the Refuge System since FY2010, the
    Refuge System budget has effectively decreased. This has led to
    unsustainably low staffing levels and lost capacity.
        Our request of at least $602.3 million for the Refuge System
    represents a needed increase over FY2024 funding levels and will help
    secure a strong future for the Refuge System, but more needs to be
    done. To achieve a fully funded and effective Refuge System, an annual
    budget of at least $2.2 billion is needed to provide for its basic
    needs, meet mandates and public demand, and ensure commensurate
    staffing of other similarly sized public lands systems. This request is
    an important step towards that goal and we urge Congress to make
    significant investments in these treasured public lands and waters.
                              staffing challenges
        At its peak, staffing levels exceeded 3,240 employees across the
    Refuge System. The number of full-time employees (FTEs)-already a
    fraction of the other comparable Federal land agencies at 2,500 FTEs-
    has decreased by 27 percent since FY2011. This has made it difficult
    for the Refuge System to manage its vast network of lands and waters
    and to fulfill its mission of conserving wildlife and habitats.
        The insufficient funding and capacity impacts are felt System-wide,
    impacting conservation planning, wildlife and habitat management,
    visitor services, law enforcement, and maintenance. No refuges are
    fully staffed, and more than half of refuges have zero staff on site.
    Multiple refuges have been closed to the public and are completely
    unmanaged. Many employees must manage multiple wildlife refuge units,
    sometimes traveling hundreds of miles per day.
        Rising fixed costs are also eating into annual appropriations. It
    costs the refuge system an estimated $3 million for every one percent
    raise in payroll costs. Without base increases in the budget to cover
    these fixed costs, several much-needed positions are eliminated every
    year.
                              impacts to visitors
        The Refuge System has grown significantly since FY 2010, adding 21
    new refuge units and 549 million submerged marine acres, opening 6
    million acres for hunting and fishing, and visitation has grown to over
    68 million annual visitors-an increase of 47 percent since FY2011.
    While this growth has enhanced the Refuge System and benefited the
    communities around refuges, it has also put more pressure on the
    already stressed and underfunded System that provides vital wildlife
    habitat and important services to hunters, anglers, birders, and other
    nature enthusiasts.
        Visitor Services staff has decreased by 25 percent since FY10
    despite the increase in visitorship. Nearly all of the Refuge System's
    125 visitor centers operate on limited hours, with some centers
    completely closed, and none would function without volunteers. However,
    many volunteer programs have been cut back or eliminated due to a lack
    of supervision from professional FTEs or necessary infrastructure. In
    2023, there were 48 percent fewer volunteers than in 2016.
        The Refuge System has a large deferred maintenance backlog of $2.65
    billion, with most structures near or past the end of their maximum
    useful life spans, such as buildings, roads, bridges, and trails. As
    the Refuge System has opened additional acres for hunting and fishing,
    there has not been an equivalent increase in funding to improve
    habitat, maintain necessary infrastructure like blinds, boat launches,
    piers, parking lots, and restrooms, or support popular hunting and
    fishing programs for youth and serve people with disabilities,
    veterans, seniors, and others.
        Public safety has also been jeopardized due to budget shortfalls,
    impacting both visitors and wildlife. As of February 2024, the Refuge
    System has the lowest number of law enforcement officers in over 10
    years while simultaneously seeing its highest visitation and crime
    rates in its history. Currently, seven States have no officers
    stationed within their boundaries (CT, DE, IA, MI, NH, OH, VT), and
    nine States with just one officer (GA, Guam, HI, IN, KY, PA, PR, RI,
    WY). Increased funding is needed to improve visitor access, public
    safety, and wildlife protection.
                          impacts on fish and wildlife
        The limited staffing capacity has several negative impacts on the
    ecological health of the Refuge System. Due to capacity issues, only 27
    percent, or 379 of the 1,364 threatened and endangered populations
    occurring on refuges, are monitored. This leads to compromised adaptive
    management capability, inability to manage invasive species, the
    destruction of native habitat, and the potential loss of more species.
    With current resources, USFWS can only successfully control 7 percent
    of 3.3 million acres of lands infested with non-native species, which
    has increased 30 percent since 2005. USFWS also has extremely limited
    capacity to effectively manage the Refuge System's millions of marine
    acres and 100 coastal and marine units.
        Significant progress has been made in the early detection and rapid
    response against newly introduced invasive species on Refuge System
    lands thanks to the expansion of invasive species strike teams. Now up
    to 21 teams, this program eradicates and prevents the spread of
    invasive species on the Refuge System and nearby public and private
    lands, protecting natural resources for adjoining communities. For
    example, nutria has successfully been eradicated from the Delmarva
    Peninsula through this work in partnership with other agencies, which
    is helping to build resiliency against sea-level rise in impacted
    counties of the Chesapeake Bay. Funding for wildlife and habitat
    management activities is desperately needed to deal with longer-term
    invasive species management challenges. Without funding to enhance and
    apply prevention measures, new threats will emerge and known invasive
    species such as phragmites, kudzu, quagga mussels, purple loosestrife,
    feral hogs, and invasive carps will continue their spread throughout
    the Refuge System.
        By law, refuges must update their Comprehensive Conservation Plan
    (CCP) every 15 years. Up-to-date management plans ensure that each
    wildlife refuge can be adaptable to present and upcoming needs, from a
    changing climate and extreme weather events like wildfires to rising
    recreational visitors and commercial uses. However, over 60 percent of
    CCPs have become out-of-date or were never finalized, which severely
    limits landscape-level planning and adaptability to changing
    conditions. With an increased planning budget, refuges could modernize
    and update these important management plans that help them reach their
    conservation goals.
                              the need for action
        Without a necessary increase in funding for the Refuge System, we
    anticipate further impacts both within and outside of refuge
    boundaries. These impacts could include more closures of visitor
    centers, elimination of environmental education programs for schools,
    reduced habitat quality, diminished hunting and fishing opportunities,
    reduced invasive species management on refuge lands and nearby private
    lands, and reduced capacity for prescribed fire, which is an important
    tool to improve wildlife habitat and to reduce hazardous fuels.
        The common denominator to all these challenges is a lack of
    funding. Adequate staffing and funding are critical to the maintenance
    of healthy wildlife populations and access for recreational users to
    healthy ecosystems. Increasing funding for the Refuge System will
    empower and enable individual refuge units to deliver on-the-ground
    conservation that benefits wildlife and local communities across the
    Nation. We urge Congress to prioritize the Refuge System and address
    these overarching funding challenges to ensure that the USFWS is
    equipped to effectively manage the wildlife, habitat, programs, and
    visitorship that rely on the health and integrity of the Refuge System.
        On behalf of our more than 16 million members and supporters, CARE
    thanks the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit comments on the
    FY2025 Senate Interior Appropriations bill. Thank you for considering
    our request of at least $602.3 million for the National Wildlife Refuge
    System in FY2025. Please contact Libby Marking at
    lmarking@refugeassociation.org for additional information.

        [This statement was submitted by the Cooperative Alliance for
    Refuge Enhancement.]
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Council of Infrastructure Financing
                                  Authorities
        The Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities (CIFA)
    represents the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds
    (SRFs), the Nation's premier programs for funding water infrastructure
    that protects public health. The SRFs are state-run programs that
    provide subsidized loans to build infrastructure that provides safe
    drinking water, recycled water for multiple purposes, wastewater
    treatment, stormwater management and environmental restoration and
    protection.

        Requests from the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRFs:

      --Fund both SRFs to congressionally authorized levels of $3.25
            billion each.

      --Fund congressional earmarks separately from the SRFs.

      --Eliminate duplicative mandates for additional subsidy (grants and
            principal forgiveness).

      --Eliminate the outdated mandate for green infrastructure.

      --Protect public health.

        Fully funding the SRFs at $3.25 billion each is a conservative and
    economical investment in water infrastructure. Stable, routine
    investment in water infrastructure is the single greatest factor in
    averting life-threatening and costly water crises in communities across
    the Nation.
                        maintain affordable water bills
        The SRFs provide loans at below market rates, which can cut
    interest payments by as much as 75% compared to a municipal bond or
    private financing. These savings alleviate the pressure on utilities to
    raise rates on water bills, which has a direct impact on family
    budgets.
                meet the growing demand for affordable financing
        Increased Federal funding of the SRFs is needed to meet the growing
    demand for SRF subsidized loans, which has skyrocketed due to the
    increased cost of planning, design, construction and financing.

      --According to the results of the 7th Drinking Water Needs Survey,
            America needs to invest $625 billion over the next 20 years to
            provide safe drinking water to communities across the Nation, a
            32% increase from previous assessment.

      --According to the recently released results of the Clean Watershed
            Needs Survey, America needs to invest $630.1 billion over the
            next 20 years in clean water infrastructure--55% for wastewater
            infrastructure, 18% for stormwater infrastructure, 15% for
            nonpoint source control and 12% for decentralized systems.

      --Complying with more stringent water quality standards requires new
            investments in sophisticated and often expensive treatment
            technologies.

      --While historic inflation has ebbed, the cost of planning, design
            and construction remains well above pre-pandemic levels,
            particularly in rural communities that can least afford it.

      --Higher construction costs are compounded by higher financing costs
            from rising interest rates on the municipal market. The cost of
            borrowing has become a barrier to needed investment in water
            infrastructure.

                        strengthen fiscal responsibility
        Increasing Federal funding for the SRFs is a fiscally responsible
    approach to funding water infrastructure. Federal funding used for
    subsidized loans creates a perpetual, renewable source of revenue to
    meet the never-ending need to rehabilitate, replace and modernize aging
    infrastructure. Loan repayments are funding water infrastructure
    projects that may never have been built if the SRFs were established as
    a traditional Federal grant program.
                          restore financial integrity
        Unfortunately, Congress is systematically turning the SRFs, which
    have been successful, sustainable, state-run loan programs, into a
    massive Federal grant program. Over the last 3 years, Congress has
    diverted $3.73 billion in Federal funding from the SRFs to pay for
    congressional earmarks which are 100% grants. Congress has also
    mandated that the SRFs use another $1 billion of annual Federal funding
    for principal forgiveness or grants instead of subsidized loans. As a
    result, more than 55% of recent annual Federal funding for the SRFs
    will be used one time for one project in one community, rather than
    over and over for multiple projects in perpetuity.
                              fund the srfs first
        Congress can restore financial integrity to the SRFs by funding the
    programs first, then funding congressional earmarks in addition to the
    SRFs. Using the SRF capitalization to pay for congressional earmarks
    may be convenient, but it is inconsistent with the goals of the SRFs,
    one of which is to provide a long-term, cost-effective and sustainable
    strategy for rehabilitating, replacing and modernizing aging
    infrastructure to protect public health and the environment.

      --First, congressional earmarks are grants, not loans. Giving away a
            majority of annual Federal funding as grants diminishes the
            long-term lending power of the SRFs.

      --Second, SRF projects must be prioritized based on risk to human
            health, environmental protection and affordability. It's
            unclear how congressional earmarks are selected.

      --Third, congressional earmarks redistribute the allotment of Federal
            funding, which is established by Federal law. Congressional
            earmarks don't offset cuts to programmatic funding for the
            SRFs. In fact, nearly all States have experienced a net loss of
            Federal funding for water infrastructure (SRF funding plus
            congressional earmarks) since Congress began using the SRF
            capitalization grant to pay for congressional earmarks.
               sunset the duplicative mandate for ``free money''
        For more than a decade, annual appropriations bills have required
    the SRFs to provide a portion of annual Federal funding as principal
    forgiveness or grants. For the last 3 years, Congress has maintained
    these Federal mandates, despite duplicative Federal mandates being
    enacted in Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). Since then,
    the Federal mandate for the Clean Water SRFs doubled from 10% to 20%
    and the Federal mandate for the Drinking Water SRF increased from 20%
    to 26%.
        Sunsetting the duplicative Federal mandates won't end financial
    assistance for communities that need help. The Clean Water Act and Safe
    Drinking Water Act provide flexibility for the SRFs to use up to one-
    third of their annual Federal funding to help communities that couldn't
    otherwise afford to build a water infrastructure project. Additionally,
    most States have more generous and flexible assistance programs to
    support small, rural and economically disadvantaged communities.
    restore autonomy for prioritization of srf-funded water infrastructure
                                    projects
        For more than a decade, Congress has required the SRFs to allocate
    10% of annual Federal funding to build ``green'' water infrastructure
    projects as determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
    While well-intentioned, this Federal mandate can have the unintended
    consequence of diverting annual Federal funding from water
    infrastructure projects that may provide greater protection for public
    health and the environment.
        Sunsetting this Federal mandate is unlikely to impact investment in
    ``green'' projects. Green projects are the norm today, growing
    substantially over the last 10 years because of the need for resilient
    and sustainable solutions, demand by consumers, and cost-savings.
    Perhaps most importantly, many communities have adopted a more
    integrated and holistic approach, incorporating ``green'' components
    into every project rather than treating a green project as a separate
    special project.
           fund state programs that support infrastructure investment
        The Public Water System Supervision Grants and Water Pollution
    Control (Section 106) Grants play an integral role in building
    infrastructure projects that protect water quality and public health.
    Without increased Federal funding for these programs, States may not
    have adequate resources to process permit applications and conduct
    other fundamental obligations for drinking water and wastewater
    infrastructure projects.

        [This statement was submitted by the Council of Infrastructure
    Financing Authorities (CIFA).]
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of Detroit International Wildlife Refuge
        This testimony is being submitted on behalf of the nonprofit
    ``friends group'' that supports the Detroit International Wildlife
    Refuge (DRIWR). We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the
    fiscal year (FY) 2025 Interior Appropriations bill. We request Congress
    to allocate $602.3 million in funding for National Wildlife Refuge
    System Operations and Maintenance account under the United States Fish
    and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
        Since 2001 the Detroit River International Wildlife Refuge has
    existed as the only international refuge in North America and proudly
    stands as one of only 14 priority urban refuges in the Nation with the
    distinct responsibility to bring conservation to cities. Stretching
    from southwest Detroit to the Ohio-Michigan border, the refuge
    highlights a remarkable 48 miles of shoreline. With over 6,000.00 acres
    of land under the careful watch of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    priorities such as conserving, protecting and restoring habitats for
    birds, fish and plants are a reality.
        To further the necessary work of the DRIWR a dedicated group of
    individuals came together in 2005 to form the nonprofit ``friends
    group'' known as the International Wildlife Refuge Alliance (IWRA).
    Nearly 20 years later the Alliance's mission ``to support the first
    International Wildlife Refuge in North America by working through
    partnerships to protect, conserve and manage the Refuge's wildlife and
    habitats, and to create exceptional conservation, recreational and
    educational experiences to develop the next generation of conservation
    steward.'' remains our prime focus.
        Now in its 23rd year, the refuge continues to conserve, protect,
    and restore habitats for the many fish, birds, animals, and plants
    thriving on the refuge, while also serving an equally important role of
    providing physical, mental and emotional support to the tens of
    thousands of visitors each year. The LEED-certified visitor center was
    designed and built to provide visitors of all ages and backgrounds the
    opportunity to experience a hands-on environmental and interpretive
    conservation adventure. The interpretive trails, learning stations and
    wildlife observation decks throughout the refuge invite individuals and
    families to explore, learn and embrace nature. For a truly unique
    opportunity, visitors can enjoy a casual stroll or the excitement only
    fishing can create on our 740-foot fishing pier, providing experienced
    or first-time anglers access to some of the Nation's finest fishing.
        With fewer individuals DRIWR Staff will be required to do more to
    maintain the level of service the Refuge System and visitors have come
    to expect. In 2023, more than 180,000 people visited the DRIWR and over
    18,600 visitors enjoyed the hands-on experience provided when entering
    the John D. Dingell Visitor Center. After only 4 months in 2024 both
    total refuge visitations and specifically visitor center visitations
    are on pace to far exceed the total numbers of 2023. We continue to ask
    our Refuge staff to focus on designing programs, creating habitat,
    increasing outreach while cutting their funding. How can we expect
    their devotion, passion, and commitment to the service and those they
    serve to remain at the highest level when our words say ``continue to
    serve and give more'' while our actions say ``your service isn't
    valued'' when we cut funding.
        The DRIWR staff is comprised of dedicated individuals who give of
    their time, energy, knowledge, and passion to provide each visitor the
    opportunity to learn, explore, and grow as individuals and
    conservationists. To support the wonderful work of refuge staff the
    IWRA's Nature Store Manager, board members and volunteers help operate
    the Nature Store within the refuge visitor center, provide some
    volunteer staff to outreach events, and assist park rangers during
    field trips and classroom activities. IWRA's Executive Director is
    instrumental in researching and applying for grants, creating
    sponsorships, and collaborating with donors to support large and small
    projects on the refuge. IWRA's board continues to explore opportunities
    to build new partnerships, strengthen relationships, and work with
    local organizations and agencies to encourage and actively create an
    inclusive environment enjoyed by all visitors.
        Since 2010 the overall Refuge System has added 21 new refuge units
    and 549 million submerged marine acres, opened 6 million acres for
    hunting and fishing, and has seen visitation grow to over 68 million
    annual visitors-an increase of 47 percent since FY2011. While these
    additions have enhanced the Refuge System and benefited the communities
    around these refuges, this growth has also put more pressure on the
    already stressed and underfunded Refuge System.
        Funding for the Refuge System has only increased by 4.7% since
    FY2010 to $527 million, or $5.55 per land acre. When accounting for
    total land and water acres, the Refuge System budget is a mere $0.62
    (or 62 cents) per acre. Considering the level of inflation, annual
    fixed costs, and increased needs of the Refuge System since FY2010, the
    Refuge System budget has effectively decreased.
        The number of full-time employees (FTEs)-already a fraction of the
    other comparable Federal land agencies at 2,500 FTEs-has decreased by
    16% since FY2010. This has made it difficult for the Refuge System to
    manage its vast network of lands and waters and to fulfill its mission
    of conserving wildlife and habitats. The insufficient funding and
    capacity impacts are felt System-wide, impacting conservation planning,
    wildlife and habitat management, visitor services, law enforcement, and
    maintenance. No refuges are fully staffed, and more than half of
    refuges have zero staff on site. Multiple refuges have been closed to
    the public and are completely unmanaged. Many employees must manage
    multiple wildlife refuge units, sometimes traveling hundreds of miles
    per day. Many volunteer programs have also been cut back or eliminated
    due to a lack of supervision from professional FTEs or necessary
    infrastructure.
        The Refuge system is forced to reduce the workforce necessary to
    adequately run each of the refuges, which creates fewer opportunities
    to fully implement the worthwhile and necessary programs and
    educational experiences required to reduce barriers and create
    inclusive programs for all visitors.
        We urge Congress to prioritize the Refuge System and address these
    overarching funding challenges to ensure that the USFWS is equipped to
    effectively manage the wildlife, habitat, programs, and visitorship
    that rely on the health and integrity of the Refuge System. Ultimately,
    the Refuge System needs at least $2.2 billion in annual appropriations
    to effectively fulfill its conservation mission, provide opportunities
    for wildlife-dependent recreation, and connect communities to nature.
    The President's FY2025 Budget Request of $602.3 million is an important
    step towards that goal.
        Thank you for considering our request of $602.3 million for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System in FY2025. Please feel free to contact
    Gary R. Kirsh, the Chairperson of the International Wildlife Refuge
    Alliance, the ``friends group'' of the Detroit River International
    Wildlife Refuge at 1-586-707-5773.

        [This statement was submitted by Gary R. Kirsh, Chairperson,
    International Wildlife Refuge Alliance.]
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of ``Ding'' Darling Wildlife Society
        I submit this testimony on behalf of the ``Ding'' Darling Wildlife
    Society, the non-profit friends group supporting the J.N. ``Ding''
    Darling National Wildlife Refuge Complex located on Sanibel Island,
    Florida, and its thousands of members who love this Refuge and the
    entire National Wildlife Refuge system.
        It is an honor to submit comments on the fiscal year (FY) 2025
    Interior Appropriations bill. We request Congress to allocate a minimum
    of $602.3 million in funding for National Wildlife Refuge System
    Operations and Maintenance account under the United States Fish and
    Wildlife Service (USFWS).
        Before Covid-19, the J.N. ``Ding'' Darling National Wildlife Refuge
    welcomed more than a million annual visitors from around the world. It
    gave the refuge staff, volunteers and friends group the opportunity to
    educate and inspire these visitors about the importance of protecting
    our natural lands and having them available to both the wildlife and to
    each and every one of us. The refuge has been in existence for nearly
    80 years and the friends group since 1982.
        With the mission to ``Protect, Educate and Inspire'', the ``Ding''
    Darling Wildlife Society (DDWS) worked for more than 40 years
    supporting the Refuge and its staff. We see the challenges that the
    small staff faces daily in accomplishing the conservation work
    necessary to maintain a refuge the size of ``Ding'' Darling and it is
    our mission to help fill in the gaps where Federal funding has fallen
    short. But it is not enough.
        Wildlife Refuges around the country not only foster a deeper
    connection between people and nature, but also generate significant
    economic benefits for the communities and surrounding areas in which
    they are located. By allowing visitors to explore these natural
    habitats, wildlife refuges promote environmental education,
    conservation awareness, and appreciation for biodiversity. Moreover,
    increased eco-tourism to these areas stimulates local economies through
    spending on lodging, dining, and recreational activities, thereby
    creating job opportunities and supporting small businesses.
        To understand the significance of funding for the National Refuge
    System, it is important to understand how the system has grown in both
    size and visitors. Since 2010, the Refuge System has added 21 new
    refuge units and 549 million submerged marine acres and opened 6
    million acres for hunting and fishing. Visitation has grown to over 68
    million annual visitors--an increase of 47 percent since 2011. While we
    all celebrate this growth and the benefits to the communities, it also
    puts considerable added pressure on the already under-funded Refuge
    System and its dedicated staff.
        Funding for the Refuge System has only increased by only 4.7% since
    FY2010 to $527 million, or $5.55 per land acre. When you add in water
    acres, that becomes a mere .62 per acre. Then when you consider the
    level of inflation, annual fixed costs, and increased needs of the
    Refuge System since FY2010, the Refuge System's real time budget has
    decreased even more significantly. We simply cannot operate a system as
    important as this on a shoestring budget like that.
        The number of full-time Refuge employees (FTEs) -already a fraction
    of the other comparable Federal land agencies at merely 2,500 FTEs-has
    decreased by 16% since FY2010. At ``Ding'' Darling, the refuge staff
    has decreased by nearly 50% over the last 20 years. This makes it
    almost impossible for the Refuge System to manage its vast network of
    lands and waters and to fulfill its mission of conserving wildlife and
    habitats, as well as educating the public on the importance of
    conservation.
        The impacts of insufficient funding and increased capacity are felt
    here at the J.N. ``Ding'' Darling National Wildlife Refuge and
    throughout the entire Refuge System. The funding shortage impacts
    conservation planning, wildlife and habitat management, visitor
    services, law enforcement, and overall maintenance. Just like ``Ding''
    Darling, none of the other refuges in the country are fully staffed,
    and more than half of the refuges have zero staff on site. Multiple
    refuges have been closed to the public and are completely unmanaged,
    due to the lack of funding. In addition, many employees must manage
    multiple wildlife refuge units, sometimes traveling hundreds of miles
    per day in their jobs. Many volunteer programs have been cut back or
    eliminated due to a lack of supervision from professional staff or
    necessary infrastructure.
        We ask Congress to fully fund the US Fish and Wildlife Service and
    its national wildlife refuge system to safeguard America's rich
    biodiversity, preserve critical habitats, protect imperiled species,
    and inspire millions of people. Adequate funding enables the US Fish
    and Wildlife Service to effectively manage and conserve diverse
    ecosystems and ensure their resilience. The national wildlife refuge
    system provides invaluable opportunities for outdoor recreation,
    wildlife observation, and education, benefiting millions of visitors
    each year and fostering a deeper appreciation for the natural world. It
    deserves adequate funding.
        By investing in the US Fish and Wildlife Service and its refuge
    system, Congress not only ensures the long-term health of ecosystems
    and wildlife populations but also promotes sustainable use of natural
    resources and supports local economies through tourism and recreation-
    related revenue. Ultimately, the Refuge System needs at least $2.2
    billion in annual appropriations to effectively fulfill its
    conservation mission, provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent
    recreation, and connect communities to nature. The President's FY2025
    Budget Request of $602.3 million, while considerably short of the
    ultimate need, is an important step toward that goal and is what we ask
    you to support.
        Thank you for considering our request of $602.3 million for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System in FY2025. Please feel free to contact
    me directly or our Executive Director, Ann-Marie Wildman at
    wildman@dingdarlingsociety.org.

        [This statement was submitted by William H. Harkey, Board
    President, ``Ding'' Darling Wildlife Society.]
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of Defenders of Wildlife
        Mister Chairman, Ranking Member and Members of the subcommittee,
    thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. I am Mary Beth
    Beetham, Director of Legislative Affairs at Defenders of Wildlife.
    Founded in 1947, Defenders has nearly 2.2 million members and
    supporters and is dedicated to the conservation of wild animals and
    plants in their natural communities.
        Biodiversity is in crisis on a global scale. Numerous scientific
    studies in the last several years have raised the alarm about this
    crisis. A landmark 2019 study \1\ compiled by hundreds of the world's
    leading scientists found that about one million species are facing
    extinction. In February 2023, a new study \2\ found that 40% of animals
    and 34% of plants in the United States are at risk of extinction, while
    41% of ecosystems are facing collapse. The health of wildlife and
    ecosystems is directly related to human health--healthy ecosystems
    support clean water, clean air, and pollination, on which we all
    depend. The 2024 World Economic Forum Global Risks report continues to
    find that biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse is one of the
    fastest growing global risks, ranking as third most severe over the
    next 10 years after extreme weather events and change to Earth's
    systems.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Diaz, S., J. Settele, E. S. Brondizio, et al. 2019. ``Summary
    for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and
    Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on
    Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.''
        \2\ NatureServe. 2023. Biodiversity in Focus: United States
    Edition.
        \3\ World Economic Forum Global Risks Report 2024
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The biodiversity crisis cannot be addressed without funding--more
    than 1,900 scientists previously signed a letter \4\ published in the
    journal Science which asked Congress to fully fund conservation
    programs to protect biodiversity, including the Endangered Species Act
    (ESA). We were extremely disappointed with the funding cuts in the
    final FY 2024 bill. Given the scale of the catastrophe facing the
    planet's wildlife, significant increases, not cuts, are needed in every
    area.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Malcom, J et al. 2019. ``Solve the biodiversity crisis with
    funding.'' Science 365 (6459): 1256
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Defenders very much appreciates the removal from the final FY 2024
    appropriations bill of all the new riders in the House version of the
    bill that would have undermined the ESA, including protections for
    individual species, and would have blocked other key wildlife
    conservation efforts. However, we are deeply disturbed that the final
    bill once again included the longstanding prohibition on protecting the
    sage-grouse under the ESA that has been in the bill since 2014. We urge
    the subcommittee to remove the sage-grouse rider from the FY 2025 bill
    and to reject all such riders that undermine the ESA and protections
    for wildlife.
                           fish and wildlife service
        The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is our Nation's premier
    wildlife conservation agency. To address the biodiversity crisis, the
    agency needs additional increases to support recovery of threatened and
    endangered species; protect migratory birds and fish, species of global
    conservation concern and other trust species; and prevent domestic and
    international wildlife crimes.
        Ecological Services--Defenders is part of a coalition of more than
    115 organizations requesting a significant infusion of funds into the
    Ecological Services program to begin to address the biodiversity
    crisis. We very much appreciate the $338.1 million in the president's
    request, but the need is far greater. Based on available data on the
    needs and costs for ESA implementation by FWS across its programs, as
    well as inflation adjustment, our recommendation is $735.6 million, or
    $447.3 million more than the FY 2024 level:

      --Listing: There are approximately 200 species on the FWS National
            Listing Workplan for FY 2022-FY 2027 that must be reviewed for
            protections under the ESA, with more species petitioned for
            protection every year. For FWS to meet this obligation, a total
            of $70.1 million is needed annually, an increase of $48.1
            million.

      --Recovery: Of the more than 1,600 listed U.S. species, more than
            1,200 have no recovery plans or have plans that are at least a
            decade old and that may no longer contain current scientific
            information, especially related to climate change. Hundreds of
            listed species receive less than $1,000 per year for recovery
            and many receive no FWS funding at all. Congress should provide
            a minimum of $101,000 per year per species for recovery. For
            FWS to meet its obligations under the recovery budget, a total
            of at least $469.4 million is needed annually, an increase of
            $358.9 million.

      --Planning and Consultation: FWS conducts ESA Section 7 consultations
            on more than 10,000 Federal actions each year so that projects
            can move forward while minimizing harm to listed species. The
            agency also has significantly increased obligations under the
            Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). To meet these
            needs and to continue development and expansion of the web-
            based Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) system,
            work with other agencies to develop proactive recovery plans
            under ESA Sec. 7(a)(1), monitor ESA compliance and work with
            non-federal stakeholders to develop Habitat Conservation Plans,
            $185.6 million is needed annually, an increase of $67.4
            million.

      --Conservation and Restoration: A total of $10.5 million per year, a
            $4 million decrease is sufficient for the Candidate
            Conservation element of Conservation and Restoration to assist
            with early conservation action on the current 23 candidate
            species.

      --Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration Program: Defenders urges
            continued funding at no less than $1 million for this program
            that assists livestock owners co-existing with wolves.

        National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance--A key
    component of addressing the biodiversity crisis in the U.S. is to
    refocus Federal land management on it. Our National Wildlife Refuge
    System is the largest network of public lands and waters in the world
    dedicated to wildlife conservation. Since 2010, the System has added 2
    million land acres, 18 national wildlife refuges, and 600 million acres
    of Marine National Monuments, has experienced a 46 percent increase in
    visitation, and has worked to significantly expand its urban refuge
    program in historically excluded communities. Despite its growing
    responsibilities, the System has lost 27 percent of its staff since
    2010. Appropriations during that time have not kept pace with
    inflation, even in years when there has been a modest increase in
    funding. The $527 million provided for the System in the FY 2024 bill,
    a decrease of $14.5 million from FY 2023, will leave it even further
    below the FY 2010 inflation adjusted level of roughly $735 million.
    Defenders recommends $2.2 billion, an increase of $1.7 billion, which
    is needed for the System to meet its mission.
        Partners for Fish and Wildlife--Defenders supports the $68.1
    million in the president's request, an increase of $9.1 million, to
    address a backlog of applications and fund practices that could restore
    tens of thousands of land acres and stream miles on private land. We
    urge inclusion of report language directing continued prioritization of
    projects that connect, enlarge, and buffer national wildlife refuges.
        Migratory Bird Management--In North America nearly 3 billion birds
    have disappeared since 1970 and the only group to not suffer severe
    declines was waterbirds that has received substantial funding over the
    decades.\5\ The administration is currently working to develop
    regulations to govern incidental take under the Migratory Bird Treaty
    Act following the restoration of previously weakened MBTA protections.
    We are extremely pleased with the $73.1 million in the request, an
    increase of $19.9 million, to support crucial survey and monitoring
    programs, to build resilience of bird species and their habitats, to
    help support development of proposed regulations under the MBTA, and to
    support Urban Treaties intended to create bird-safe environments in
    cities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Rosenberg, L. V. et al. 2019. ``Decline of the North American
    avifauna.'' Science 366 (6461): 120-124.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) and International Affairs (IA)--For
    OLE, we support the $110.7 million in the request, an increase of $18.8
    million, to help OLE continue to address the crisis in the illegal
    global wildlife trade and the threat of zoonotic diseases. For IA, we
    support $31 million, an increase of $2.4 million, crucial in continuing
    to combat the illegal wildlife trade and to build capacity in range
    countries.
        ePermits--We support the consolidation of the multi-program
    ePermits system into one subactivity at a funding level of $13.5
    million as included in the request. Defenders is hopeful that this
    consolidation will lead to improved oversight, compliance, and
    transparency. This funding also should support the provision of
    information on permit applications and issuances to the public.
        Science Applications--We support the request of $37.9 million, an
    increase of $4.1 million, to maintain and enhance partnerships and
    habitat strategies focused on biodiversity, adaptation, and resilience.
        Key grant programs--We support: $121.8 million for the Cooperative
    Endangered Species Fund, an increase of $67.2 million; $10 million for
    the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund, an increase of $5 million; and $30
    million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, an increase of
    $9.5 million.
                u.s forest service and bureau of land management
        The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and the U.S. Forest Service
    (FS) manage close to 20 percent of the country's land base, providing
    habitat for hundreds of species listed under the ESA and thousands of
    sensitive species. These agencies have long been deprived of the
    funding they need to adequately conserve and recover imperiled species.
    Proactive investments to recover at-risk species can prevent the need
    for listing under the ESA. Likewise, recovery actions help listed
    species reach the point where they can eventually be delisted. Given
    the enormity, urgency, and complexity of the extinction crisis and the
    importance of Federal public lands, continued increases are still
    needed for programs listed below to help prevent species' extinctions
    and restore resilient native ecosystems.
        FS Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive (TES) Species--We request
    $23 million for the TES Program and re-establishment of the TES budget
    line item under Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management (WFHM). Based
    on cost estimates in ESA recovery plans, FS would need to spend roughly
    twice the requested amount annually to meet its responsibility to help
    recover the over 400 listed plant and animal listed species on FS-
    administered lands. This request should also be reflected in top-line
    increases for WFHM to ensure that increased capacity for TES does not
    detract from WFHM's other mission-critical functions, including
    ``keeping common species common.''
        FS Land Management Planning, Assessment and Monitoring--We request
    $32 million, an increase of $17.5 million, for planning, assessment,
    and monitoring. Land management plans provide the blueprints for how
    national forest and grassland natural resources are to be utilized and
    sustained for 10-15 year periods. Close to half of all land management
    plans are over 15 years old and not reflective of current science and
    conditions. Increased funding is necessary to ramp up revisions and
    amendments. The 2012 planning rule requires that plans advance
    threatened and endangered species recovery and adaptations to climate
    change. Outdated plans cannot provide adequate guidance for managing
    projects and activities in the era of climate change and unprecedented
    biodiversity loss.
        BLM Plant Conservation and Restoration--Defenders supports $34.7
    million, an increase of $14.1 million, for BLM, in coordination with
    other agencies, to support rare plants conservation and operationalize
    recent National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recommendations \6\ for
    providing a reliable supply of native seeds necessary for ecological
    restoration and climate resilience. NAS warned that insufficient
    supplies of native seeds and plant materials are a major barrier to
    ecological restoration and revegetation and that ``substantial inter-
    institutional commitment...at a much more intensive and expansive level
    than is currently underway'' is needed. We also urge establishment of
    the program as its own activity given its substantial responsibilities
    and importance to many Bureau programs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
    2023. An Assessment of Native Seed Needs and the Capacity for Their
    Supply: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
    https://doi.org/10.17226/26618.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        BLM Threatened and Endangered (T&E) Species--Defenders recommends
    $38.5 million, an increase of $4.5 million, and elevation of the
    program to its own subactivity to meet its obligations to help recover
    the over 300 listed species that occur on public lands. This increase
    should be reflected in top-line increases for Wildlife Habitat
    Management (WHM) to ensure that increased capacity for T&E does not
    detract from WHM's other mission-critical functions.
        BLM Wildlife Habitat Management (WHM)--Defenders supports $162
    million, an increase of $19 million and $8.6 million above the
    president's budget. This amount will help offset both recent needed
    increases in nested programs that were not reflected in increases in
    WHM and increases in fixed costs. It also will help fund the
    conservation of unlisted imperiled wildlife and wildlife corridors.
                             u.s. geological survey
        Ecosystems--Defenders supports the $326.1 million in the request,
    an increase of $26.7 million to support development of crucial
    scientific information for sound management of our Nation's biological
    resources. This includes a total of $69.3 million, an increase of $6.2
    million for the National and Regional Climate Adaptation Centers.

        [This statement was submitted by Mary Beth Beetham, Director of
    Legislative Affairs, Defenders of Wildlife.]
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Detention Facility and Public Safety in Northeast
                                    Oklahoma
        Problem. For many years, the State of Oklahoma and the Federal
    Government treated reservations in Oklahoma as disestablished, but this
    wrongful assumption was recently corrected. The Federal Government and
    Tribal Nations now need significantly more resources to provide law
    enforcement and public safety services throughout newly-affirmed Indian
    Country in Oklahoma. Most pressing for us, there is not an adequate
    detention facility in Northeast Oklahoma in which to house offenders,
    and this deficiency is a major barrier to Tribal Nations' exercise of
    criminal jurisdiction on their lands. Additionally, there are not
    sufficient resources for detainees struggling with chemical dependency
    and mental health issues, resulting in serious recidivism challenges.
        Reservation Affirmations. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in McGirt v.
    Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), concerning the Muscogee (Creek)
    reservation, that reservations in Oklahoma are subject to the same
    exacting test for disestablishment as Tribal Nations' reservations
    elsewhere. Since that ruling, multiple other Tribal Nations'
    reservation boundaries have been affirmed, empowering Tribal Nations in
    Oklahoma to exercise their territorial jurisdiction. On March 7, 2024,
    the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals in Oklahoma v. Fuller, Case No.
    S-2023-409, affirmed what we already knew to be true: the Wyandotte
    Reservation-the seat of our government and the land on which our
    Ancestors sought refuge and created a home-continues to exist. This
    shifted the Wyandotte Nation's jurisdictional footprint in Oklahoma
    from approximately 760 acres of trust land to over 20,000 acres of
    reservation land. Many Tribal Nations near us have also had their
    reservation boundaries affirmed, including the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma,
    Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, Quapaw
    Nation, and Cherokee Nation. We expect the Eastern Shawnee Tribe of
    Oklahoma and Seneca-Cayuga Nation to receive affirmations soon.
        No Existing Detention Facilities. The Tribal Nations in Northeast
    Oklahoma have exercised jurisdiction over their trust lands even prior
    to the decision in McGirt, and therefore they have some public safety
    infrastructure in place. At present, some have agreements whereby they
    place offenders at the local county jail. However, we cannot understate
    the deteriorating condition of this facility and the lack of staff and
    services available there, in addition to its small size. Beyond the
    local county jail, no Tribal Nation operates a local detention
    facility, nor does the Department of the Interior's Bureau of Indian
    Affairs.
        Cooperation. Many of the Tribal Nations located in Northeast
    Oklahoma have cooperated closely on their exercise of criminal
    jurisdiction post-McGirt, including the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma,
    Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, Seneca-
    Cayuga Nation, Shawnee Tribe, and Wyandotte Nation. This Tribal
    Consortium has also worked closely with the Oklahoma Attorney General
    and District Attorney, Ottawa County, and City of Miami. These
    governmental units have a healthy working relationship and a desire to
    coordinate to create a safe community for all, and they all support
    bringing more Federal public safety resources into the area.
        Past Efforts to Secure Detention Facility. Prior to many of the
    reservation affirmation decisions, the Tribal Consortium in 2022
    submitted and was denied a Coordinated Tribal Assistance Solicitation
    (CTAS) grant application to build a new detention facility. As part of
    the CTAS grant application process, the Tribal Nations designed a
    shovel-ready project that they would have operated jointly to provide
    detention and rehabilitative services. The Tribal Nations also made
    appropriations requests for this facility last year, along with other
    funding requests related to public safety.
                         requests for fiscal year 2025.
      --Congressionally Directed Spending for Detention Facility. The
            Department of the Interior Budget Justification for Fiscal Year
            2025 recognizes the need for funding to support ``the detention
            and corrections needs for Tribes'' in the wake of McGirt. The
            Wyandotte Nation seeks a congressionally directed spending item
            to fund construction and operation of a detention facility in
            Northeast Oklahoma-either by the Tribal Nations in accordance
            with the plans set forth in their CTAS grant application or by
            the Department of the Interior to house offenders prosecuted in
            Tribal as well as Federal courts. According to the CTAS grant
            application, construction costs were estimated at $26,849,750,
            and annual operating costs were estimated at $2,808,462.

      --McGirt Funding for Tribes. In recent legislation, Congress has
            appropriated $62 million to the Department of the Interior to
            allocate to Tribal Nations to implement public safety changes
            resulting from McGirt. This funding must be increased, and
            indeed the Budget Justification recognizes ``other Tribes which
            collectively span the eastern half of the State of Oklahoma''
            have now had their reservations affirmed and will be sharing in
            this money. Additionally, the Department must allocate
            sufficient monies to each Tribal Nation with an affirmed
            reservation. Its current allocation methodology would only
            provide $135,370 to the Wyandotte Nation, which is woefully
            insufficient. The Wyandotte Nation is seeking at least $154
            million for Public Safety and Justice monies in the Interior,
            Environment, and Related Agencies appropriation legislation to
            flow to McGirt Tribal Nations.

      --Funding for Office of Justice Services' Law Enforcement in
            Oklahoma. The Federal Government is responsible for providing
            law enforcement services in Indian Country, including policing
            and detention services. Some of the Tribal Nations in Northeast
            Oklahoma have contracted or compacted for portions of these
            services, including the Wyandotte Nation. The Wyandotte Nation
            is seeking increased funding for Public Safety and Justice
            monies in the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
            appropriation legislation to better fund the Department of the
            Interior's Office of Justice Services' law enforcement in
            Oklahoma.

      --Funding for Northern District of Oklahoma U.S. Attorney's Office.
            The Federal Government is also responsible for prosecuting
            Federal crimes in Indian Country. In the past, Congress has
            appropriated funding to the Department of Justice for increased
            workloads resulting from McGirt, including at the U.S.
            Attorney's Offices. The Wyandotte Nation is seeking increased
            funding for Salaries and Expenses for U.S. Attorneys within the
            Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies appropriation
            legislation to provide the Northern District of Oklahoma U.S.
            Attorney's Office the support it needs to prosecute crimes in
            Indian Country.

        [This statement was submitted by Wyandotte Nation, Chief Billy
    Friend.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Dine Bi Olta School Board Association
                                    (DBOSBA)
        The Navajo Nation established the Dine Bi Olta School Board
    Association (DBOSBA) to represent the locally-elected school boards
    within the Navajo Nation. With its representation of school boards from
    the 66 Bureau of Indian Education-funded (BIE) schools located on the
    Navajo Nation in Arizona and in New Mexico, DBOSBA's membership
    constitutes more than one-third of the 183 BIE-funded schools
    nationwide. Of those 66 BIE-funded schools, 32 are operated by the BIE
    and 34 are tribally-operated (33 pursuant to grants under the Tribally
    Controlled Schools Act, Public Law 100-297 (TCSA) and one pursuant to a
    contract under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
    Act, Public Law 93-638 (ISDEAA)). DBOSBA unites school boards to
    advocate for educational programs and services that help ensure each
    Navajo student graduates with the preparation necessary to lead a
    productive and fulfilling life, with knowledge and understanding of
    Navajo language and culture.
        DBOSBA appreciates the key increases the subcommittees provided FY
    2023, but is concerned that the discretionary spending caps set by
    Fiscal Responsibility Act for FY 2024 and FY 2025 are keeping these
    critical programs flat funded, when increases are in fact needed just
    to provide parity with other school systems. DBOSBA respectfully asks
    that Congress prioritize funding for Indian Education in this FY 2025
    budget. Our requested funding levels and policy priorities for the FY
    2025 Bureau of Indian Education and Bureau of Indian Affairs budgets
    are as follows:

      --$950 million for ISEP Formula Funds (BIE);

      --Ensure full funding for Teacher Pay Parity (BIE);

      --Ensure that all the employees of BIE-funded schools receive Federal
            Employees Retirement System (FERS) benefits (BIE);

      --Full and Forward Funding for Facilities Operations (BIE);

      --Full and Forward Funding for Facilities Maintenance (BIE);

      --$86 million for Student Transportation (BIE);

      --$50 million for Early Childhood and Family Development (BIE);

      --$39 million for Education IT, equitably provided to schools (BIE);

      --Continued full funding for Tribal Grant Support Costs (BIE);

      --Mandatory funding for Payments for Tribal Leases and Contract
            Support Costs (BIA);

      --Substantial and sustained increases for Education Construction
            (BIE) and a robust reauthorization of the Great American
            Outdoors Act; and

      --Ensure BIE implementation of the statutory mandates Congress
            established (BIE).

        ISEP Formula Funds are the core account for BIE-operated and
    Tribally Controlled Schools. This account funds everything from
    classroom instruction materials and teacher salaries to gifted and
    talented programs, and summer programs. Increases in ISEP Formula Funds
    directly benefit students and help attract and retain the quality
    teachers vital to our students' academic success. BIE-funded schools
    across the Nation are facing a significant teacher shortage, but that
    shortage is particularly acute here on the Navajo Nation, where many
    schools operate in remote locations, and because the surrounding public
    schools in New Mexico and Arizona have responded to the teacher
    shortage by substantially increasing teacher pay. Having the resources
    to attract and retain quality teachers is one of our biggest challenges
    and substantial increases are needed. Unfortunately, the $518.1 million
    the BIE requested for ISEP Formula Funds for FY 2025 would only provide
    an estimated Weighted Student Unit (WSU) value of $8,033 per student.
    When adding in some prorated non-ISEP line items which schools receive,
    the per student amount is still far behind the estimated $25,000 the
    Department of Defense Education Activity spends per student and
    estimated $14,000 on average spent per student by public schools across
    the country. When recommending $950 million for FY 2025 ISEP Formula
    Funds, the Tribal Representatives to the Tribal/Interior Budget Council
    calculated the average per student funding in public schools,
    multiplied by the WSU, and accounted for 1% contingency. When
    appropriating funding for ISEP Formula Funds, Congress must consider
    that these stark disparities, particularly between the two federally
    funded school systems in the Nation, are simply unacceptable and have
    significant, negative impacts on our students.
        Full Funding for Teacher and Counselor Pay Parity is a critical
    tool for attracting and retaining quality teachers. Federal law
    requires the BIE to provide funding so that teachers and counselors in
    the BIE-funded school system may be paid equivalent salaries to their
    counterparts in the Department of Defense Education Activity. Federal
    law also provides that, at the discretion of the local school board, a
    BIE-operated school may pay salaries consistent with those paid by
    public schools in the state where the BIE school is located.
        DBOSBA would like to thank Congress for the ongoing direction that
    the BIE clearly display funding amounts required to comply with Defense
    Department-equivalent pay rates and to include sufficient funding in
    its budget request to fully fund these requirements. The detailed
    information on this issue requested by Senate Report 118-83 is
    particularly helpful and we ask that it be continued for FY 2025. Given
    the acute teacher shortages, this parity is essential to our schools'
    ability to recruit and retain qualified teachers.
        Ensuring that all employees of BIE-funded schools receive Federal
    Employees Retirement System (FERS) benefits would significantly bolster
    the ability of Tribally Controlled Schools in the BIE-funded school
    system to attract and retain quality teachers. In Senate Report 118-83,
    accompanying the FY 2024 Consolidated Appropriations Act, Congress
    stated that,
        ``The Committee is concerned about the inequity created by the loss
    of Federal Employees Retirement System [FERS] benefits for teachers and
    staff when Tribes exercise their self-determination right to operate
    BIE-funded schools under Public Law 100-297 grants or Public Law 93-638
    contracts. The loss of these benefits is a major impediment to the
    recruitment and retention of teachers and staff, as these Tribally
    Controlled Schools often bear the hardship of recruiting, hiring, and
    training teachers and staff only to lose them shortly thereafter to
    other schools offering better pay and benefits. Any policy denying
    Federal benefits to employees carrying out a Federal trust
    responsibility is incompatible with the Federal policy of self-
    determination. Congress recognized this incompatibility and barrier to
    recruitment and retention in 2020 when it extended the Federal Employee
    Health Benefits [FEHB] program to teachers and staff of Tribally
    Controlled Schools.''
        As such, we urge the subcommittees to use the appropriations
    process to equitably extend FERS benefits to teachers and staff at
    Tribally Controlled Schools in the BIE-funded school system.
        Full and Forward Funding for Facilities Operations and Facilities
    Maintenance. These two accounts play a pivotal role in the health and
    safety of our students and staff and are for day to day operating
    expenses. Facilities Operations is for things like monthly utilities
    and Facilities Maintenance is for preventive, routine, and unscheduled
    maintenance--not the type of things that can wait. These two accounts
    are also severely underfunded and two of the remaining core school
    operations accounts not forward funded. This means that when there are
    government shut downs or continuing resolutions, some schools do not
    receive these critical funds until the end of the school year! This
    also creates significant accounting problems for schools because they
    have to borrow from other forward funded accounts, such as their ISEP
    Formula Funds, when this funding is delayed. Delays in funding for
    these two accounts also delays Tribal Grant Support Costs (a forward
    funded account) from being calculated and provided to schools because
    Tribal Grant Support Costs are calculated based on total funding a
    school receives. Further, significantly more funding is needed to
    address the BIE system-wide deferred maintenance backlog (estimated to
    be more than $804 million in the BIE's FY 2025 Budget Justification).
        Student Transportation (BIE) and Road Maintenance for School Bus
    Routes (BIA) are of particular importance to schools located on the
    Navajo Nation. Our students travel some of the longest distances to
    their schools on some of the worst roads in the Nation. Outdated buses
    improperly equipped to handle the many unpaved and unimproved roads put
    our students' safety at risk or can mean that our students miss
    critical instruction days and fall behind their peers in other
    jurisdictions. DBOSBA also cautions that the proposed conversion to
    electric buses could actually present new problems given the extensive
    distances of remote bus routes on the Navajo Nation and the limited
    electric system capacity of many of our communities. Without further
    increases for Student Transportation and Road Maintenance, and the
    alignment of new technologies to our circumstances, this precarious
    situation will continue.
        Early Childhood and Family Development funding plays a critical
    role in preparing children for school and supporting and empowering
    their parents. Substantial program increases are needed each year to
    expand these opportunities to more BIE-system schools. Of the 183
    schools in the BIE-funded school system, the BIE's FY 2025 Budget
    Justification reports that just 51 receive Early Childhood and Family
    Development funds. The National Education Association finds that
    children in early childhood education programs are: less likely to
    repeat a grade; less likely to be identified as having special needs;
    more prepared academically for later grades; more likely to graduate
    from high school; and more likely to become higher earners in the
    workforce. DBOSBA asks the subcommittees to increase funds for this
    critical line item.
        Education IT, specifically, funding to increase connectivity for
    schools and students is critical: our schools' connectivity needs
    persist even after the worst of the pandemic recedes. Further, DBOSBA
    is concerned to hear reports that the BIE may be prioritizing Education
    IT resources for BIE-operated schools, while directing Tribally
    Controlled Schools to ``just use your ISEP funds'' to address critical
    technology needs. Any policy denying Federal resources to Tribally
    Controlled Schools carrying out a Federal trust responsibility is
    incompatible with the Federal policy of self-determination. Education
    IT and other Federal resources must be equitably shared throughout the
    entire BIE-funded school system.
        School Replacement Construction and School Facilities Improvement &
    Repair in the BIE's Education Construction budget significantly impact
    the health and safety of our students and staff. This funding not only
    helps keep our students and staff safe, it also helps prolong the
    useful life of our school buildings. Unfortunately, many schools
    throughout the BIE-funded system are far beyond the end of their safe
    and useful life and must be replaced. Many of these schools in poor or
    dangerous condition are located on the Navajo Nation. The BIE's FY 2025
    budget justification reports that only five of the 10 schools on the
    2016 School Replacement List are complete and none of the 40 schools
    identified through the Site Assessment--Capital Investment (SA-CI)
    program lists for 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, or 2023 are complete. Of
    these 40 schools identified through the SA-CI process, only 10 of them
    are classified as ``funded.''
        If we take these 30 unfunded schools identified through the SA-CI
    process and estimate $90 million per school, that calculates to $2.7
    billion in unfunded schools waiting on the current SA-CI replacement
    lists, alone. Indeed, the $7.3 billion recommended by the Tribal/
    Interior Budget Council (TIBC) Tribal Representatives just for the
    BIE's FY 2025 Education Construction budget (of which $6.2 billion
    would be for Replacement School Construction and $1 billion would be
    Facilities Improvement and Repair), is based on replacing all the
    schools rated in poor condition that have not yet been funded. If
    Congress continues to fund Replacement School Construction at the FY
    2023 rate of $116.5 million per fiscal year, Congress will never catch
    up. Unfortunately, we understand that the type of significant and
    necessary increase in funding recommended by the TIBC Tribal
    Representatives is not likely to be a reality for FY 2025, given the
    current discretionary budget caps and subcommittee allocations in
    place. With this in mind, we urge Congress to protect and increase
    Education Construction funding to the greatest extent possible and to
    swiftly reauthorize the Great American Outdoors Act, which has provided
    a supplemental $95 million per year for 5 years to help address this
    staggering and dangerous backlog in the BIE-funded school system.
        Continued Full Funding for Tribal Grant Support Costs means that
    Tribally Controlled Schools can focus ISEP funds where it counts:
    supporting students, improving classroom instruction, and attracting
    and retaining quality teachers. DBOSBA thanks Congress for providing
    full funding for Tribal Grant Support Costs since FY 2016.
        Shifting Tribal Leases and Contract Support Costs to Mandatory
    Funding would make the discretionary budget process more predictable
    and would free up additional funding for Indian Education programs
    within the topline allocation for the Interior, Environment and Related
    Agencies appropriations bill. In the BIA's FY 2025 budget request, the
    Administration is requesting that these accounts be classified as
    mandatory spending in FY 2026. DBOSBA strongly supports the request to
    reclassify these accounts, but urges that this occurs in FY 2025.
        Ensure BIE implementation of the statutory mandates Congress
    established in Public Law 95-561 and Public Law 100-297. Congress
    provided clear statutory parameters to ``facilitate Indian control of
    Indian affairs in all matters relating to education.'' 25 U.S.C.
    Sec. 2011(a). For example, when Congress enacted Public Law 95-561, it
    established consultation requirements to ensure Tribal school officials
    have the opportunity to guide BIE policy and improve the BIE's response
    to the needs of Indian students and our communities. Through Public Law
    95-561, Congress also authorized local Tribal school boards to exercise
    substantial control over the hiring and budgeting decisions of BIE-
    operated schools. Through Public Law 100-297, Congress limited the
    BIE's bureaucratic authority over Tribally Controlled Schools'
    resources and prohibited the BIE from unilaterally transferring Federal
    responsibilities to local school boards unless such transfers are
    accompanied by the resources to carry them out. Yet, the BIE is
    undermining local school board authority at BIE-operated schools by
    ignoring statutory mandates that require BIE to consult with local
    Tribal school boards when making hiring and budgeting decisions and to
    provide school boards with approval authority over such decisions. The
    BIE is also subjecting Tribally Controlled Schools to burdensome
    requirements that are not permitted by statute, have not been agreed to
    by the schools, and that operate to perpetuate the Federal bureaucratic
    domination of Indian education programs. These policy concerns have an
    adverse practical effect: the BIE has made it much more difficult and
    much more expensive for Navajo schools to provide quality educational
    services in our communities. BIE must establish a training program to
    ensure BIE officials at all levels in the BIE bureaucracy comply with
    the statutory framework governing Indian education.

        [This statement was submitted by Ervin Chavez, Executive Board
    Chair of the Dine Bi Olta School Board Association.]
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Entomological Society of America
        The Entomological Society of America (ESA) respectfully submits
    this statement for the official record in support of funding for
    entomology-related activities at the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service,
    and the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI). For fiscal year (FY) 2025,
    ESA recommends $976 million for the EPA Science and Technology (S&T)
    account, with $40 million towards the Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
    Program, as well as strong support for programs across the agency that
    advance the safe application of pesticides. ESA also strongly supports
    EPA's commitment to work with other Federal agencies to monitor and
    improve pollinator health. In addition, ESA requests the Forest Service
    be funded at no less than $9.7 billion in discretionary funds. Within
    the Forest Service, ESA requests the Forest and Rangeland Research
    budget be supported with at least $349 million to preserve valuable
    invasive species research and development. The Society also supports
    the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program be funded at levels no less
    than $36.7 million and continued investment in Forest Health Management
    programs across the Forest Service at no less than the FY 2020 request
    level of $100 million. ESA also recommends that DOI continue to support
    the important work of the National Invasive Species Council (NISC), at
    a level no less than $2 million for its critical coordination of
    efforts across agencies to respond to invasive species.
        Advances in forestry and environmental sciences, including the
    field of entomology, protect our ecosystems and communities from
    threats to our Nation's economy, public health, and agricultural
    productivity and safety. Through improved understanding of invasive
    insect pests and the development of biological approaches to pest
    management, entomology plays a critical role in reducing and preventing
    the spread of infestation and diseases harmful to national forests and
    grasslands. The study of entomology also contributes to the development
    of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) techniques, which use science-
    based, environmentally conscious, comprehensive methods to take
    effective management action against pests, often resulting in lower
    costs through a more judicious use of pesticides. Entomology also
    improves our knowledge of pollinators and factors affecting pollinator
    health and populations, helping to ensure safe, reliable crop
    production that meets the needs of a growing world population.
        EPA carries out its mission to protect human health and the
    environment by developing and enforcing regulations, awarding grants
    for research and other projects, conducting studies on environmental
    issues, facilitating partnerships, and providing information through
    public outreach. Through these efforts, EPA strives to supply the
    Nation with clean water, clean air, a safe food supply, and communities
    free from pollution and harmful chemical exposures. EPA's Pesticides
    Licensing Program Area, supported by EPA's Science & Technology and
    Environmental Program & Management budgets, evaluates, and regulates
    new pesticides to ensure safe and proper usage by consumers. Through
    the mandate of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
    (FIFRA), EPA uses scientific expertise and data, including knowledge
    gained from entomological sciences, to set maximum tolerated residue
    levels and to register pesticide products as effective and safe. By
    controlling insects that carry diseases of humans and domesticated
    animals, consume agricultural and horticultural products, and become
    established as invasive species that endanger our environment,
    pesticides registered by EPA help protect public health and the
    Nation's food supply.
        Although pesticide registrations and regulations are within EPA's
    purview, the agency has not been a major sponsor of entomology
    research. However, EPA has provided support to projects that promote
    IPM adoption and the safe application of pesticides while also
    promoting pollinator protection. For example, the EPA has supported the
    Pesticide Educational Resources Collaborative (PERC), a cooperative
    agreement between the EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs and University
    of California Davis Extension, in collaboration with Oregon State
    University, which empowers farmworkers and other pesticide handlers to
    employ better and safer practices in pesticide use. Since 2016, PERC
    has developed and implemented over 40 multilingual pesticide-related
    training programs, manuals, videos, and guides which are widely relied
    upon by the community.\1\ The program has been so successful that it
    was renewed in 2021 for a second cycle, along with a similar program,
    PERC-Med focuses on education and awareness raising of the safe
    application of pesticides among health professionals. In addition, the
    EPA's Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program (PESP) grants enable
    grantees to ``implement sustainable pest management practices that
    reduce unnecessary risks from pests and pesticides.'' \2\ While IPM is
    a long-standing paradigm for mitigating pests, relatively few focused
    funding sources are available to support entomologists conducting
    research or participating in community outreach on this subject. ESA
    encourages the committee to encourage EPA to expand IPM investments and
    support of other programs to promote the safe use of pesticides through
    increased funding for such activities across the agency's research and
    regulatory portfolios. ESA also requests $976 million for EPA S&T
    including $40 million for EPA's Science to Achieve Results (STAR)
    Program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ EPA Awards $6 Million to the University of California, Davis to
    Support Pesticide Safety Outreach https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-
    awards-6-million-university-california-davis-support-pesticide-safety-
    outreach. Accessed April 19, 2024.
        \2\ Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program Grants https://
    www.epa.gov/pesp/pesticide-environmental-stewardship-program-grants.
    Accessed April 19, 2024.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ESA is also supportive of increased funding for scientific studies
    and other efforts to protect pollinator populations and health.
    Pollinators play a vital role in our Nation's agriculture industry.
    Honeybees alone pollinate more than 100 crops in the U.S. and are
    essential to produce an estimated one-third of all the food we eat or
    export, contributing over $24 billion in annual crop and seed
    production in the U.S. alone, with even greater contributions when
    accounting for ecosystems services. To ensure a healthy bee population,
    more research is needed to fully understand the diverse factors that
    endanger bee health. Pesticides represent just one potential risk to
    bees, but both the risks and benefits must be balanced, and they will
    vary between different crops and different crop-producing regions of
    the U.S. EPA is well-positioned to identify methods for protecting bee
    health. The agency has awarded agricultural grants to three
    universities to aid in the development of IPM practices that lower
    pesticide risks to bees while protecting valuable crops from pests. ESA
    supports EPA's continued participation in multi-agency efforts to
    investigate pollinator health and implement plans to prevent pollinator
    population decline -including the new Vulnerable Species Pilot Project.
        The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) sustains the health, diversity, and
    productivity of 193 million acres of public lands in national forests
    and grasslands across 44 States and territories. Serving as the largest
    supporter of forestry research in the world, the agency employs
    approximately 30,000 scientists, administrators, and land managers. In
    addition to activities at the Federal level, the Forest Service
    provides technical expertise and financial assistance to state and
    private forestry agency partners. The USFS Forest and Rangeland
    Research budget supports the development and delivery of scientific
    data and innovative technological tools to improve the health, use, and
    management of the Nation's forests and rangelands. Programs within
    Forest and Rangeland Research provide science-based approaches to
    reduce and prevent the spread of destructive insects, plants, and
    diseases that can have serious economic and environmental consequences
    for our Nation. For example, USFS scientists are working to understand
    the impact of the mountain pine beetle (MPB, Dendroctonus ponderosae)
    on U.S. forests. Since 2000, outbreaks of MPB have affected more than
    10 million hectares of lodgepole pine forests, compromising long-term
    forest health while creating the potential for more dangerous
    wildfires, loss of wildlife habitat, poorer water quality, and soil
    erosion.\3\ Such outbreaks are predicted to continue in the face of
    increased temperatures and drought associated with climate change.
    Funding for such studies will enable land managers to better predict
    and respond to ecosystem changes that occur following such outbreaks.
    ESA requests that Forest and Rangeland Research be funded with at least
    $349 million for FY 2025.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Fettig, C.J., R.A. Progar, J. Paschke, F.J. Sapio. Forest
    insects. G. Robertson, T. Barrett (Eds.). (2020) Implications of Forest
    Disturbance Processes for Sustainability in the Western US. PNW-GTR-XX.
    U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest
    Research Station, Portland, OR.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In addition, research conducted through the Forest Service's Forest
    Inventory and Analysis (FIA) Program have provided valuable insight on
    how forest environmental conditions affected three problematic tick
    species in the southeastern United States. This research found that
    each species responds differently to environmental conditions, meaning
    that using only one forest management approach, such as controlled
    burning, may not be able to adequately control all tick populations. As
    tick populations increase and their habitats expand, more research is
    vital to better understand how to modify current forest management
    practices to control these populations and limit the spread of harmful
    diseases. ESA requests that the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program
    be funded at levels no less than $36.7 million.
        The Forest Health Management program, also implemented by the USFS,
    conducts mapping and surveys on public and private lands to monitor and
    assess risks from potentially harmful insects, diseases, and invasive
    plants. The program also aids State and local partners to prevent and
    control outbreaks that threaten forest health. Invasive forest insects
    cost local governments alone an average of over $2 billion per year;
    direct costs to homeowners from property loss, tree removal, and
    treatment averages $1.5 billion per year. The damage caused by these
    pests can often be mitigated by integrated pest management programs,
    but the success of such initiatives depends heavily on the presence of
    sustained funding and national response frameworks. A recent
    investigation of forest pest management programs supported by the USDA
    Forest Health Protection program identified several key weaknesses in
    modern pest management programs.\4\ Critically, these programs suffer
    from the lack of nationally coordinated response frameworks for
    invasive pests and minimal Federal investment in forest pest management
    programs, ultimately reducing the impact of programs that are designed
    to mitigate the economic impact of forest pests. The USDA Forest Health
    Management program provides the needed leadership and national
    coordination required to mitigate the economic burden of forest pests,
    but the success of their efforts is contingent upon a renewed national
    investment in forest health protection and insect pest management. To
    support these important functions, ESA requests that the subcommittee
    provide no less than $100 million for Forest Health Management.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Coleman, T.W. et al. 2023. Evaluating a decade (2011-2020) of
    integrated forest pest management in the United States. Journal of
    Integrated Pest Management 14(1). https://academic.oup.com/jipm/
    article/14/1/23/7317488
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The National Invasive Species Council (NISC) plays a critical role
    in coordinating policy, communication, and technology application to
    address invasive species detection and response across 16 Federal
    agencies. NISC serves a vital function since the impacts of invasive
    species are felt across sectors (agriculture, environmental protection,
    public health). According to the NISC, invasive species impose
    substantial costs on society, leading to an estimated $120 billion in
    environmental damages and losses annually in the United States.
    Invasive insects have directly impacted native insect populations and
    entire ecosystems through predation, plant consumption, and disease
    transmission. For example, emerald ash borer (EAB, Agrilus planipennis)
    is an exotic beetle discovered in Michigan in 2002. Since its
    discovery, EAB has been detected in 36 States, Washington, D.C. and
    five Canadian provinces. It has killed hundreds of millions of ash
    trees in North America and cost cities, property owners, forest
    products industries and many other stakeholders hundreds of millions of
    dollars.\5\ Preventing establishment of invasive species like EAB
    requires early detection and rapid response. Improving these efforts
    requires standard means of inspection and tracking and new
    technologies. NISC has responded by developing guidelines for decision
    makers that improve access to and analysis of invasive species
    information.\6\ Such methods enable effective communication and aid in
    early detection of invasive species and rapid response, saving billions
    of dollars' worth of crops, safeguarding ecosystems, and preventing the
    destruction of property. There are many other examples of NISC success
    addressing invasive species.\7\ ESA requests that the Committee provide
    the DOI funds to support NISC at no less than $2 million.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Emerald Ash Borer Information Network http://
    www.emeraldashborer.info/index.php. Accessed April 19, 2024.
        \6\ Enabling Decisions that Make a Difference: Guidance for
    Improving Access to and Analysis of Invasive Species Information 2018.
    https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/isim_guidance.pdf.
        \7\ Holland, J.S., J.R. Kirkey, and J.K. Reaser. 2018. Protecting
    What Matters: Stories of Success. National Invasive Species Council
    Secretariat. 2018. https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/
    protecting_what_matters_stories_of_success.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ESA, headquartered in Annapolis, Maryland, is the largest
    organization in the world serving the professional and scientific needs
    of entomologists and individuals in related disciplines. Founded in
    1889, ESA has more than 7,000 members affiliated with educational
    institutions, health agencies, private industry, and government.
    Members are researchers, teachers, extension service personnel,
    administrators, marketing representatives, research technicians,
    consultants, students, pest management professionals, and hobbyists.
    Thank you for the opportunity to offer the Entomological Society of
    America's support for programs at the National Invasive Species
    Council, Forest Service and EPA programs.

    For more information about the Entomological Society of America, please
    see http://www.entsoc.org/.
    170 Jennifer Road, Suite 230
    Annapolis, MD 21401
    301-731-4535

        [This statement was submitted by Jennifer A. Henke, BCE--President,
    Entomological Society of America.]
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Environmental Council of the States
        The Environmental Council of the States (ECOS)--the national
    nonprofit, nonpartisan association of State and territorial
    environmental agency leaders--appreciates the opportunity to submit
    written testimony on the Fiscal Year 2025 (FY25) President's budget
    request for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ECOS
    requests: $671M for three specific Categorical Grant programs to help
    counter stagnant funding to the States for carrying out Federal
    delegated programs over the last two decades; $3.25B each--full
    appropriations--for the Clean Water (CW) and Drinking Water (DW) State
    Revolving Funds (SRFs); and robust support for addressing per- and
    polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and the circular economy.
                            building state capacity
        Federal infrastructure funding and regulatory program support for
    States--the primary implementers and enforcers of the Nation's
    environmental laws--is critically needed for States to maintain robust,
    legally defensible programs.
        Congress has established in the Nation's three key environmental
    statutes--the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Clean Air Act (CAA), and the
    Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle C--its intent
    for States to have primary responsibility and rights to prevent,
    reduce, eliminate, and control water, air, and hazardous waste
    pollution through the management of permit and enforcement programs. In
    assuming delegation, primacy, and authorization for Federal programs,
    States have made a commitment to match required Federal funding through
    approaches including seeking fees from the regulated community.
    However, States have been forced to seek funding to significantly
    overmatch costs to implement Federal programs. Federal support has
    eroded in the past two decades, whereas inflation has soared. A
    November 2023 report of the Association of State and Territorial Solid
    Waste Management noted, for example, that ``STAG [State and Tribal
    Assistance Grants] funding fell $63[M] short of the total cost to run
    the program in FY[22].'' The $63M difference was covered by
    ``overmatch'' by States, with States actually matching 48% of the grant
    funding, well beyond the 25% state match required. In FY24 enacted
    funding, the STAG grant supporting hazardous waste programs was reduced
    $3.5M to $101.5M, with $5M directed to support post-consumer materials
    management or recycling facilities--further reducing funds for
    authorized state implementation of Federal hazardous waste programs to
    their lowest levels since before 2010 while new state program
    requirements are being added.
        Failure to increase Categorical Grant funding to keep up with
    growing regulatory and permitting responsibilities has a material
    impact on a State and territory's ability to deliver permits in an
    effective and efficient manner. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs
    Act (IIJA) provided funding to support communities and economic growth
    with transportation, water, and other infrastructure projects, yet
    these projects depend upon state environmental agencies to carry out
    permitting requirements. State environmental agencies are struggling to
    keep pace with increased permitting demands with limited staff.
        At an April 2024 National Governors Association-ECOS Congressional
    Briefing on environmental protection, a State agency environmental
    director noted, ``Finding and keeping knowledgeable staff is a real
    challenge, and... as long as staff see that the funding isn't
    necessarily stable, that's going to be a factor for them in terms of
    whether they stay at a State agency versus looking around to other
    opportunities.... State and local agencies really are the frontline for
    implementing the Federal clean air programs... it's really a challenge
    to keep... staff that are very knowledgeable in those areas.'' Other
    States have reported pulling staff away from permitting activities to
    meet deadlines for CAA State Implementation Plans or single projects
    that require multiple permit writers. Federal funding is critical to
    consistently support the state capacity required to implement and
    enforce these federally delegated programs. Many agencies are concerned
    about becoming a bottleneck in infrastructure and economic development
    projects because of the difficulties in competing for and retaining a
    specialized environmental permitting and related workforce.
        To ensure States are able to support effective programs that
    respond to new regulatory requirements, maintain vibrant communities,
    and act as co-regulators with our Federal partners, ECOS asks Congress
    to:

      --Provide $271.9M in combined funding through the STAG account of EPA
            to support state implementation of CAA Sections 103, 105, and
            106 for State and local air quality management;

      --Provide $275.1M in funding through the STAG account of EPA to
            support state implementation of CWA Section 106 actions for
            water pollution control; and

      --Provide $124M in funding through the STAG account of EPA to support
            state implementation of Section 3011 of RCRA for hazardous
            waste management, with any funding for implementation of a
            Federal permit program for coal combustion residuals in
            nonparticipating States, as authorized under section
            4005(d)(2)(B) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C.
            6945(d)(2)(B)), or to provide technical assistance to States
            establishing their own permitting program under section 4005(d)
            of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6945(d)) in addition
            to the amount for State programs.
                             state revolving funds
        States ask the Committee on Appropriations to protect the integrity
    of the state-run and federally financed CW and DW SRFs, which affects
    our States' and territories' capacity to carry out Federal drinking
    water standards--including the recently adopted EPA PFAS standards--
    along with properly managing SRF programs to make new loans from these
    perpetual revolving funds. ECOS requests fully authorized FY25 funding
    of the CW and DW SRFs at $3.25B each.
        According to the Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities,
    the subsidized loans offered by SRFs nationwide to build CW and DW
    infrastructure may result in as much as 75% in interest payment savings
    for communities. In 2022, the average interest rate was 1.25%, compared
    to market rates that exceeded 3% and are among the highest interest
    rates in decades. Lower interest rates result in more affordable water
    rates, a more favorable platform for business development, and cleaner
    water.
        With the enactment of the 2022 IIJA, investments directed to the CW
    and DW SRFs were seen as transformative. Beginning in FY22, Congress
    appropriated funding for Community Project Funding/Congressionally
    Directed Spending (CPF/CDS) projects from SRF capitalization monies--
    now approximately half of the SRF appropriations--without a requirement
    for these projects to be included on a publicly vetted state Intended
    Use Plan (IUP). CPF/CDS erodes the corpus of the SRFs while designated
    funding waits for the specified community to apply. Forty-seven States
    and all five territories saw cuts to net water infrastructure funding
    in at least one of the last three fiscal years regardless of whether
    CPF/CDS projects were received.
        A July 2023 Congressional Research Service report, The Role of
    Earmarks in CWSRF and DWSRF Appropriations in the 117th Congress,
    considered the impact of CPF on the SRFs in FY22 and FY23, including
    IIJA funding. Five States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and
    two territories did not receive CPF in these 2 years, but these and all
    States and territories saw across-the-board capitalization cuts. CRS
    found, ``The States, territories, and the Tribes that received no
    earmarks for clean water infrastructure projects received approximately
    13% less in clean water infrastructure funding after (emphasis added)
    considering the FY[22] IIJA supplemental appropriation for the CWSRF
    general program. For drinking water infrastructure funding, the States,
    territories, and Tribes that received no earmarks received
    approximately 19% less in available drinking water infrastructure
    funding after considering the FY[23] IIJA supplemental appropriations
    for the DWSRF general program.'' IIJA does not cover the gap created by
    CPF/CDS for all States and territories, makes planning for annual SRF
    management more challenging, and is fiscally unsound over the long term
    once IIJA funding reaches its limit. We request that Congress maintain
    the corpus of the SRFs, and separately fund CPF/CDS projects.
        In FY25, State and territorial SRF managers must also meet the
    increased required IIJA match of 20% (from 10% the first 3 years) and
    respond to increased EPA SRF oversight on climate resiliency and
    equity, increased project costs due to the scarcity of construction
    contractors, and competition for qualified engineers.
                   funding and managing pfas responsibilities
        PFAS treatment, disposal, and destruction need continued
    advancements to enable water systems to fully comply with the National
    Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWR), and to ensure PFAS is not
    moved across media, including to air. States encourage funding to EPA
    to continue to establish science-based recommendations related to
    treatment technologies, to research and approve methods for total
    destruction, and to continue to assist States with monitoring--all with
    a greater sense of urgency and Federal resources. States need support
    from EPA to understand and successfully implement the updated interim
    guidance on destruction and disposal.
        In addition, while the NPDWR rule applies only to public water
    systems, many Americans are on private wells and also experience
    challenges with PFAS contamination, but do not receive funding
    assistance under the SRFs. Congress should consider providing
    additional financial and technical support for all public water systems
    and communities before and after reaching the 5-year implementation
    deadline. We also encourage Congress to consider funding to assist
    State agencies in providing support to Americans who rely on private
    wells that are contaminated with PFAS. States need significantly more
    funding for state capacity building and infrastructure, including for
    assessments and the certification of laboratories, to achieve
    compliance with PFAS-related regulations.
                       accelerating the circular economy
        States and territories agree that sustainable materials management
    is a key strategy to help reduce carbon pollution and other
    environmental stressors, increase equity and community resilience, and
    grow the circular economy. Funding for solid waste and recycling
    infrastructure supports market-based and customized solutions in each
    State to maximize landfill diversion and ensure materials continue to
    have productive economic use.
                     advancing innovation and productivity
        Finally, States and territories alongside EPA and Tribes benefit
    when we share information and learn from each other and from our
    colleagues in the public and private sectors. Congressional funding for
    state capacity building funds these supportive activities, such as
    through E-Enterprise for the Environment, to modernize the business of
    environmental protection through permitting efficiencies, improved data
    exchange, and other advancements.
        Thank you for your consideration of these funding requests.

        [This statement was submitted by Elizabeth Biser, Secretary, North
    Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, and President,
    Environmental Council of the States.]
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of Environmental Working Group
        Testimony prepared for the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations
    subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies regarding
    the Environmental Protection Agency--Funding for the development and
    implementation of Effluent Limitation Guidelines for PFAS industrial
    discharges
        The Environmental Working Group (EWG) respectfully requests no less
    than $20 million in dedicated funding to the Environmental Programs and
    Management, Clean Water Program within the Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA) for the development and implementation of Effluent
    Limitation Guidelines (ELGs) for PFAS industrial discharges under the
    Clean Water Act.
        PFAS are known as ``forever chemicals'' because they build up
    inside the human body and do not break down in the environment.\1\
    These chemicals are found in the blood of 98 percent of Americans,\2\
    and are linked to health harms including cancer,\3\ developmental and
    reproductive harm,\4\ and damage to the immune system.\5\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ What are PFAS Chemicals?, Env'tl Working Group, https://
    www.ewg.org/what-are-pfas-chemicals (last visited May 2, 2024).
        \2\ Antonia M. Calafat et al., Legacy and Alternative Per- and
    Polyfluoroalkyl Substances in the U.S. General Population: Paired
    Serum-Urine Data from the 2013-2014 National Health and Nutrition
    Examination Survey, 131 Env't Int'l 105048 (2019).
        \3\ Study: PFAS Act Similar to Known Cancer-Causing Chemicals,
    Env'tl Working Group (Mar. 4, 2020), https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/
    news-release/study-pfas-act-similar-known-cancer-causing-chemicals.
        \4\ PFAS and Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity: An EWG Fact
    Sheet, Env'tl Working Group (Sept. 2019), https://www.ewg.org/sites/
    default/files/u352/EWG_PFAS_Toxicity_C02.pdf?--
    ga=2.261156366.226128373.1596463302-1166909982.1546543464&--
    gac=1.186103003.1594309408.Cj0KCQjwgJv4BRCrARIsAB17JI76ePJXlJNzc67zHlqjx
    FXY10Ntg92CSH4GngKg_gjy_vA8DJtkkCgaAuCPEALw_wcB&--gl=1*gat5nn*--
    gcl_aw*R0NMLjE1OTQzMDk0MDguQ2owS0NRandnSnY0QlJDckFSSXNBQjE3Skk3NmVQSlhsS
    k56YzY3ekhscWp4RlhZMTBOdGc5MkNTSDRHbmdLZ19nanlfdkE4REp0a2tDZ2FBdUNQRUFMd
    193Y0I.
        \5\ Tasha Stoiber, PFAS Chemicals Harm the Immune System, Decrease
    Response to Vaccines, New EWG Review Finds, ENV'TL WORKING GROUP (June
    21, 2019), https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/pfas-chemicals-harm-
    immune-system-decrease-response-vaccines-new-ewg-review. deg.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        EWG has estimated that nearly 30,000 companies could be discharging
    PFAS into the Nation's water supply.\6\ Industrial discharges of PFAS
    have caused significant contamination in places like North Carolina's
    Cape Fear River Basin;\7\ Parkersburg, West Virginia;\8\ and Hoosick
    Falls, New York.\9\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Twelvefold Increase in Suspected Industrial Dischargers of
    'Forever Chemicals', Env'tl Working Group
        \7\ Lewis Kendall, A Town's Water is Contaminated with 'Forever
    Chemicals'--How Did it Get This Bad?, The Guardian (Apr. 2, 2021),
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/02/pfas-testing-forever-
    chemicals-pittsboro-north-carolina.
        \8\ Mariah Blake, Welcome to Beautiful Parkersburg, West Virginia:
    Home to One of the Most Brazen, Deadly Corporate Gambits in U.S.
    History, Huff Post (Aug. 27, 2015), https://
    highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/welcome-to-beautiful-
    parkersburg/.
        \9\ Hoosick Falls Area: Region 4--Environmental Remediation Project
    Information, N.Y. Dept. Env'tl Conservation, https://dec.ny.gov/
    environmental-protection/site-cleanup/regional-remediation-project-
    information/region-4/hoosick-falls-area (last visited May 3, 2024).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Uncontrolled industrial discharges of PFAS pose a major threat to
    drinking water supplies across the country. ELGs would regulate
    industrial polluters, requiring them to adopt technology that would
    result in the greatest PFAS pollution reductions that are economically
    achievable in their respective industries, limiting the amount of PFAS
    that can be present in dischargers' wastewater.
        Recognizing the importance of regulating industrial polluters in
    addressing the PFAS contamination crisis, the EPA's 2021 to 2024 PFAS
    Strategic Roadmap includes the potential development of ELGs for nine
    industrial categories.\10\ The Roadmap stated a goal of significant
    progress by the end of 2024, including proposed rules establishing ELGs
    for two industrial categories by the summer of 2023 and 2024
    respectively.\11\ The EPA has missed its deadline for developing a
    proposed rule for its first ELG for PFAS in part due to limited
    resources.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ EPA, PFAS Strategic Roadmap: EPA'S Commitment to Action 2021-
    2024 13-14 (Oct. 2021).
        \11\ Id.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Congress has expressed its intent that the EPA work expeditiously
    to establish ELGs for PFAS discharges from nine industrial categories,
    or what would likely amount to over 7,800 suspected PFAS
    dischargers.\12\ Twice in 2021, the House of Representatives has passed
    legislation that would require the EPA to issue ELGs for all nine
    categories within 4 years.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Clean Water Standards for PFAS Act of 2024, H.R. 8076, 118th
    Cong. (2024); Jared Hayes, EPA Plan to Regulate Industry 'Forever
    Chemical' Discharges Omits Thousands of Potential Polluters, Env'tl
    Working Group (Sept. 30, 2021), https://www.ewg.org/news-insights/news/
    2021/09/epa-plan-regulate-industry-forever-chemical-discharges-omits-
    thousands.
        \13\ PFAS Action Act of 2021, H.R. 2467, 117th Cong, 2021;
    Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, H.R. 3684, 117th Cong. 12023
    (2021); see also Melanie Benesh, EPA's Plan to Regulate Industry
    'Forever Chemicals' Discharges Falls Short, Env'tl Working GROUP (Sept.
    17, 2021), https://www.ewg.org/news-insghts/news/2021/09/epas-plan-
    regulate-industry-forever-chemicals-discharges-falls-short.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The development of ELGs for PFAS are particularly important in
    light of the EPA's historic action in April establishing a national
    drinking water standard for PFAS pollution.\14\ By limiting the amount
    of PFAS that can be present in their wastewater, these rules will
    ensure that polluters pay to clean up PFAS pollution, rather than
    passing the cost along to water utilities and taxpayers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Biden-Harris Administration Finalizes First-Ever National
    Drinking Water Standard to Protect 100M People from PFAS Pollution, EPA
    (Apr. 10, 2024), https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/biden-harris-
    administration-finalizes-first-ever-national-drinking-water-
    standard#::text=EPA%20is%20setting%20enforceable%20Maximum,are%20feasibl
    e%20for%20effective%20implementation. deg.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The requested $20 million dollars in dedicated funding to support
    the development of ELGs would allow the EPA to hire additional full-
    time employees. The funding would allow the Agency to devote increased
    resources and personnel to data collection and conducting the studies
    necessary to inform these rulemakings.
        The funding in this request would expedite the process of
    developing ELGs for industrial discharges of PFAS, and in turn better
    protect communities living downstream from industrial dischargers. We
    urge Congress to recognize the importance of protecting these
    communities and provide the funding required to turn off the tap on
    PFAS pollution at the source.

        [This statement was submitted by Gianfranco Cesareo, Stabile Law
    Fellow.]
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Federation of State Humanities Councils
        Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
    subcommittee, my name is Phoebe Stein and I am the President of the
    Federation of State Humanities Councils (Federation), the membership
    organization of the 56 state and jurisdictional humanities councils.
    Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. The state and
    jurisdictional humanities councils were authorized in the founding
    legislation for the National Foundation for the Arts and Humanities and
    are funded, in part, through the Federal/State Partnership (F/SP) line
    in the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) budget. The councils
    are 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations, with voluntary boards and they
    leverage their NEH funding to raise tens of millions of dollars to
    invest in local projects and grassroots organizations. While councils'
    funding comes from a variety of sources, NEH support is critical,
    especially for on-going operations.
        It is important to remember that the state councils are the local
    face of the public humanities. They are long-standing institutions that
    understand the culture and the cultural organizations in their States.
    Councils offer a rich variety of programming--all driven by community
    needs. Nearly all councils focus on grantmaking to local entities;
    others concentrate on developing and presenting free public programs;
    many do both. The F/SP line is the principal NEH investment in many
    States and is the most evenly distributed, direct, and consistent
    Federal source of humanities funding within a State or jurisdiction
        The Federal/State Partnership (F/SP) funding, currently (FY 2024)
    at $65 million, goes directly to the state councils by a distribution
    formula. The Federation is requesting a $68 million appropriation for
    the F/SP in FY 2025. This would mean an increase of approximately
    $50,000 per council (although individual state allocations would vary
    according to the formula). Funding has been flat for 2 years so the $3
    million increase requested would help compensate for inflation, allow
    councils to reach additional unserved and underserved areas, and
    address new and expanded needs and requests for services. Every council
    has far more requests for funding than it can accommodate. We also
    strongly support the request for funding of at least $211 million for
    each of the NEH and the National Endowment for the Arts in FY 2025.
        In 2023, councils made more than 3,700 grants to local entities and
    partnered with more than 6,500 local organizations. In 2023, more than
    90% of councils supported civic education in their communities; 85% of
    councils provided cultural resources to rural residents; 47% of
    councils provided programs for veterans, active military, and families;
    and 34% of councils provided programs focused on health and well-being
    outcomes.
        Let me give you some details about specific programs and their
    contributions to your constituencies.
        Civic Education For decades, the State and jurisdictional
    humanities councils have actively conducted or supported nonpartisan
    programs, resources, and events providing civic education in support of
    our democracy. In Montana, The Democracy Project is a non-partisan
    initiative led by teens and supported by local libraries, community
    partners, and Humanities Montana to empower young people to address
    community needs while learning about their role in a changing
    democracy. Now in its third year, The Democracy Project is implemented
    in libraries throughout Montana, including rural, frontier, and Indian
    Country communities.
        Rhode Island continues to build upon its Civic Health Index which
    examines public engagement. Joining with partners across the State as
    well as the National Conference on Citizenship, the Council has
    developed a data-driven assessment that documents community
    participation, volunteerism, civic understanding, voting and other
    civic engagement, donating to political and non-profit organizations,
    use of public parks and libraries, connections to neighborhood and
    communities and other factors that illuminate how Rhode Islanders
    define and address public problems.
        Understanding and Sharing Our History Historical and cultural
    events, local, State, national and international, have been a mainstay
    of councils over the past half-century. A review of any council website
    will illustrate the breadth and scope of programming on historical
    topics. For example, the majority of councils have long participated in
    the annual National History Day Program which reaches far beyond a
    ``day.'' The effort involves more than half a million students in
    grades 6-12 and tens of thousands of teachers annually in the student
    history contest which culminates in a week-long session for 3,000
    winners.
        The West Virginia Humanities Council, through History Alive,
    features scholars who portray historical figures in many venues,
    including museums, schools, libraries, community centers and fairs and
    festivals. Among the characters portrayed are Pearl Buck, Mother Jones,
    Walt Disney, Charles Schulz, Frances Perkins, Theodore Roosevelt,
    Harriet Tubman and Mark Twain.
        Michigan Humanities is supporting the Chaldean story through its
    Great Michigan Stories grant initiative. Features will include personal
    journeys from Iraq to Michigan, stories of business acumen and success,
    Chaldean spiritual life and the cultural influences contributed to
    Michigan.
        Maine Humanities' Community History project is engaging focus
    groups in all 16 counties to determine local and regional histories of
    special interest, a prime example of the local focus of council
    programs in general. And, many councils have been planning for some
    years for the Semiquincentennial in 2026 when our Nation will
    commemorate the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
    Council representatives are also serving in leadership positions on
    their state and jurisdictional 250th commissions.
        Strengthening rural connections and cultural opportunities Ninety-
    seven percent of the American landscape is rural, and rural areas
    impact many aspects of our lives: food supply, water and other natural
    resources, forest products, recreational activities and are home to
    millions of Americans.
        Maryland Humanities, among other councils, will soon be hosting
    SPARK: Places of Innovation, the Smithsonian traveling exhibition that
    focuses on innovation in communities across the Nation, whether it be
    the innovation is technical, social, cultural or artistic. Programming
    in support of the exhibition will involve museums, libraries, colleges,
    humanities organizations and other non-profit institutions. The Arizona
    SPARK effort will ask how innovation shapes communities including the
    ones hosting the exhibit.
        Alabama Humanities Alliance, in its Humanities and the Future of
    Journalism in Rural Alabama, is exploring connections among democracy,
    journalism and an informed citizenry. Oregon Humanities recently
    supported a solicitation that funded mini grants for rural and rural-
    serving libraries to create and host humanities events that are
    meaningful to their communities and focus on Fear and Belonging. Recent
    grants include one featuring the award-winning children's book, Wonder,
    by R.J. Palacio which advocates for nurturing a culture of kindness,
    friendship and inclusion. The library sponsoring the program will offer
    the book in English and Spanish. Another offers six sessions for youth
    and adults covering immigration, Japanese internment, Native American
    history, slavery and emancipation, and Chinese railway workers. Each
    event will include a reading and an activity.
        Veterans Councils support veterans and their families in a myriad
    of ways, including the collection of oral histories, the sharing of
    experiences, the examination of service as seen through literature,
    writing workshops encouraging the expression of and reflection on
    aspects of war and its aftermath, dealing with injuries and medical
    conditions, support for VA medical staff, and helping communities to
    understand their challenges. Nebraska's Warrior Writers project enables
    Humanities Nebraska to partner with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln
    to offer writing and discussion workshops with combat veterans, retired
    military, military spouses and civilians whose lives were touched by
    war. In celebration of the 10th anniversary of this program, Humanities
    Nebraska will publish a new anthology of fiction, non-fiction and
    poetry by participating veterans. In Maryland, Veterans Book Groups
    bring together veterans from all eras to talk about military
    experiences and returning to civilian life.
        Healthcare and the Humanities Councils have a long history of
    collaborating with the medical community and play a prominent role in
    efforts to better position those in the field to deliver their services
    as well as to help individuals and their families manage the many
    aspects of their illnesses. Since 1997, when Maine Humanities Council
    created and piloted ``Literature & Medicine: Humanities at the Heart of
    Healthcare,'' the reading and discussion program for healthcare workers
    has been a hallmark effort for many councils, including Arizona,
    California, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New
    Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, South Dakota, and
    Vermont. Councils have also targeted specific medical challenges, such
    as opioid addiction, with their programming.
        Serving Teachers & Students Support for our Nation's educators and
    students has never been more important. Arizona Humanities partners
    with K-12 schools and organizations to bring books, supplies , visiting
    authors and more to classrooms across the State through its AZ Reads
    program. Other councils, including the Louisiana Endowment for the
    Humanities, continue to support educators, students, and families with
    nationally-recognized literacy programs, such as ``PRIME TIME, Inc.''
    and other similar programs. National History Day, referenced earlier,
    focuses on students in grades 6-12. Teacher institutes are widespread.
        Serving Native and Indigenous Populations The Minnesota Humanities
    Center has, for many years, actively reached and served Indigenous
    populations, educating Minnesotans about the history and culture of
    Indigenous people through the award-winning traveling exhibit, ``Why
    Treaties Matter: Self Government in the Dakota and Ojibwe Nations,''
    and the ``Bdote Memory Map,'' a resource for teaching about the Dakota
    people's relationship to the people of Minnesota.
        In New Mexico, the Manitos Community Memory Project is a
    collaborative initiative to build an online digital cultural heritage
    archive by and for the Manitos, the Indo-Hispanic natives of northern
    New Mexico and southern Colorado, whether they live in the region or
    the diaspora. Part of the project includes developing repository of
    stories, reflections and insights regarding communal experiences from
    the Spanish flu to the pandemic of 2020 and wildfires of 2022.
        Environmental Humanities In 2023, 57% of councils provided their
    communities with resources related to the environment, using literature
    and history to make sense of the changing environmental concerns facing
    Americans.
        In late 2022, eastern Kentucky faced historical flooding that
    killed more than 30 people and caused catastrophic damage including to
    cultural facilities. With help from the NEH, Kentucky Humanities
    provided assistance to the affected cultural facilities. And, in the
    aftermath, it developed a series of workshops on readiness, response,
    recovery and resilience. These workshops are available online.
        Youth programs have been integral to council activities over the
    decades. For example, Alaska's ``Ilakucaraq Project,'' conducted in
    collaboration with the Alaska Native American Education Program,
    empowers youth to identify their heritage as a source of strength
    through personal reflections, positive self- and cultural identity
    formation, cross-cultural experiences, peer-to-peer learning, elder and
    culture-bearer teachings and art.
        Kentucky, through its Youth Innovation in Rural America effort, is
    partnering the Smithsonian SPARK exhibit with a school district or
    youth organization to encourage participants to look for innovative
    solutions to current challenges.
        Community Connections North Dakota remains committed to lifelong
    learning throughout the state. Since 1973, it has offered a series of
    in-person and online programs designed to provide affordable,
    accessible and engaging courses and events for all citizens.
        PA Humanities partners with communities to lead their own growth
    and change, bringing people together to shape their future through the
    power of stories, reflection, and relationships. ``PA Heart & Soul'' is
    a program using a unique community planning approach with storytelling
    and conversations to spark collective decision-making and action. This
    award-winning program is now in 13 towns.
        In this space, I described only a very few of the many activities
    underway in communities across the Nation. Councils are proud of their
    work and their contributions. But we are far from meeting the needs and
    interests of the States and localities. We need additional resources,
    and we ask this subcommittee's support for directing those additional
    resources to cities, towns and rural areas throughout the Nation. We
    can easily double the 3,700 annual awards that we make with additional
    funding. Investments in the Federal/State Partnership are a direct
    investment in communities. In a complex, fast- paced and rapidly
    changing nation, much work remains to be done. Please support the F/SP
    at a level of at least $68 million in FY 2025.

        [This statement was submitted by Phoebe Stein, President,
    Federation of State Humanities Councils.]
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
        Chairman Simpson, Ranking Member Pingree, and respected members of
    the Committee, I am Kevin Dupuis, the Chairman of the Fond du Lac Band
    of Lake Superior Chippewa. On behalf of the Band, I would like to thank
    you for inviting me to testify. We submit this testimony to urge
    Congress to increase, or, at the very least preserve, the Federal
    funding levels for Indian programs.
        As we talk about funding needs in Indian country, it is essential
    to keep in mind that the problems that face communities nationwide are
    far more severe for Indian communities, with Tribes having far fewer
    resources to address problems like substance abuse, domestic violence,
    public safety, and homelessness. The Band has worked, and will continue
    to work, to find solutions to problems of this kind. With seed money
    from Federal funds, we provide health, education, social services,
    public safety and other governmental services to our 4,200 members and
    more than 7,300 Indian people who live on and near our Reservation. We
    are proud of what we have accomplished, but more remains to be done.
    Federal funding allows us to use Band resources and attract private
    partners so we can provide jobs, grow the local economy, educate our
    children, prevent crime, and care for our elders and infirm. We urge
    Congress to continue to fund these programs.
        BIA: Trust-Natural Resources Management. There is nothing more
    important than preserving and protecting the territories and resources
    that our ancestors reserved for our people when they signed our
    Treaties with the United States. The Band is committed to the
    management, conservation, and sustainability of the natural resources
    of the Fond du Lac Reservation and within our Ceded Territory, where we
    have Treaty rights to hunt, fish and gather. We urge you to provide
    full funding for Trust-Natural Resources Management in FY 2025,
    including increased funding for Rights Protection and Implementation
    which will allow us to protect, enhance, and restore natural resources
    within our Reservation and Ceded Territory.
        Our Reservation consists of 101,153 acres, including forests, lakes
    and rivers that must be managed and protected for the current and
    future generations. Our Ceded Territory covers 30 million acres in
    portions of Upper Michigan, Northern Wisconsin, North Central Minnesota
    and all of Lake Superior within the United States. The challenges to
    our natural resources across the region are diverse and complex, from
    species restoration and reintroduction to adaptation to climate change.
    Band members depend on our Treaty rights to put food on the table and
    for ceremonial practices that serve as the foundation for our culture.
    The stewardship of those natural resources-through scientific study,
    resource management, and enforcement of Band laws that regulate Tribal
    members who hunt, fish and gather-is critical and an important source
    of local employment.
        A great example of how the Band utilizes BIA funding can be seen
    with how we use BIA Endangered Species Program dollars to monitor our
    local ma'iinganag (wolves). Ma'iingan (the wolf) is an animal of
    special cultural significance to the Ojibwe people. BIA's Endangered
    Species Program funding has enabled the Band to annually estimate the
    number of wolves, track where they go and what happens to them. We have
    been able to determine how wolves responded to oil pipeline
    construction across the Reservation, we annually cooperate with the
    Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to estimate Statewide wolf
    populations and cooperate with local school districts and students on
    wolf ecology presentations and student science fair competitions.
        Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We appreciate Congress's
    continued support to provide Federal funds for EPA, but we ask that
    funding for EPA in FY 2025 be increased.
        State and Tribal Assistances Grants (STAG). We thank Congress for
    continuing to support funding for STAG, including increasing funding
    for Sections 106 and 319 funding. We strongly urge Congress to increase
    funding for this Program, which has not seen a substantive increase in
    years, yet the Band's responsibilities continue to grow and face
    increasing pressures and obstacles.
        Water Quality. We have a robust federally-approved water quality
    standards program. Given the current threats to water resources in our
    region, we urge that Tribal Section 106 funding be doubled so that we
    can do the work needed to protect our waters. Additionally, Congress
    should continue to provide funding to EPA to support Tribal training in
    ATTAINS, the National water quality assessment database as well as
    training funding to assist Tribes in conducting and reporting on water
    quality assessments. Finally, as Tribes apply for treatment as a State
    to implement various Clean Water Act regulatory programs, such as
    303(c) or water quality standards, 404 wetland dredge and fill
    permitting, 402 NPDES permitting, or 303(d) impaired waters listing and
    Total Maximum Daily Load implementation, there should be financial
    support for that capacity.
        Air. We have a long-standing air monitoring program that has faced
    a steady decline in Federal funding. As the impacts of climate change
    continue to be felt in higher temperatures and more frequent heavy
    precipitation events, both indoor and ambient air quality concerns
    continue to impact Band members and their health. We request that air
    quality program funding for Tribes be increased.
        Climate Change. Climate crisis is imminent, and we request funding
    for planning, preparation and adaptation to deal with this existential
    threat to resources both on our Reservation and in our Ceded Territory.
        Wetlands. One-half of our Reservation is made up of wetlands.
    Funding for sustained wetland monitoring and protection for proper
    management and restoration of this valuable resource is needed.
        Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. The Band fully supports this
    initiative and thanks Congress for its continued bi-partisan support.
    We ask that Congress maintain the current level of funding for this
    initiative. This initiative has broad-reaching benefits to resources of
    importance for all stakeholders (state, Tribal and private) in the
    Great Lakes region. Funding helps support our wildlife programs, wild
    rice restoration efforts, fisheries stewardship and environmental
    staffing capacity. A good example of how this funding has a regional
    impact is how the Band has led an effort supported by the Great Lakes
    Restoration Initiative to restore omashkooz (elk) to the Band's
    Reservation and parts of the Lake Superior basin where they've been
    absent for over 150 years. Elk restoration will return a native species
    adaptable to a wide range of future climates, diversify and increase
    the Band's natural food sources and provide a local economic boost from
    elk tourism.
        Invasive Species. Invasive species threaten all natural resources
    within the Reservation and in the Band's Ceded Territory. They can
    inhibit cultural, agricultural, recreational, and ecological use of the
    land. Due to increasing pressure from climate change, development, and
    transportation we are finding invasive species in more areas than ever.
    To protect our resources, the Band utilizes Federal funding for its
    comprehensive program for the prevention, control, education, and
    monitoring of invasive species. We request continued funding and more
    capacity funding be made available for long term positions and programs
    for invasive species management.
        BIA: Public Safety and Justice. A significant part of protecting
    our homeland is having a fully staffed and trained law enforcement
    department. We appreciate Congress's decision to increase funding for
    BIA's Public Safety and Justice, including funding to solve Missing and
    Murdered Indigenous Women cold cases. Our law enforcement responds to a
    wide range of issues and calls, with the largest issues being related
    to opioids and other substance abuse problems.
        We address law enforcement by a combination of Tribal and available
    Federal funds and cooperative agreements with local law enforcement
    agencies, but more funding is needed. To meet need, we should have 25
    full-time peace officers to provide 24-hour coverage on the Fond du Lac
    Reservation, but currently we only have 21. Those 21 peace officers
    include the Chief of Police, Lieutenant Chief of Police, 4
    Investigators (General Crimes, Sex Trafficking, Narcotics), 1 Victim
    Advocacy Officer, 4 Patrol Sergeants, 9 Patrol Officers, 1 Officer in
    Field Training Program, and 1 K-9 Officer. With additional funding we
    would be able to add 2 more General Crimes and Narcotics Investigators.
    This would allow us to better respond to calls and protect our
    Reservation community. We currently respond to over 9,100 calls per
    year in two counties, an increase of approximately 30% in the last
    year.
        Funding is also needed for training. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic
    and with an increase in the drug epidemic and related crimes, our
    officers need, but are not receiving, vital training, including for
    dealing with an increase in people with mental health issues. We have
    consistently seen an increase in Heroin and Fentanyl overdoses,
    including fatal overdoses. We are also seeing that these incidents
    correlate with general crimes, burglary, theft and assaults. We have a
    regular need to replace equipment, including both marked and unmarked
    squad vehicles for narcotic investigations. A patrol vehicle typically
    only lasts 3 years due to the needs of law enforcement and our
    expansive patrol area-we have 2 major highways on the north and south
    borders of our Reservation and 1 major interstate along our eastern
    border.
        With the evolving trends in drug/illegal substances, our law
    enforcement has experienced an increase in services and equipment
    needs. Officer safety is critical in this area as the substances are
    becoming more dangerous to officers and all parties involved. Increased
    funding for Personal Protection Equipment is needed as costs are
    rising. Although our officers are utilizing equipment and training to
    address these community needs, more funding is needed for substance
    testing and identification, as well as First Aid response supplies for
    medical overdoses.
        Bureau of Indian Education. With funding from the BIE and the
    Department of Education, we operate the Fond du Lac Ojibwe School
    serving an average of 220 children from pre-K through 12th grade. BIE
    has failed to provide any funding increases to meet our needs.
        More than 90% of our students come from very low-income households,
    and 97.3% receive free or reduced-price lunch, which is an increase
    from prior years. We are slowly making progress in improving the
    outcomes for our students. While the high school graduation rates for
    American Indians in Minnesota is at 61.3%, we are now at 71.43%, which
    is still far behind the State-wide rate of 83.7%. BIE funding has never
    kept pace with need, which prevents us from providing the educational
    services needed for our students. We urge Congress to significantly
    increase Federal funding for Indian education.
        Indian Health Service. We appreciate Congress's continued support
    to increase funding for IHS. However, incremental increases do not
    begin to address substandard outcomes in Tribal communities. We urge
    Congress to both provide full funding and continue to advance
    appropriations for IHS. Our members continue to face severe disparities
    across a broad range of health issues. We serve over 7,300 Indian
    people at our clinics, but the current funding level meets only 33% of
    our health care funding needs.
        We support the preservation of Medicaid, and the continuation of
    the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (``IHCIA'') and other Indian-
    specific provisions in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
    We believe there needs to be dedicated funding to begin implementing
    the new authorities contained in the IHCIA, which have not yet been
    implemented and funded.
        We continue to support Congress's prior actions to provide advance
    appropriations for IHS and request that this be continued. We also
    believe that Tribal health and other programs should be permanently
    excluded from sequestration and rescissions. IHS is the only Federal
    health care system created as the result of treaty obligations, yet it
    is the most chronically underfunded.
        We support the proposal to make both Contract Support Costs and the
    105(l) leasing funding mandatory, including establishing a mandatory
    appropriations account that is funded every year. This is important
    because this funding, which is a non-discretionary funding obligation
    for the agency, competes with discretionary funding. As a result, any
    Congressional increase in discretionary funding for IHS never truly
    results in the full amount of that funding reaching discretionary
    programs because a large part gets redirected to cover IHS's legal
    obligations to fund Contract Support Costs and 105(1) leasing
    requirements.
        We also support permanent reauthorization of the Special Diabetes
    Program for Indians (``SDPI'') and that it be funded at $250 million
    per year indexed for inflation. Tribes and Tribal organizations should
    also be authorized to receive SDPI awards through Public Law 93-638
    contracts or compacts.
        Congress recognized that the COVID-19 pandemic exposed the lack of
    infrastructure funding and support for Tribes. To address this need we
    support an increase of $627.5 million as well as recurring funding to
    support Public Health Infrastructure. Lastly, Congress should authorize
    Federally- Operated health facilities and IHS headquarters to use
    Federal dollars efficiently and adjust programmatic fund flexibility
    across accounts at the local level, in consultation with Tribes.
        Miigwech. Thank you.

        [This statement was submitted by Kevin R. Dupuis, Sr., Chairman,
    Fond Du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa.]
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Fort Peck Reservation
        I am Dana Buckles, Councilman of the Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes
    of the Fort Peck Reservation. I would like to thank the Senate Interior
    Appropriations subcommittee for the opportunity to present testimony
    concerning FY 2025 appropriations for the Indian Health Service (IHS)
    and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA).
        The Fort Peck Reservation is in northeast Montana, forty miles west
    of the North Dakota border and fifty miles south of the Canadian
    border, with the Missouri River defining its southern border. The
    Reservation encompasses over two million acres of land. We have
    approximately 13,000 enrolled Tribal members, with approximately 7,600
    Tribal members living on the Reservation. We have a total Reservation
    population of approximately 12,000 people.
        Congress has long recognized that the foundation for economic
    development and prosperity in Indian country lies in community
    stability, which begins with quality healthcare and infrastructure,
    such as safe drinking water, roads, public safety and a clean
    environment.
                         indian health service funding
        Last year, former Chairman Floyd Azure testified before you about
    the mental health and addiction crisis facing Indian country and which
    the people of Fort Peck, in particular, are experiencing at devastating
    levels. Over the last year, this crisis has only magnified. It is
    critical, therefore, that the Indian Health Service be fully funded and
    Tribes economically empowered to face this crisis head on.
        The COVID-19 pandemic showed the Nation the chronic health care
    deficiencies in Indian country. Native people acquired and died of this
    disease at some of the highest rates in the Nation. This is because we
    suffer from comorbidities at higher rates, and because Indian country
    lacks access to adequate healthcare and basic community infrastructure.
    These same health inequities facing Native people are also exacerbating
    the current mental health and addiction crisis.
        For the current year, Congress funded the IHS Services Clinical
    Services account at $4.46 billion, an increase of $27.7 million over
    the FY 2023 enacted level-in other words, an increase of 6/10 of one
    percent. For FY 2025, the Administration proposes $5.12 billion, a
    proposed increase of $664 million, or what would be nearly a 15%
    increase over the FY 2024 level.
        Within the FY 2024 funding amount of $130 million for IHS Mental
    Health needs across Indian country, the Fort Peck Tribes receive
    $132,205 (about 1/10 of one percent). Within the FY 2024 funding amount
    of $267 million for the IHS Alcohol and Substance Abuse Program across
    Indian country, the Fort Peck Tribes receive $1.77 million (6/10 of one
    percent). It is not enough, and we urge the subcommittee to appropriate
    funds commensurate with the documented needs.
        I do not know how to describe the level of our needs other than to
    say that modest budget increases cannot begin to address the shortage
    of health professionals and the shortage of long- term and in-patient
    substance use disorder (SUD) programs our Tribe requires to address the
    mental health and substance use needs of our Tribal citizens.
        The addiction crisis at Fort Peck is fueled by opioids,
    specifically fentanyl, the availability on the Reservation of which has
    skyrocketed over the last several years. This is true across Indian
    country in Montana, where the opioid death rate for Indian people is
    twice that of non-Indians.\1\
        At Fort Peck, we have the Spotted Bull Recovery Resource Center
    (SBRRC) that serves as the Tribal SUD program. We provide best
    practices, evidence-based and culturally appropriate prevention,
    intervention and treatment services primarily related to substance
    misuse, complemented by mental health services to patients who present
    with SUD needs. We provide services according to the American Society
    of Addiction Medication (ASAM) levels of care.
        Our program offers four levels of care: Level 0.5 (Prevention and
    Education); Level 1.0 (Outpatient); Level 2.1 (Intensive Outpatient);
    and Level 3.1 (Day Treatment). We make referrals to higher levels of
    care involving primary residential inpatient treatment programs that we
    do not offer on the Fort Peck Reservation. I wish it were otherwise.
        At SBRRC, we offer the following services:

      --10 hours of individual/group therapy per week;
      --2 hours of Level 0.5 Early Intervention per week;
      --2 hours of Anger Management related to SUD;
      --2 hours of Recovery Support per week;
      --2 hours of Family Programming per week;
      --4 hours of Clinical Staffing per week;
      --2 hours of Community Education/Outreach bi-weekly; and
      --4 hours of Prime for Life programming.

        We urge the subcommittee to devote additional appropriations to IHS
    mental health and substance misuse programs so that outpatient and
    inpatient treatment services can be greatly expanded and made widely
    available on our Reservation and across Indian country.
        Furthermore, the Tribes contracted the IHS Dental and Public Health
    Nursing Program last fall. We are still working to establish Tribal
    servers and a Dentrix System independent of the IHS. We work daily to
    provide quality dental and PHN services with the few dentists,
    hygienists and PHN professionals we are able to employ. We urge the
    subcommittee to consider more than a 1.7% increase ($4.4 million) in FY
    2025 for the IHS Dental Health Program budget of $248 million and more
    than a 1% increase ($1.2 million) in FY 2025 for the IHS Public Health
    Nursing Program.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See Tribal Leaders Sound the Alarm, NPR (June 1, 2022), https:/
    /www.npr.org/sections/health- shots/2022/06/01/1101799174/tribal-
    leaders-sound-the-alarm-after-fentanyl-overdoses-spike-at-blackfeet-
    nation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        bureau of indian affairs funding
        1. Law Enforcement--One of the main symptoms of the fentanyl crisis
    on the Fort Peck Reservation has been a corresponding rise in crime on
    the Reservation. We have seen an increase in crime across the board,
    but especially in property crime and violent crime-including sexual and
    other violent assaults, kidnapping and homicide. Crimes at Fort Peck
    are being committed by and against every demographic within our
    community. Just last September, the Tribal Executive Board issued a
    State of emergency due to the severe increase in juvenile crime. Our
    Police Chief estimates that at least 80% of criminal conduct on the
    Reservation relates back somehow to drugs. For example, a perpetrator
    may have been high when they committed the crime, they may have
    committed the crime to secure money to purchase drugs, or they may have
    committed the crime in retaliation for something related to drug use or
    distribution.
        The Fort Peck Tribes have provided law enforcement and correctional
    services on our Reservation since 1996 under an Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act contract.
        BIA law enforcement must be fully funded so that Tribes like ours
    can attract, hire and retain more law enforcement personnel to live and
    work in our community. For FY 2024, Congress appropriated $274 million
    for the BIA's Public Safety and Justice Program's Criminal
    Investigations and Police Services Account, the same funding level as
    FY 2023. We are losing Tribal police due to burnout and the higher
    salaries and better benefits that surrounding State and county law
    enforcement programs can offer.
        We urge this Congress to pass this session the ``Parity for Tribal
    Law Enforcement Act'' to provide increased salaries and fringe benefits
    to Tribal law enforcement similar to other Federal law enforcement
    officers. Crime doesn't stop at our Reservation boundaries. We are not
    insulated and neither are surrounding areas. We must do better by our
    first responders. I ask this subcommittee to include Tribal public
    safety needs in the FY 2025 budget.
        2. Tribal Court Funding--Similarly, BIA must increase funding for
    Tribal justice systems. As Congress has known for years based on
    thorough, bipartisan study, the most effective law enforcement is
    locally determined and administered, and thus reflective of local
    values-in Indian country this means tribally determined and
    administered and reflective of Tribal values.\2\ At Fort Peck, we have
    always known that strong Tribal government is the best way to keep our
    community safe.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ See generally A Roadmap for Making Native America Safer: Report
    to the President & Congress of the United States, Indian Law & Order
    Commission (Nov. 2013), available at https://www.aisc.ucla.edu/iloc/
    report/files/A_Roadmap_For_Making_Native_America_Safer-Full.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        It is for that reason that, for more than fifty years now, the Fort
    Peck Tribes have had an independent judicial system, including an
    appellate court. Our Tribal court system includes law- trained judges,
    law-trained prosecutors and public defenders, probation officers and
    experienced court clerks and court reporters. Our Tribal code is
    published and publicly available. We are also one of a small number of
    Tribal court systems exercising expanded jurisdiction and enhanced
    sentencing under VAWA and the Tribal Law and Order Act.
        This kind of work requires additional resources to attract, hire
    and retain skilled professionals and provide high-level services to all
    the individuals and families in the system. That is why I ask Congress
    to significantly increase funding for Tribal courts in the FY 2025
    budget.
        3. Housing--It is important that sufficient BIA funding be
    dedicated to addressing the social conditions on the Reservation that
    are interrelated with many of the problems we see with the mental
    health and drug crisis, the Reservation crime rate and health
    disparities within our community-and one such area for this is housing.
    We have a significant shortage of housing at Fort Peck. In many cases,
    we have multiple families living in a single home. There is
    overcrowding. This means that exposure to illness and unhealthy
    behaviors is unavoidable for many people, especially children. We must
    have greater funding to increase housing on the Reservation for
    families, to increase housing for people in recovery so that they do
    not go homeless during such a critical time (or return to homes where
    they may endanger others if they experience a relapse or other crisis),
    and to enable Tribes to better be able to recruit professionals to live
    and work in our community-especially teachers, law enforcement and
    healthcare professionals. Importantly, housing funding must include the
    resources so that new developments are built with access to basic
    infrastructure like water, sewer, electricity and broadband.
        Additionally, the BIA Housing Improvement Program (HIP) is
    insufficiently funded to address housing needs on the Reservation for
    the least well off. FY 2024 funding was $12 million. We understand,
    however, that the Tiwahe Initiative Program provides greater
    flexibility regarding Tiwahe HIP funding than the BIA HIP Program. We
    urge the subcommittee to increase the Tiwahe Initiative Program to
    benefit more Tribes and trust Tribes to wisely use Tiwahe Initiative
    funds to address unmet housing and interim housing needs of our
    members.
        4. Social Services & ICWA Funding--Our Tribal Social Services
    program has needed increased funding for some time, as our former
    chairman testified about last year. For FY 2024, Congress cut BIA
    Social Services about 2% below the FY 2023 level of $167 million. Our
    needs have only grown over the last year, particularly in light of the
    mental health and substance misuse issues I have highlighted. These
    issues have hit young adults, many of whom are parents, particularly
    hard and are thus exacerbating the stress put on our already thinly
    stretched social services providers and programs. Our families need
    additional wraparound and preventive social services support so that
    their children do not enter the foster care system. And for those
    children who do enter the system, we must have greater funding to
    recruit and retain licensed foster care homes on the Reservation.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

        [This statement was submitted by Dana Buckles, Councilman
    Assiniboine and Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation.]
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Friends of Blackwater National Wildlife
                                  Refuge Inc.
        This testimony is being submitted on behalf of the Friends of
    Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, Inc., which was formed in 1987 to
    support the Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge near Cambridge,
    Maryland. We appreciate the opportunity to offer comments on the FY
    2025 Interior Appropriations bill. We request that this subcommittee
    allocate $602.3 million in funding for National Wildlife Refuge System
    Operations and Maintenance under the United States Fish and Wildlife
    Service (USFWS).
        Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) was established in 1933
    as a waterfowl sanctuary for birds migrating along the Atlantic Flyway.
    It is home to an incredible amount of plant and animal diversity in its
    three major habitats--forest, marsh and shallow water. The Refuge
    contains one-third of Maryland's tidal wetlands, which makes it an
    ecologically important area within the state. These wetlands also
    provide storm protection to lower Dorchester County, including the city
    of Cambridge. Blackwater NWR is recognized as a ``Wetland of
    International Importance'' by the Ramsar Convention and was named a
    priority wetland in the North American Waterfowl Management Plan. In
    addition, the Refuge has been designated as an Internationally
    Important Bird Area. Blackwater NWR is home to the largest natural
    population of formerly endangered Delmarva peninsula fox squirrels and
    is also home to the largest breeding population of American bald eagles
    on the east coast, north of Florida. Blackwater NWR encompasses over
    33,000 acres, including an area believed to be the birthplace of
    Harriet Tubman.
        The Friends of Blackwater NWR (FOB) assists the Refuge with its
    environmental education, recreation, biological, and wildlife
    conservation programs in hopes of making the visitor experience the
    best that it can be. Over the past couple of years, visitation
    increased over 27% to over 233,000 visitors. Along with volunteering,
    we provide annual bus transportation and supplies for the Refuge
    environmental education program for all 4th and 6th graders in
    Dorchester County's public schools. FOB supports the maintenance of
    four Refuge hiking trails and over 20 miles of water trails. FOB
    recently supported studies of deer and bat populations on the Refuge
    and provided funds for tree planting projects. We operate five web
    cameras overlooking a bald eagle nest, two osprey nests and two
    waterfowl impoundments. In addition, FOB conducts monthly ``Night Sky
    Tours'' using a telescope we installed at the Refuge Visitor Center.
    FOB supports the annual Eagle Festival, Kids Fishing Event, and the
    Junior Duck Stamp Competition for Maryland. In recent years, the Refuge
    has sought support for other things out of the normal realm--like a
    mowing contract, new gutters on the environmental education building, a
    cleaning contract for the Visitor Center and Headquarters buildings, a
    well repair for managing the waterfowl impoundments, repair of the
    Marsh Edge Trail pavilion, and acquiring an intern for the Visitor
    Services program. In the 20 years I've been volunteering at Blackwater
    NWR, I've watched the Refuge workforce continue to dwindle, being asked
    to do more with less.
        Since 2010 the Refuge System has added 21 new refuge units, 549
    million submerged marine acres, opened 6 million acres for hunting and
    fishing, and visitation has grown to over 68 million annual visitors--
    an increase of 47% since FY2011. While these additions have enhanced
    the Refuge System and benefitted the communities around these Refuges,
    this growth has also put more pressure on the already stressed and
    underfunded Refuge System.
        Funding for the Refuge System has only increased by 4.7% since
    FY2010 to $527 million, or $5.55 per land acre. When accounting for
    total land and water acres, the Refuge System budget is a mere 62 cents
    per acre. Considering the level of inflation, annual fixed costs, and
    increased needs of the Refuge System since FY2010, the Refuge System
    budget has effectively decreased!
        The number of full-time employees (FTEs)--already a fraction of the
    other comparable Federal land agencies at about 2,500 FTEs--has
    decreased by 16% since FY2010. This has made it difficult for the
    Refuge System to manage its vast network of lands and waters and to
    fulfill its mission of conserving wildlife and habitats. The
    insufficient funding and capacity impacts are felt System-wide,
    impacting conservation planning, wildlife and habitat management,
    visitor services, law enforcement, and maintenance. No refuges are
    fully staffed, and more than half of refuges have zero staff on site.
    Multiple refuges have been closed to the public and are completely
    unmanaged. Many employees must manage multiple wildlife refuge units,
    sometimes traveling hundreds of miles per day. Many volunteer programs
    have also been cut back or eliminated due to lack of supervision from
    professional FTEs or necessary infrastructure.
        We urge Congress to prioritize the Refuge System and address these
    overarching funding challenges to ensure that the USFWS is equipped to
    effectively manage the wildlife, habitat, programs, and visitorship
    that rely on the health and integrity of the Refuge System. Ultimately,
    the Refuge System needs at least $2.2 billion in annual appropriations
    to effectively fulfill its conservation mission, provide opportunities
    for wildlife-dependent recreation, and connect communities to nature.
    The President's FY2025 Budget Request of $602.3 million is an important
    step toward that goal
        Thank you for your consideration, and please feel free to contact
    Richard Abend, the President of the Friends of Blackwater NWR, at 1111
    Taylors Island Road, Madison, Maryland 21648, email rdabend@yahoo.com,
    or cell phone 443-521-2201

        [This statement was submitted by Richard Abend, President, Friends
    of Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge, Inc.]
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Friends of the Front Range Wildlife Refuges
        This testimony is being submitted on behalf of the Friends of the
    Front Range Wildlife Refuges, which was formed in 2013 to support the
    Rocky Mountain Arssenal National Wildlife Refuge. We appreciate the
    opportunity to submit comments on the fiscal year (FY) 2025 Interior
    Appropriations bill. We request Congress to allocate $602.3 million in
    funding for National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance
    account under the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
        Friends of the Front Range Wildlife Refuges (FFRWR) is a 501(c)(3)
    nonprofit organization founded in 2007 to support Colorado's two
    largest National Wildlife Refuges, Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMANWR) and
    Rocky Flats (RFNWR) National Wildlife Refuges. FFRWR is part of the
    National Wildlife Refuge Association & Coalition of Refuge Friends &
    Advocates. These ``Friends'' groups raise funds for education programs,
    habitat restoration, community partnerships, and special outreach
    events.
        Friends envisions a space rich in natural and intercultural
    diversity that furthers environmental education and recreation for
    Front Range communities. Our mission is to support and advocate for the
    conservation and restoration of Rocky Mountain Arsenal and Rocky Flats
    National Wildlife Refuges and provide opportunities for the public to
    experience wildlife near a major metropolitan area in the form of
    volunteering, events, environmental education, and more.
        Ongoing programming Friends supports at RMANWR includes family and
    community programs and events and programs including the Pollinator
    Garden and Black-Footed Ferret Exhibit, Historical Egli House
    Restoration and Development, and host location of the Generation Wild
    Northeast Metro Coalition (GenWild NEMC) Youth Council program.
        Since 2010 the Refuge System has added 21 new refuge units and 549
    million submerged marine acres, opened 6 million acres for hunting and
    fishing, and seen visitation grow to over 68 million annual visitors-an
    increase of 47 percent since FY2011. While these additions have
    enhanced the Refuge System and benefited the communities around these
    refuges, this growth has also put more pressure on the already stressed
    and underfunded Refuge System.
        Funding for the Refuge System has only increased by 4.7% since
    FY2010 to $527 million, or $5.55 per land acre. When accounting for
    total land and water acres, the Refuge System budget is a mere .62 per
    acre. Considering the level of inflation, annual fixed costs, and
    increased needs of the Refuge System since FY2010, the Refuge System
    budget has effectively decreased.
        The number of full-time employees (FTEs)-already a fraction of the
    other comparable Federal land agencies at 2,500 FTEs-has decreased by
    27% since FY2011. This has made it difficult for the Refuge System to
    manage its vast network of lands and waters and to fulfill its mission
    of conserving wildlife and habitats. The insufficient funding and
    capacity impacts are felt System-wide, impacting conservation planning,
    wildlife and habitat management, visitor services, law enforcement, and
    maintenance. No refuges are fully staffed, and more than half of
    refuges have zero staff on site. Multiple refuges have been closed to
    the public and are completely unmanaged. Many employees must manage
    multiple wildlife refuge units, sometimes traveling hundreds of miles
    per day. Many volunteer programs have also been cut back or eliminated
    due to a lack of supervision from professional FTEs or necessary
    infrastructure.
        The Projects Leaders and Visitor Services Manager at RMANWR are
    incredibly dedicated and hard-working individuals who are committed to
    fostering a connection to wildlife for future generations.
        We urge Congress to prioritize the Refuge System and address these
    overarching funding challenges to ensure that the USFWS is equipped to
    effectively manage the wildlife, habitat, programs, and visitorship
    that rely on the health and integrity of the Refuge System. Ultimately,
    the Refuge System needs at least $2.2 billion in annual appropriations
    to effectively fulfill its conservation mission, provide opportunities
    for wildlife-dependent recreation, and connect communities to nature.
    The President's FY2025 Budget Request of $602.3 million is an important
    step towards that goal.
        Thank you for considering our request of $602.3 million for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System in FY2025. Please feel free to contact
    Vanessa Thurk, the General Manager of the Friends of the Front Range
    Wildlife Refuges at Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge.

        [This statement was submitted by Vanessa Thurk, General Manager,
    Friends of the Front Range Wildlife Refuges.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Friends of Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge
        This testimony is being submitted on behalf of Friends of Great
    Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, which was formed in 1999 to support
    Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. We appreciate the opportunity to
    submit comments on the fiscal year (FY) 2025 Interior Appropriations
    bill. We request Congress to allocate $602.3 million in funding for
    National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance account
    under the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
        Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, a hardwood swamp relic of the
    Wisconsin glacial Lake Passaic, located in north-central New Jersey,
    was founded in 1960 as the result of a years-long campaign in
    opposition to the proposal of the Port Authority of New York and New
    Jersey to fill in the swamp to build a fourth jetport in the New York
    Metropolitan area. Local citizenry fought to preserve the swamp and
    acquired over 3,000 acres of swampland and presented it to the USFWS as
    the initial landholding of the refuge. The Refuge is currently nearly
    8,000 acres, which includes a wildlife management area and 3,000 acres
    of the first Congressionally designated wilderness in the National
    Wildlife Refuge System. It provides critical habitat for the endangered
    Bog Turtle, the Red-shouldered Hawk and the Spotted Salamander. It is a
    stopping place for migrating waterfowl, warblers and other seasonal
    migrants. 244 different bird species have been identified on the
    Refuge. Great Swamp NWR is home to 39 species of mammals, 12 species of
    turtles and 12 species of snakes.
        The Refuge is 26 miles from Times Square, NYC, and is surrounded by
    suburbs. It is within easy driving distance of both the New York and
    Philadelphia Metropolitan areas. It includes approximately 11 miles of
    hiking trails, in both the management and wilderness areas. The Refuge
    averages about 250,000 visitors per year.
        Friends of Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge (``Friends'') was
    incorporated as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit in 1999. It supports and assists
    the refuge by providing volunteers to staff the Helen C. Fenske Visitor
    Center, which includes a nature shop, and the Wildlife Observation
    Center, which includes boardwalks and trails. A construction crew aids
    the refuge in building and maintaining trails and boardwalks. The
    Friends, which is an entirely volunteer organization, provides an array
    of programs for the public, including a Fall Festival, birding and
    wildlife programs, lectures, service opportunities, and hosting school,
    scout and community groups. Friends have partnered with local
    organizations, including Groundwork Elizabeth, to bring underserved
    children and adults into nature settings. The Friends have two separate
    invasive species removal groups which regularly provide invasive
    species control, as well as a GardenKeepers group that plant native
    species, as needed. The Friends organization supports the operations of
    the refuge staff, donating between 15,000 and 18,000 hours per year
    (the equivalent of 8-9 FTEs).
        To provide a local perspective on the devastation continued budget
    cuts have caused, in 1999, when the Friends group was formed, the
    Refuge had 14 full-time employees. In 2005, the Refuge was complexed as
    one of four refuges in three States (New Jersey, New York and
    Pennsylvania). With the allocation of USFWS employees across the four
    refuges, Great Swamp NWR currently has the equivalent of only 5 full-
    time employees! To appreciate the scope of this deficiency even
    further, it is noted that Great Swamp NWR currently has no single full-
    time, on-site USFWS staff. In fact, there are only 13 full-time
    equivalents across the entire four refuge, multi-State complex. One
    wage grade maintenance employee recently took a position outside the
    Refuge System and there are no plans to fill the position due to lack
    of funds. The Complex has one law enforcement officer and only one
    visitor services specialist. The Friends have 160 volunteers who help
    provide services, but because of the loss of staff, personnel can no
    longer provide adequate supervision. As a result, volunteers cannot
    pursue needed projects as there are insufficient staff to advise and
    monitor. Habitat restoration goals cannot be met, participation in
    meaningful research is stymied, and collaboration with partners in
    conservation becomes a luxury, rather than standard operating
    procedure. The lack of funding is creating a situation that can only
    result in the failure of refuges to maintain habitat and encourage
    appreciation for and enjoyment of our natural resources.
        Since 2010 the Refuge System has added 21 new refuge units and 549
    million submerged marine acres, opened 6 million acres for hunting and
    fishing, and seen visitation grow to over 68 million annual visitors-an
    increase of 47 percent since FY2011. While these additions have
    enhanced the Refuge System and benefited the communities around these
    refuges, this growth has also put more pressure on the already stressed
    and underfunded Refuge System.
        Funding for the Refuge System has only increased by 4.7% since
    FY2010 to $527 million, or $5.55 per land acre. When accounting for
    total land and water acres, the Refuge System budget is a mere .62 per
    acre. Considering the level of inflation, annual fixed costs, and
    increased needs of the Refuge System since FY2010, the Refuge System
    budget has effectively decreased.
        The number of full-time employees (FTEs)-already a fraction of the
    other comparable Federal land agencies at 2,500 FTEs-has decreased by
    27% since FY2011. This has made it difficult for the Refuge System to
    manage its vast network of lands and waters and to fulfill its mission
    of conserving wildlife and habitats. The insufficient funding and
    capacity impacts are felt System-wide, impacting conservation planning,
    wildlife and habitat management, visitor services, law enforcement, and
    maintenance. No refuges are fully staffed, and more than half of
    refuges have zero staff on site. Multiple refuges have been closed to
    the public and are completely unmanaged. Many employees must manage
    multiple wildlife refuge units, sometimes traveling hundreds of miles
    per day. Many volunteer programs have also been cut back or eliminated
    due to a lack of supervision from professional FTEs or necessary
    infrastructure.
        We urge Congress to prioritize the Refuge System and address these
    overarching funding challenges to ensure that the USFWS is equipped to
    effectively manage the wildlife, habitat, programs, and visitorship
    that rely on the health and integrity of the Refuge System. Ultimately,
    the Refuge System needs at least $2.2 billion in annual appropriations
    to effectively fulfill its conservation mission, provide opportunities
    for wildlife-dependent recreation, and connect communities to nature.
    The President's FY2025 Budget Request of $602.3 million is an important
    step towards that goal.
        Thank you for considering our request of $602.3 million for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System in FY2025. If you have any questions or
    would like added information, please contact Thomas Gula, President of
    Friends of Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge at tomgula@gmail.com.

        [This statement was submitted by Thomas Gula, President, Friends of
    Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge.]
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Friends of Hakalau Forest National Wildlife
                                     Refuge
        This testimony is being submitted on behalf of the Friends of
    Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge to support the Hakalau Forest
    National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) in Hawaii and the National Wildlife
    Refuge System nationwide. We appreciate the opportunity to submit
    comments on the fiscal year 2025 Interior Appropriations bill. We
    request Congress to allocate $602.3 million, the amount requested by
    the President, to support the National Wildlife Refuge System
    Operations and Maintenance under the United States Fish and Wildlife
    Service.
        The future of native forest birds in Hawaii has never been more
    dire. Conditions have reached a crisis point, with all the rare and
    endangered species at critically low populations. Extinction of some of
    these species is a real possibility in the next few years. Conditions
    at Hakalau Forest National NWR are more favorable than other refuges in
    Hawaii but could reach a crisis point in the next 5-10 years unless we
    can reverse the trends. Indeed, the upper elevations of Hakalau Forest
    NWR are perhaps the only safe refuge for many of the endangered birds
    because most of the reserve is located at relatively high elevations
    currently free from avian malaria.
        Hakalau Forest NWR was established in 1985 by the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service. It consists of two distinct parcels. The Hakalau
    Forest Unit is a 32,830 acre parcel on the windward slopes of Mauna Kea
    on Hawai'i Island. The other parcel is a 15,448 acre unit south of
    Kailua-Kona on the slopes of Mauna Loa, which is called the Kona Forest
    Unit.
        The higher elevation Hakalau Forest Unit contains some of the
    finest remaining stands of native montane rain forest in Hawai'i and
    habitat for 29 critically endangered species including seven birds, one
    insect, one mammal and 20 plants found nowhere else in the world.
    Currently, it is the only place in Hawai'i where native forest bird
    populations are stable or increasing.
        The lower elevation Kona Forest Unit is predominantly 'ohi'a
    (Metrosideros polymorpha) trees with an understory of nonnative trees
    and shrubs and home to a number of endangered birds, plants and one
    insect. This area was home to the last wild pair of ?alala (Corvus
    hawaiiensis) in 2002. The primary purpose of this unit is to protect,
    conserve and manage this native forest for threatened or endangered
    species.
        Volunteers and staff have restored approximately 5,000 acres of
    koa-ohia forest over the last four decades at Hakalau Forest. This has
    had a profound impact on habitat improvement as well as carbon
    sequestration. Awareness of the plight of the native forest birds has
    never been greater.
        Avian Malaria and Avian Pox, transmitted by introduced mosquitoes,
    are perhaps the most imminent and substantial threats to forest birds
    in refuges throughout the Hawaiian Islands. This threat is accelerating
    with the uphill movement of mosquitoes due to warming climate. Efforts
    to control/eliminate avian disease are underway on Kauai, Oahu and
    Maui. The use of a technique involving Wolbachia infused mosquitoes to
    control mosquito breeding has been shown to be locally effective but is
    not a viable long-term solution. More cost-effective, long-term means
    of control are needed.
        Loss/damage to the native forest habitat in both the Hakalau Forest
    and the Kona Forest units is also a major threat. Introduced ungulates
    (pigs, cattle, sheep, goats) continue to do significant harm to the
    sensitive habitats the native birds and plants depend upon. Introduced
    predators, such as feral cats, mongoose, and rats, also pose a
    substantial threat to native forest birds at all refuges in Hawaii.
        Hakalau Forest NWR and its surroundings offer the best hope for
    survival of native forest birds throughout the Islands. Most of the
    Hakalau Forest lands are at higher elevations than other native forests
    (i.e. less accessible to mosquitoes) and active management is stemming
    the tide of habitat damage to the forest floor by ungulates and
    invasive plants. The Kona Forest unit is not as actively managed, and
    in both units controlling mosquitoes, feral pigs, feral cattle, feral
    sheep, and predators is a relentless challenge.
        Volunteers recruited by the Friends currently work to help plant
    trees and shrubs and offer other assistance to Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS) staff to support tree planting, visitations, and other
    special projects. They are doing a terrific job, but additional Federal
    support for staffing and maintenance activities is desperately needed.
    Fencing to keep out ungulates needs to be regularly inspected and
    repaired is perhaps the greatest challenge, and the removal of invasive
    species in both units is a never-ending task.
        The Friends are working on developing a Visitor Services Plan to
    enhance access and visitor experiences and staff support at Hakalau
    Forest NWR. This plan would provide a small visitor/education center
    with restrooms, storage facilities, a suitable parking area, shelters
    for observing wildlife, and other amenities that do not exist today.
    Currently, there are no bathrooms or handwashing facilities for
    visitors or staff. Increasing opportunities for public visitation and
    education is an essential component in support of the Refuge system and
    its overall objectives. There are currently no funds in the
    Administrative Budget Request for such facilities.
        The conservation of the endangered and other native plants and
    animals at Hakalau Forest will require more support at the National
    level. Considering inflation, annual fixed costs, and increased
    salaries and other needs of the Refuge System, the Refuge System budget
    has effectively decreased since FY2010. This has made it difficult for
    the Refuge System to manage its vast network of lands and waters and to
    fulfill its mission of conserving wildlife and habitats, including
    those in Hawaii.
        We are doing our very best to support Hakalau NWR to address the
    plight of native forest birds, and to preserve and protect the forest
    and other wildlife in Hawaii, but your support is needed to effectively
    manage the system in Hawaii and the Refuge System nationwide.
        We urge Congress to address these funding challenges to ensure that
    the USFWS is equipped to effectively manage the wildlife, habitat,
    programs, and support staff and visitors at Hakalau Forest and all the
    other refuges throughout the US that rely on the health and integrity
    of the Refuge System. The President's FY2025 Budget Request is an
    important step towards that goal.
        Thank you for considering our request that you support $602.3
    million, as requested by the President, for operations at the National
    Wildlife Refuge System in FY2025. Please feel free to contact me,
    President of the Friends of Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, at
    debbieanderson808@gmail.com should you have any questions.

    Mahalo!

        [This statement was submitted by Deborah J. Anderson, President,
    Friends of Hakalau National Wildlife Refuge.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Friends of Heinz Refuge Board of Directors
        This provides testimony on behalf of the Board of Directors and
    Members of the Friends of the Heinz RefugeFriends of Heinz Refuge Board
    of Directors (FOHR) by Carol Armstrong, Ph.D., Secretary of the Board
    of Directors. The Friends was formed in 1997 to support the John Heinz
    National Wildlife Refuge. We appreciate the opportunity to offer
    comments on the FY 2025 U. S. Senate Appropriations.
        The FOHR is a non-profit charitable organization that works in
    partnership with the Refuge to connect people with nature, and promote
    a culture of environmental stewardship through education for all that
    also reaches children from low-income communities, and through
    outreach, service, and nature-based recreation for the conservation of
    wildlife and habitat.
        The John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge (JHNWR) is in the nexus of
    the Delaware River, Schuylkill River, and Tinicum Marsh--the largest
    remaining tidal marsh in Pennsylvania. It provides key environmental
    services by absorbing water during storm surges that otherwise would
    make the communities completely unlivable around Tinicum Marsh and
    Darby Creek, and which would otherwise flood the Philadelphia
    International Airport. It also provides cleaner air, protects drinking
    water drawn from the Delaware River, protects the Delaware Estuary, and
    is critical in the conservation and enhancement of biodiversity. It is
    a bird migration superhighway that provides safe forage and breeding
    areas for migrating birds along the Atlantic Flyway. It is home to over
    360 birds, such as this year's breeding Bald Eagles, the National Bird.
    The increased funding from FY 2025 appropriations would greatly impact
    this National Refuge by allowing them to hire needed staff for basic
    operations, repair infrastructure damage from storms, restore the
    confluence wetlands of the Delaware River watershed, complete watershed
    restoration, and build out environmental education programs.
        The 10 miles of hiking trails in the Refuge remained open for
    outdoor nature experiences for visitors during the covid-19 pandemic
    and all year round, which was so severely needed and for which
    Philadelphians and the 5,821,000 people who live in the total
    metropolitan area. flocked in record numbers to the Refuge during the
    pandemic. About 150,000 to 250,000 people visit the Refuge each year,
    which is heavy use and requires intensive management of facilities,
    educational programs, and visitor services along with the wildlife and
    watershed restoration programs that are carried out every year. In
    addition, there are storms each year that cause damage to the trails
    and water control structures that require repairs. The Refuge provides
    environmental and natural resource goods and services to people in the
    categories of:

        1. Maintenance and conservation of environmental resources,
    services, and ecological processes,

        2. Protection of natural resources such as fish, wildlife, and
    plants;

        3. Protection of cultural and historical sites and objects;

        4. Provision of educational and research opportunities; and

        5. Outdoor and wildlife-related recreation.

    Boardwalk at John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge, 2023

    In Summary:

        Rising fixed costs eat into the increases in appropriations and as
    a result do not keep up with inflation, so that Refuges are actually
    losing support every year. The Refuge System actually needs $2.2
    billion to effectively fulfill its conservation mission, connect
    communities to nature, and provide opportunities for wildlife dependent
    recreation. The President's FY 2025 request for $602 million is an
    important step towards that goal.
        The National Wildlife Refuge System was our country's first
    systematic program to protect biodiversity and climate resilient
    habitats, and meet the needs for expanding wildlife dependent
    recreation nationwide. The 588 Refuges are staffed by highly
    knowledgeable, dedicated, and committed individuals, but Refuge staff
    are under too much pressure and we are losing staff at a concerning
    rate without needed funding to rehire. Refuge law enforcement officers
    patrol an average of 440,00 dry acres per officer, and some States have
    no officers. The actual need for program staff is more than twice what
    was funded in FY2022; for example, we need 152 Conservation Planning
    specialists in FY2025 rather than 16 in FY2022; 1,595 Visitor Services
    specialists in FY2025 rather than 470 in FY2022; and 3,840 Wildlife and
    Habitat Management specialists in FY 2025 rather than 1,201 in FY2022.
        During the frequent and severe hurricanes and tropical storms of
    the past several years, the JHNWR sustained major damage to its hard
    structures, while the plantings survived, showing the importance of
    natural processes in becoming resilient to climate change. This refuge
    has geothermal facilities, and solar panels that were undamaged and are
    needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The U. S. Fish & Wildlife
    Service work efficiently, consistently, and untiringly in their mission
    to provide all of this to the American people.
        However, their efforts require more support from Congress to enable
    them to recover from the damage caused by increasingly intense storms,
    because at the same time, they are stabilizing the region in the face
    of these storms. The Refuge System has accumulated (1) needs for
    repairs from storms and heavy public usage, and (2) pro-active work to
    become more resilient to climate change. They have been undestaffed and
    undermaintained, and are desperately in need of more funding. The
    requested large increase in funding is critical to the health and
    capabilities of the Refuge System, and retention of staff.
        Economically, the JHNWR also makes local contributions through
    economic output to resident and non-resident visitors, jobs, job
    income, and State and local tax revenue (cf The Economic Contributions
    of Recreational Visitation at John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge at
    Tinicum, May 2019, Div. of Economics, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.)
        Wildlife refuges are economic engines for their communities, yet
    the biggest challenge facing the Refuge System is a lack of funding.
    Each Refuge requires tailored management to protect its rich and
    diverse wildlife habitat, but faces a stark lack of staff. Since
    FY2010, when the budget was the same ($503 million) as it is today in
    FY2021, 3,500 staffers worked to maintain and protect the Refuge
    System. Today, that number is under 2,500, an enormous 30% loss in
    capacity.
        Due to years of low budget allocations, the funding gap has
    degraded critical wildlife habitat and imperiled important species. The
    number of wage grade staff have declined by 50% in the last 20 years to
    a level of just 500. These staff move the water, maintain the roads,
    and support all the infrastructure involved in Refuge management.
    Without them, roads are not repaired, trails are lost, wetlands do not
    receive the necessary water to grow food for migratory birds, invasive
    species management is neglected, and buildings (fishing piers, bridges,
    etc.) fall into disrepair.
        Refuge staff are working with escalating urgency to try to
    compensate for the lack of staffing, maintenance, and operations
    support, as they are incredibly stoic and are dedicated to their
    purpose with a great deal of grit. However, those of us who support the
    Refuges, can see the desperate situations they are in.
        Thank you for your consideration, and please feel free to contact
    the President of the Friends of Heinz Refuge.

        [This statement was submitted by Carol Armstrong, Ph.D., Secretary
    of the Board of Directors, Friends of the Heinz Refuge.]
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Friends of Louisiana Wildlife Refuges, Inc.
        This testimony is being submitted on behalf of the Friends of
    Louisiana Wildlife Refuges, Inc. (FLWR), which was formed in 1967 and
    continues today, to support the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
    (USFWS) in eight National Wildlife Refuges (NWRs) totaling over 135,000
    acres within the a) Southeast Louisiana NWR Complex and b) the Bayou
    Sauvage Urban NWR Complex of the NWR System in Southeastern and South-
    Central Louisiana. We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on
    the fiscal year (FY) 2025 Interior Appropriations bill. We request
    Congress to allocate $602.3 million in funding for the NWR System
    Operations and Maintenance account under the USFWS. In addition, we ask
    that the focus of funding be toward increasing staffing of the USFWS to
    adequately address stewardship of not only the wildlife refuges in our
    two Complexes but NWRs nationwide.
        As stated in our bylaws, the purpose of FLWR, which has a mailing
    list of over 800 citizens, is to promote better awareness, appreciation
    and conservation of the refuges in our two Complexes and to work with
    other agencies and organizations to assist in the educational,
    interpretative and environmental projects of the USFWS.
        There are many highlights within the Southeast Louisiana NWR
    Complex and the Bayou Sauvage Urban Refuge Complex, which provide
    astounding environmental resources and opportunities for recreation,
    fishery, hunting and tourism.
    The Southeast Louisiana NWR Complex

      --Atachafalaya NWR is recognized as a ``Globally Important Bird
            Area'' by the American Bird Conservancy for sightings of birds,
            habitat for migratory waterfowl and nesting of wood ducks.
            Hunting for white-tail deer and fishing for crawfish are
            important here.

      --Big Branch Marsh NWR supports a population of the endangered red-
            cockaded woodpeckers, numerous species of native wildflowers,
            marsh grasses for the cover and nesting of birds and habitat
            for migrating birds.

      --Bogue Chitto NWR is used annually by thousands for fishing,
            hunting, hiking, photography, primitive camping and
            observations of birds and mammals and possibly four threatened
            or endangered species.

      --Breton NWR persistently provides vital habitat for species of shore
            birds, sea birds and seasonally large populations ducks.
            Hunting and crabbing are permitted.

      --Cat Island NWR is designated as an ``Important Bird Area'' by the
            National Audubon Society and includes the National Champion
            Bald Cypress Tree. Visitor opportunities include hunting,
            fishing, canoeing/kayaking, hiking, photography and wildlife
            observation.

      --Delta NWF is the food source for fish, waterfowl and other animals.
            It is important as a wintering habitat and sanctuary migratory
            for birds and hundreds of thousands of snow geese and ducks.
            Hunting and fishing are allowed.

    The Bayou Sauvage Urban NWR Complex

      --Bayou Sauvage Urban NWR, the second-largest, urban wildlife refuge
            in the United States, is only thirty minutes from downtown New
            Orleans, LA. Throughout a year, 340 species of birds including
            the American bald utilize this refuge. Presently, canoeing,
            hiking, birding and fishing are allowed on the refuge with some
            restrictions. This refuge may have enormous potential for more
            economically-friendly development, such as a visitor center.

      --Bayou Teche's primary purpose is to preserve and manage habitat for
            the Louisiana black bear. Other objectives are to provide habit
            for additional wildlife and fish, environmental education and
            recreation. Boating, fishing, hunting, photography and wildlife
            observation are permitted.

      --Mandalay NWR conserves and protects freshwater marshes and forested
            habitats for thousands of migratory waterfowl and other birds.

        As stated above, the nine refuges are important to their
    communities by providing educational, recreational, harvesting and
    tourist opportunities to their citizenship. Personnel with the USFWS
    teach at Junior Ranger and home school events, give presentations to
    schools and serve on wildlife boards, such as Delta Waterfowl.
    Recreational opportunities, as mentioned above, are hiking,
    photography, canoeing/kayaking, and observations of wildlife and plants
    at all of the refuges. Harvesting wildlife at many of the refuges is
    through hunting, fishing and crabbing. Tourists from most States and
    overseas visit the refuges to experience the unique ecosystems.
        FLWR supports the refuges and their communities through community
    events, donations to the USFWS, obtainment of grants, and co-staffing a
    Visitor Center at the Headquarters of the Southeast Louisiana NWR
    Complex at Lacombe, LA. With the assistance of one or more personnel of
    the USFWS, we annually host four, major community events including 1)
    Bayou Gardens Open House (450+ attendees), 2) Bogue Chitto Youth
    Fishing Rodeo (125 youth participants, 350+ attendees), 3) Wild Things
    (7,200+ attendees) and Cajun Christmas (500+ attendees). Annually, FLWR
    also participates in nine community activities in Southeast Louisiana
    including 1) Christmas Tree Drop/Bayou Sauvage Urban NWR, 2) Northshore
    Youth Conservation Event/Covington, 3) Big Bass Rodeo and Fishtival/New
    Orleans, 4) Plant Fest/Lacombe, 5) Earth Day/Lacombe, 6) Earth Fest in
    the Dell/Slidell, 7) Step Outside Day/Lacombe, 8) Beach Sweep/Lacombe
    and 9) Walk for the Wild/Lacombe. Within communities our directors are
    a member of and assist with many environmental organizations including:
    Audubon Society, Common Ground Relief, Cornell Lab of Ornithology,
    Delta
        Waterfowl, Ducks Unlimited, Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation,
    Louisiana Native Plant Society, Louisiana Master Naturalists, Delta
    Chapter of the Sierra Club, and Wild Ones. Recent donations to the
    USFWS include a laptop with software and materials for demonstrations
    and Christmas decorations for the Visitor Center. Recently, following
    one of the field trips for visitors, we were given a plaque of
    gratitude from the Student Chapter of the Society of Wetland Scientists
    at Louisiana State University. Grants in progress are for an
    educational pollinator garden to demonstrate the value of native plants
    to insects and birds in the community. On Thursdays, Fridays and
    Saturdays our Visitor Center is open to the public to experience the
    sounds and vistas of eight of the refuges. Eventually, we hope to
    obtain funding to portray another refuge, Cat Island NWR, to the
    community. Finally, the FLWR is investigating starting and leading an
    environmentally-oriented Explorer Scout Post for boys and girls between
    14 to 20 years old at a local high school.
        Since 2010, the NWS System has added 21 new refuge units and 549
    million submerged marine acres, opened 6 million acres for hunting and
    fishing, and seen visitation grow to over 68 million annual visitors-an
    increase of 47 percent since FY2011. While these additions have
    enhanced the NWS System and benefited the communities around these
    refuges, this growth has also put more pressure on the already stressed
    and underfunded NWS System.
        Funding for the NWR System has only increased by 4.7% since FY2010
    to $527 million, or $5.55 per land-acre. When accounting for total land
    and water acres, the NWR System budget is a mere 0.62 per acre.
    Considering the level of inflation, annual fixed costs, and increased
    needs of the NWR System since FY2010, the NWR System budget has
    effectively decreased.
        The number of full-time employees (FTEs) already a fraction of the
    other comparable Federal land agencies at 2,500 FTEs-has decreased by
    27% since FY2011. This has made it difficult for the NWR System to
    manage its vast network of lands and waters and to fulfill its mission
    of conserving wildlife and habitats. The insufficient funding and
    capacity impacts are felt System-wide, impacting conservation planning,
    wildlife and habitat management, visitor services, law enforcement, and
    maintenance. No refuges are fully staffed, and more than half of
    refuges have zero staff on site. Multiple refuges have been closed to
    the public and are completely unmanaged. Many employees must manage
    multiple wildlife refuge units, sometimes traveling hundreds of miles
    per day. Many volunteer programs have also been cut back or eliminated
    due to a lack of supervision from professional FTEs or necessary
    infrastructure.
        We urge Congress to prioritize the NWR System and address these
    overarching funding challenges to ensure that the USFWS is equipped to
    effectively manage the wildlife, habitat, programs, and visitorship
    that rely on the health and integrity of the NWR System. Ultimately,
    the NWR System needs at least $2.2 billion in annual appropriations to
    effectively fulfill its conservation mission, provide opportunities for
    wildlife-dependent recreation and connect communities to nature. The
    President's FY2025 Budget Request of $602.3 million is an important
    step towards that goal.
        Thank you for considering our request of $602.3 million for the NWR
    System in FY2025. Please feel free to contact William C. Trimble,
    President of the Friends of Louisiana Wildlife Refuges, Inc., at
    wctrirnble@yahoo.com or 334-663-5854.

        [This statement was submitted by William C. Trimble, President
    Friends of Louisiana Wildlife Refuges, Inc.]
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Friends of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
        This testimony is being submitted on behalf of the Friends of
    Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, which was formed in 1999 to support
    the Oregon refuge of the same name. We request that Congress allocate
    $602.3 million in funding for National Wildlife Refuge System
    Operations and Maintenance account under the United States Fish and
    Wildlife Service (USFWS).
        Our group does not make this request lightly. Malheur is a large
    refuge, containing over 290 square miles of critical habitat, and it
    holds iconic status as one of our Nation's oldest refuges and as a
    critical stop for migratory birds. In the twenty-five years since our
    organization was established, we have sought to support and enhance the
    refuge's operations and the visitor experiences that make it such a
    special place. Our thousand members care deeply about Malheur and show
    their support through cash donations and volunteer work group
    participation. This allows us to do everything from funding student
    interns to work with government staff to assisting with the refuge's
    trail and fencing needs. We also operate a nature store and information
    station at refuge headquarters that provides an important visitor
    service.
        In recent years, Malheur, like nearly all other Federal wildlife
    refuges, has seen annual reductions and erosion of its funding. This
    trend simply cannot be sustained without real damage to the refuge's
    natural resources and even more loss of public use and enjoyment.
    Groups like the one represented by this letter do not have the
    capacityto fill the resulting gaps. The scale of these reductions only
    makes full sense when the cuts to the entire refuge system are laid
    out.
        Since 2010 the Refuge System has added 21 new refuge units and 549
    million submerged marine acres, opened 6 million acres for hunting and
    fishing, and seen visitation grow to over 68 million annual visitors-an
    increase of 47 percent since FY2011. While these additions have
    enhanced the Refuge System and benefited the communities around these
    refuges, this growth has also put more pressure on the already stressed
    and underfunded Refuge System.
        Funding for the Refuge System has only increased by 4.7% since
    FY2010 to $527 million, or $5.55 per land acre. When accounting for
    total land and water acres, the Refuge System budget is a mere .62 per
    acre. Considering the level of inflation, annual fixed costs, and
    increased needs of the Refuge System since FY2010, the Refuge System
    budget has effectively decreased.
        The number of full-time employees (FTEs)-already a fraction of the
    other comparable Federal land agencies at 2,500 FTEs-has decreased by
    27% since FY2011. This has made it difficult for the Refuge System to
    manage its vast network of lands and waters and to fulfill its mission
    of conserving wildlife and habitats. The insufficient funding and
    capacity impacts are felt System-wide, impacting conservation planning,
    wildlife and habitat management, visitor services, law enforcement, and
    maintenance. No refuges are fully staffed, and more than half of
    refuges have zero staff on site. Multiple refuges have been closed to
    the public and are completely unmanaged. Many employees must manage
    multiple wildlife refuge units, sometimes traveling hundreds of miles
    per day. Many volunteer programs have also been cut back or eliminated
    due to a lack of supervision from professional FTEs or necessary
    infrastructure.
        This level of funding is, quite simply an embarrassing failure for
    all those who endorse it. America's National Wildlife Refuge system
    deserves better.
        We urge Congress to prioritize the Refuge System and address these
    overarching funding challenges to ensure that the USFWS is equipped to
    effectively manage the wildlife, habitat, programs, and visitorship
    that rely on the health and integrity of the Refuge System. Ultimately,
    the Refuge System needs at least $2.2 billion in annual appropriations
    to effectively fulfill its conservation mission, provide opportunities
    for wildlife-dependent recreation, and connect communities to nature.
    The President's FY2025 Budget Request of $602.3 million is an important
    step towards that goal.
        Thank you for considering our request of $602.3 million for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System in FY2025. We know that many other
    organizations are making the same recommendation, and we urge you to
    listen to this groundswell of public opinion.
        Please feel free to contact me if I may be of further assistance to
    the committee.

    William C. Tweed, Board President
    Friends of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
    559-786-6649
    wtweed@bendbroadband.com

        [This statement was submitted by William Tweed, Board Chair,
    Friends of Malheur National Wildlife Refuge.]
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Friends of the Mid-Columbia River National
                            Wildlife Refuge Complex
        This testimony is being submitted on behalf of the Friends of the
    Mid-Columbia River National Wildlife Refuge Complex, which was formed
    in 2001 to support seven (7) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services refuges
    (McNary, Conboy Lake, Toppenish, Cold Springs, Columbia, McKay Creek,
    Umatilla) and the Hanford Reach National Monument, all in eastern
    Washington State. We appreciate the opportunity to offer comments on
    the FY 2025 Interior Appropriations bill. With this written testimony,
    we are requesting that Congress allocate $602.3 million in funding for
    the National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance account
    under the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Our reasons
    for supporting this action are given below.
        Our Friends group works closely with Refuge staff on many projects,
    including wildlife habitat remediation, environmental education
    including field trips for the general public, trail maintenance
    (including improved ADA access), and citizen science programs. We know
    from personal experience how hard Refuge staff work to keep these lands
    healthy for wildlife and, where appropriate, open to the public.
        Recent development and extensive construction in our area has
    resulted in the loss of much valuable habitat. Similar issues on a
    national level are resulting in a reduction in the population of many
    species. The Mid-Columbia River National Wildlife Refuge Complex
    provides critical habitat for hundreds of thousands of waterfowl,
    endangered salmon, and rare/declining species including burrowing owls,
    long-billed curlews, and ferruginous hawks. We feel strongly that the
    Refuge system should continue playing a role in turning around national
    trends, and if we do not act now, we will lose much that we hold
    precious and valuable to our very existence.
        The Mid-Columbia River NWR Complex sees about 100,000 visitors
    annually, including hunters, photographers, birders and naturalists,
    and this number is growing. Despite this increase in use, funding
    constraints have had a significant negative impact on the ability of
    our local Fish and Wildlife Service staff to serve our area. For
    example, staffing at the Complex has decreased from 13 employees in
    2019 to just eight as of this year. And this count does not include the
    reduction in law enforcement staff, which has decreased from three LEs
    shared across two Complexes with seven Refuges and a National Monument
    totaling 250,000 acres, to just one individual.
        It is our understanding that funding for the Refuge System has only
    increased by 4.7% since FY2010 to $527 million, or $5.55 per land acre.
    Accounting for total land and water acres, the Refuge System budget is
    a mere .62 per acre. Considering the level of inflation, annual fixed
    costs, and increased needs of the Refuge System since FY2010, the
    Refuge System budget has effectively decreased.
        We urge you to address these funding challenges so that the USFWS
    can effectively manage wildlife and habitat programs and also provide
    safe and worthwhile opportunities for the many visitors that use our
    Refuges. The President's FY2025 Budget Request of $602.3 million is an
    important step towards that goal.
        Thank you in advance for your support of this important issue and
    providing the necessary funds for the National Wildlife Refuge System
    in FY2025. For clarification or additional details on any of the issues
    raised in this testimony, please contact Carl Berkowitz, Secretary of
    the Friends of The Mid-Columbia River National Wildlife Refuge Complex
    at CDBerkowitz@charter.net.

        [This statement was submitted by Carl Berkowitz, Secretary, Friends
    of the Mid-Columbia River National Wildlife Refuge Complex.]
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Friends of Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony and offer
    comments on the FY 2025 Interior Appropriations bill. My name is Julie
    Filiberti, and I sit on the board of the Friends of Missisquoi National
    Wildlife Refuge, a non-profit organization formed in 2002 to support
    the Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge in Swanton, Vermont. My
    comments in this testimony are on the behalf of this organization. We
    request Congress to allocate $602.3 million in funding for National
    Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance account under the
    United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
        The Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge is situated in the
    northwest corner of Vermont on the eastern shore of Lake Champlain. It
    is made up of lands and waters cared for by the Abenaki for thousands
    of years and is one of only two National Wildlife Refuges in the State
    of Vermont. Missisquoi NWR was established in 1943 to protect habitat
    for migrating waterfowl, and 70 years later, in 2013, was designated as
    a Ramsar Wetland of International Importance. In addition to the main
    parcel located where the Missisquoi River delta feeds into Lake
    Champlain, the 7218 acres of the refuge includes a 457 acre Eagle Point
    Unit in Derby, VT, co-managed with the Vermont Fish and Wildlife
    Department, and a 262 acre tract located in upstate New York. The
    refuge is also responsible for the management and oversight of 376
    acres of Conservation Easement in both Vermont and New York.
        The main parcel of the acreage in northwestern Vermont encompasses
    a variety of habitats. A majority of the refuge is composed of wetlands
    and floodplain forest where the Missisquoi River empties into Lake
    Champlain. This area is the most expansive intact floodplain forest in
    the state. The refuge also contains the largest bog in the northeast,
    the 900-acre Maquam Bog. In addition to these expanses of unique
    habitat, the refuge also contains shrublands and maintains 250 acres of
    managed grasslands. The refuge is an essential resting and feeding
    stopover for migrating ducks, geese, shorebirds, and other water birds.
    It is a haven for 17 state threatened or endangered species, including
    Spiny Softshell turtle, Black Tern, and the recently listed Eastern
    Meadowlark.
        The refuge is utilized for all six of the public use focuses of the
    National Wildlife Refuge system: hunting, fishing, wildlife
    observation, photography, interpretation, and education.
        Because of limited public lands in the area, the trails and
    waterways of the Missisquoi NWR provide the population of northwest
    Vermont with available areas for these outdoor recreation activities in
    all seasons. The Covid pandemic saw a dramatic increase in the usage of
    the refuge as people sought out places to safely immerse themselves in
    the natural world. The refuge lands also provide the habitats for
    important learning and mentoring opportunities for students engaging in
    environmental education. Perhaps most importantly, the Missisquoi
    National Wildlife Refuge, like most refuges in the system, has the
    critical job of protecting and conserving a biologically diverse,
    internationally important, and archaeologically significant area.
        In 2002, the non-profit Friends of Missisquoi National Wildlife
    Refuge, Inc. was formed to support the work at the refuge. Now in our
    22nd year, our small but dedicated group works to bring awareness to
    the refuge through public outreach by organizing educational and fun
    events for the public at large. We provide environmental education
    webinars, presentations, group birding opportunities, and various other
    outdoor events. Through our membership funds and donations, we support
    learning opportunities at the refuge for both students and adults. Our
    financial support also stretches to assist the refuge in acquiring
    grant funding for invasive species control. We work in collaboration
    with the refuge manager to provide financial assistance with any
    projects that do not have funding but are deemed necessary for the
    operation of the refuge.
        It has been many years since the Missisquoi NWR has had adequate
    Federal funding to keep up with its mission to appropriately manage the
    refuge for public use and provide protection for the lands and waters.
    According to the Comprehensive Conservation Plan, the refuge would need
    7 permanent full-time positions to completely function and meet its
    goals. Missisquoi is currently operating with a Refuge Manager, a
    Wildlife Biologist, a regional Administrative Officer, one Maintenance
    Worker, and an occasional seasonal technician. This current level of
    staffing is making operations and maintenance of the refuge difficult.
        The difficulties are seen in many areas. Missisquoi lost its Park
    Ranger in 2018, and the position has yet to be replaced. This critical
    loss, on top of an already short staff, has left a huge hole in the
    educational opportunities available, so our interpretive center and
    spacious classroom sit essentially unused. Many loved long-running
    programs such as the fishing derby and the Jr. Waterfowl Duck Stamp
    program have come to an end without staff to organize them. The refuge
    struggles to find volunteers to operate the visitor's center during the
    workweek, and it remains closed on weekends, which is peak visitation
    on the refuge. The trails and boardwalks are falling into disrepair
    because recruitment, management, and coordination of volunteers and
    supervision of youth programs such as YCC are no longer possible. The
    absence of a Law Enforcement Officer means poaching, vandalism,
    dumping, and drug use are going unchecked since the closest Federal
    officer to respond is in Massachusetts. The State Wardens respond when
    they can, but they cannot fully dedicate themselves to ongoing refuge
    enforcement. Planning for any new projects for the refuge has not been
    possible when even emergency projects are struggling to get done. This
    refuge, with its small staff, is struggling. The Friends of Missisquoi
    contributes when possible, but our small organization with limited
    dollars and limited time, cannot make up for the lack of Federal
    funding or staffing. Like refuges all across the country, ours is
    visibly showing the suffering under a continual lack of appropriate
    Federal funding.
        Since 2010 the Refuge System has added 21 new refuge units and 549
    million submerged marine acres, opened 6 million acres for hunting and
    fishing, and seen visitation grow to over 68 million annual visitors-an
    increase of 47 percent since FY2011. While these additions have
    enhanced the Refuge System and benefited the communities around these
    refuges, this growth has also put more pressure on the already stressed
    and underfunded Refuge System.
        Funding for the Refuge System has only increased by 4.7% since
    FY2010 to $527 million, or $5.55 per land acre. When accounting for
    total land and water acres, the Refuge System budget is a mere .62 per
    acre. Considering the level of inflation, annual fixed costs, and
    increased needs of the Refuge System since FY2010, the Refuge System
    budget has effectively decreased.
        The number of full-time employees (FTEs)-already a fraction of the
    other comparable Federal land agencies at 2,500 FTEs-has decreased by
    16% since FY2010. This has made it difficult for the Refuge System to
    manage its vast network of lands and waters and to fulfill its mission
    of conserving wildlife and habitats. The insufficient funding and
    capacity impacts are felt System-wide, impacting conservation planning,
    wildlife and habitat management, visitor services, law enforcement, and
    maintenance. No refuges are fully staffed, and more than half of
    refuges have zero staff on site. Multiple refuges have been closed to
    the public and are completely unmanaged. Many employees must manage
    multiple wildlife refuge units, sometimes traveling hundreds of miles
    per day. Many volunteer programs have also been cut back or eliminated
    due to a lack of supervision from professional FTEs or necessary
    infrastructure.
        As you see, the situation at the Missisquoi NWR is not unique.
    Refuges across the country are suffering the same staffing and
    maintenance challenges. We urge Congress to prioritize the Refuge
    System and address these overarching funding challenges to ensure that
    the USFWS is equipped to effectively manage the wildlife, habitat,
    programs, and visitorship that rely on the health and integrity of the
    Refuge System. Ultimately, the Refuge System needs at least $2.2
    billion in annual appropriations to effectively fulfill its
    conservation mission, provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent
    recreation, and connect communities to nature. The President's FY2025
    Budget Request of $602.3 million is an important step towards that
    goal.
        The National Wildlife Refuge System is a national treasure in this
    country, providing valuable areas for our citizens to recreate and
    enjoy the great outdoors. In our current world threatened by climate
    change, protecting these critical habitats for wildlife as a whole is
    increasingly important. Refuges are places that provide environmental
    learning opportunities and are areas to immerse oneself in nature's
    wonders, both of which are crucial for future generations to develop an
    appreciation and respect for our natural world. This country's refuge
    system is uniquely set up to effectively protect these important
    habitats, but they need adequate funding to do their job. Dollars spent
    on the National Wildlife Refuge System are a wise investment for our
    country and our world, and I urge you to consider adequately funding
    the System.
        Thank you for considering our request of $602.3 million for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System in FY2025. Please feel free to contact
    Rich Kelley, President of the Friends of Missisquoi, at
    info@friendsofmissisquoi.org if you would like any further information
    regarding our organization.

        [This statement was submitted by Julie Filiberti for the Friends of
    Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the Friends of the National Institute of
                         Environmental Health Sciences
        The Friends of the NIEHS are pleased to submit the following
    testimony regarding Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 Federal appropriations for
    the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies in support of the vital
    work being carried out by the NIH/NIEHS as a result of the annual
    appropriation provided for this work in the subcommittee's bill. We ask
    you to provide at least $89.3 million for the Superfund Research
    program in FY2025.
        Our coalition of organizations represent a variety of interests,
    including medical and scientific professional societies, environment
    and public health focused organizations, children's health advocates,
    women's health advocates, and many others. Collectively, our community
    supports and calls attention to the vital work being done by the
    National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS). NIEHS, one
    of the component institutes and centers of the National Institutes of
    Health (NIH), focuses on the prevention of health problems and diseases
    with special emphasis on the intimate interactions between our bodies
    and the environments where we live, work, and play over our lifetimes.
        The NIEHS Superfund Program (SRP) supports research to address the
    health impacts from hazardous substances in the environment, develop
    clean-up technologies for hazardous waste, advance new risk assessment
    methods, and train the future generation of scientists to work in
    interdisciplinary research teams to tackle such problems. The SRP
    provides the scientific foundation used by the Worker Training Program
    (WTP) to train hazardous waste workers, to accelerate remediation
    efforts, and to prevent health consequences related to toxicant
    exposure. These programs have provided the safety tools and training to
    transform contaminated sites into new opportunities for residential,
    industrial, and commercial ventures--which means new jobs for the
    surrounding community and new sources of revenue for State and local
    governments.
        The SRP's research portfolio and research successes include:

      --Pregnancy Complications--Researchers at the University of Michigan
            revealed how exposure to Trichloroethylene (TCE), a widely used
            industrial chemical frequently found at Superfund sites as a
            contaminant in soil and groundwater, may have a negative impact
            on placental growth during pregnancy, which may affect the
            growth and wellbeing of the baby.

      --Childhood asthma--Researchers at Louisiana State University are
            investigating how the presence of environmentally persistent
            free radicals (EPFRs) in household dust is linked to persistent
            wheeze in children. The presence of these emerging
            environmental contaminants in settled dust inside the home
            demonstrates their longevity in the environment and the
            association between EPFR characteristics and wheeze status
            points to the involvement of oxidative stress.

      --Hurricanes--Researchers at the Texas A&M University Superfund
            Research Program Center are developing methods and tools to
            predict exposure during environmental emergencies, such as the
            aftermath of Hurricanes Harvey and Florence and to produce
            applied solutions to mitigate negative effects of environmental
            disasters on human health. Researchers from Northeastern
            University are providing water filtration kits and other
            support to its study participants in Puerto Rico in the
            aftermath of Hurricanes Irma and Maria. The researchers are
            investigating links between the high preterm birth rate of
            11.8% on the island, and the extent of hazardous waste
            contamination there. Puerto Rico has more than 200 contaminated
            sites that include 18 active Superfund sites.

      --Groundwater Contaminant Sensing, Tracking and Removal--Researchers
            at MIT are developing ways of using tiny sensors and smart
            phones to sense and track the movement of emerging chemical
            contaminants in the environment. Researchers at the University
            of California, Berkeley are developing a device for convenient
            on-site treatment to remove lead and arsenic from drinking
            water.

      --Addressing PFAS contamination--Researchers at the Brown University,
            Harvard and Texas A&M SRP Centers and other SRP-sponsored SBIR
            projects are heavily engaged in addressing legacy and emerging
            PFAS contamination, providing urgently needed scientific
            information on exposure sources, toxicity, and clean-up methods
            to inform policy, and aiding States and impacted communities.

      --Airborne PCBs--Researchers at the Iowa superfund research program
            are leading efforts to measure exposure to airborne
            polychlorinated biphenyls and understand how these exposures
            contribute to children's neurodevelopmental health, metabolic
            syndrome, and other human health effects.

      --Remediation Efforts--Research teams supported by the University of
            Kentucky Superfund Research Center are developing intervention
            and prevention strategies to reduce disease risks from exposure
            to hazardous chemicals, while also engineering solutions to
            current and future exposures through innovative technologies.
            Importantly, the Center, like other SRP funded projects,
            includes stakeholder engagement activities to ensure that
            solutions address the unique challenges faced by highly exposed
            and under-resourced communities.

        To ensure that the critical activities of this program continue to
    advance alongside other important national research priorities, we ask
    the NIH/NIEHS Superfund-related activities receive an increase in
    funding in Fiscal Year 2025 to a total of at least $89.3 million, which
    will help to keep our air, soil, and water safe to improve public
    health, advance private sector job creation, and bolster the economy.
    If the opportunity to meet the current investment needs of the NIEHS
    Superfund Research Program and Worker Training Program is lost, we risk
    reversing a variety of public health, environmental, and economic
    gains. Thank you for considering our request.

        [This statement was submitted by Joseph Laakso, Director of Science
    Policy, Endocrine Society.]
      Prepared Statement of Friends of Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge
        This testimony is being submitted by me in support of the Friends
    of the Neal Smith NWR near Prairie City, Iowa, a refuge that was
    established in 1990 as the Walnut Creek NWR to reestablish or
    regenerate a tallgrass prairie and oak savanna from row cropland so as
    to be able to answer basic questions and educate the public about the
    native tallgrass prairie lands of the 1840s and to extract valuable
    solutions to agricultural, land and water problems of the 21st century.
        I appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the fiscal year
    (FY) 2025 Interior Appropriations bill. I request Congress to allocate
    the full $602.3 million in funding for National Wildlife Refuge System
    Operations and Maintenance account under the United States Fish and
    Wildlife Service (USFWS) as recommended by the U.S. Dept. of the
    Interior and the National Wildlife Refuge System.
        My Friends organization, the Friends of Neal Smith NWR, has been in
    existence since 1993, grown to 350 supporters, and supplies over 14,000
    volunteer hours to this refuge each year. Our primary purposes are to
    support the refuge and in so doing we have purchased land within the
    12,000-acre boundaries defined by Congress and held it until purchase
    and transfer to the FWS could occur, supported up to 13 interns and
    maintained a nature store with nearly a $100,000 in sales to support
    interns and projects.
        We support collaborative research projects with partners from
    colleges and universities. Supported research included ``prairie
    strips'' for water quality improvement and runoff control and bee
    diversity with the finding that bee species diversity increases four-
    fold over row cropped land. Projects included plantings of prairie
    violets and species of milkweed to support the fritillary and the
    monarch. Perhaps the most significant effort is in education. We have
    brought to the refuge some 8,000 students in elementary schools each
    year for age-appropriate environmental education. Of course, this was
    before Covid-19. But during the peak of Covid, refuge visitation
    increased from 240,000 to 320,000 visitors per year placing a strain on
    our ability to manage all these visitors. Today, some 4 years later, we
    have recovered school children visitorship lost during Covid-19 and
    have additional strains on our infrastructure.
        Help! That is what is required. The refuge has lost 77% of its
    original 13 FTE positions. We are fortunate to have a project leader, a
    visitor services and a maintenance position but neither maintenance nor
    our mission and goals can be preserved. It has become discouraging to
    volunteers who have helped so much.
        I am told that since 2010 the Refuge System has added 21 new refuge
    units and 549 million submerged marine acres, opened 6 million acres
    for hunting and fishing, and seen visitation grow to over 68 million
    annual visitors-an increase of 47 percent since FY2011. While these
    additions have enhanced the Refuge System and benefited the communities
    around these refuges, this growth has also put more pressure on the
    already stressed and underfunded Refuge System.
        Calculations show that funding for the Refuge System has only
    increased by 4.7% since FY2010 to $527 million, or $5.55 per land acre.
    When accounting for total land and water acres, the Refuge System
    budget is a mere .62 per acre. Considering the level of inflation,
    annual fixed costs, and increased needs of the Refuge System since
    FY2010, the Refuge System budget has effectively decreased. This has
    led to sparce or non-existent field support, poor customer service,
    increased dependency on volunteer support, biodiversity loss, increased
    vulnerability to climate hazards and decreased conservation
    partnerships.
        Presentations by the DOI show that the number of full-time
    employees (FTEs)-already a fraction of the other comparable Federal
    land agencies at 2,500 FTEs-has decreased by 27% since FY2011. This has
    made it difficult for the Refuge System to manage its vast network of
    lands and waters and to fulfill its mission of conserving wildlife and
    habitats. The insufficient funding and capacity impacts are felt
    System-wide, impacting conservation planning, wildlife and habitat
    management, visitor services, law enforcement, and maintenance. No
    refuges are fully staffed, and more than half of refuges have zero
    staff on site. Multiple refuges have been closed to the public and are
    completely unmanaged. Many employees must manage multiple wildlife
    refuge units, sometimes traveling hundreds of miles per day. Many
    volunteer programs have also been cut back or eliminated due to a lack
    of supervision from professional FTEs or necessary infrastructure.
        Again, I say Please Help!
        I urge Congress to prioritize the Refuge System and address these
    overarching funding challenges to ensure that the USFWS is equipped to
    effectively manage the wildlife, habitat, programs, and visitorship
    that rely on the health and integrity of the Refuge System. Ultimately,
    the Refuge System needs at least $2.2 billion in annual appropriations
    to effectively fulfill its conservation mission, provide opportunities
    for wildlife-dependent recreation, and connect communities to nature.
    The President's FY2025 Budget Request of $602.3 million is an important
    step towards that goal.
        Thank you for considering my request of $602.3 million for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System in FY2025. Please feel free to contact
    me as a former Board member involved with grants within the Friends of
    Neal Smith NWR in Iowa.

        [This statement was submitted by Prof. James Johnson, Ph.D, Friends
    of Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge Board Member (Retired) and
    Volunteer.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Friends of O`ahu National Wildlife Refuges
        This testimony is being submitted on behalf of the Friends of O`ahu
    National Wildlife Refuges, which was formed in May 2023 to support the
    James Cambell National Wildlife Refuge and the Pearl Harbor National
    Wildlife Refuge. We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on
    the fiscal year (FY) 2025 Interior Appropriations bill. We request
    Congress to allocate $602.3 million in funding for National Wildlife
    Refuge System Operations and Maintenance account under the United
    States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
        Our Friends group was organized to provide much needed support to
    the O`ahu National Wildlife Refuge complex. The complex has the only
    urban refuge in the Pacific and provides a variety of benefits. Four
    endangered birds, two of them endemic to Hawaii, use the refuge as
    vital habitat. Numerous migrants also use the refuges as migration and
    winter habitat. Endangered Monk Selas, Green Sea Turtles, and a variety
    of threatened insects and plants benefit as well. The refuge provides
    potential flood control if needed and supports cultural artifacts from
    early Polynesian inhabitation. Our Friends group has supported public
    education and refuge tours, in addition to assisting in habitat
    improvement efforts. In 2024, we received a $10,000 grant from the
    National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. These funds will be used to
    support the most critical needs of the refuge complex.
        In these highly populous and increasingly developed islands, these
    small refuges are critical for the animals and plants that live on the
    refuges and are also very important in providing a learning experience
    in a natural world.
        Since 2010 the Refuge System has added 21 new refuge units and 549
    million submerged marine acres, opened 6 million acres for hunting and
    fishing, and seen visitation grow to over 68 million annual visitors-an
    increase of 47 percent since FY2011. While these additions have
    enhanced the Refuge System and benefited the communities around these
    refuges, this growth has also put more pressure on the already stressed
    and underfunded Refuge System.
        Funding for the Refuge System has only increased by 4.7% since
    FY2010 to $527 million, or $5.55 per land acre. When accounting for
    total land and water acres, the Refuge System budget is a mere .62 per
    acre. Considering the level of inflation, annual fixed costs, and
    increased needs of the Refuge System since FY2010, the Refuge System
    budget has effectively decreased.
        The number of full-time employees (FTEs)-already a fraction of the
    other comparable Federal land agencies at 2,500 FTEs-has decreased by
    27% since FY2011. This has made it difficult for the Refuge System to
    manage its vast network of lands and waters and to fulfill its mission
    of conserving wildlife and habitats. The insufficient funding and
    capacity impacts are felt System-wide, impacting conservation planning,
    wildlife and habitat management, visitor services, law enforcement, and
    maintenance. No refuges are fully staffed, and more than half of
    refuges have zero staff on site. Multiple refuges have been closed to
    the public and are completely unmanaged. Many employees must manage
    multiple wildlife refuge units, sometimes traveling hundreds of miles
    per day. Many volunteer programs have also been cut back or eliminated
    due to a lack of supervision from professional FTEs or necessary
    infrastructure.
        Our Friends group is dedicated to growing our membership and our
    ability to support and fund our refuges. The shortfall in manpower and
    funding has taken its toll. Our dedicate professionals work hard to
    keep the programs going smoothly, but to get best results, more
    personnel and more funds are clearly needed. Our invasive plant species
    grow rapidly, 365 days a year, reducing viable habitat for the
    endangered species, and a variety of management actions are needed
    daily to merely keep up, much less to incorporate the improvements we
    hope for to add viable habitat within the complex and to better
    accommodate an eager public.
        We urge Congress to prioritize the Refuge System and address these
    overarching funding challenges to ensure that the USFWS is equipped to
    effectively manage the wildlife, habitat, programs, and visitor
    facilities that rely on funding for the health and integrity of the
    Refuge System. Ultimately, the Refuge System needs at least $2.2
    billion in annual appropriations to effectively fulfill its
    conservation mission, provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent
    recreation, and connect communities to nature. The President's FY2025
    Budget Request of $602.3 million is an important step towards that
    goal.
        Thank you for considering our request of $602.3 million for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System in FY2025. Please feel free to contact
    Richard M. May, Jr, the President of the Friends of O`ahu National
    Wildlife Refuges at rmayhi02@hotmail.com, or via phone or text at (808)
    375-2439.

        [This statement was submitted by Friends of O`ahu National Wildlife
    Refuges.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Friends of Patuxent Research Refuge, Inc.
        Supporting wildlife conservation, education, and research at the
    Patuxent Research Refuge, a National Wildlife Refuge of the US Fish and
    Wildlife Service, and the Eastern Ecological Science Center of the US
    Geological Survey. We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on
    the fiscal year (FY) 2025 Interior Appropriations bill. This testimony
    is being submitted on behalf of the Friends of Patuxent Research
    Refuge, Inc.
        We would like to offer comments on appropriations needs generally
    for the National Wildlife Refuge System, of which Patuxent Research
    Refuge is a National Wildlife Refuge, and specifically on behalf of the
    Eastern Ecological Science Center of the US Geological Survey.
        The Friends of Patuxent Research Refuge was formed in 1992 to
    support the then Patuxent Wildlife Research Center which was later
    divided by the Department of the Interior into the Patuxent Research
    Refuge (PRR) under the jurisdiction of the US Fish and Wildlife Service
    and the Eastern Ecological Science Center (EESC) under the jurisdiction
    of the US Geological Survey. The Friends of Patuxent since its founding
    has remained dedicated to equally supporting the research, education,
    and conservation missions of the refuge and the science center. The
    Friends of Patuxent raise funds, conduct educational programs, and
    support the refuge and science center through an extensive network of
    volunteers.
        For Fy2025, the Friends of Patuxent supports full funding for the
    personnel at the refuge and science center including being able to fill
    all current and future vacancies in the coming fiscal year for both the
    Patuxent Research Refuge and the Eastern Ecological Science Center. As
    we have seen in recent years, past budget increases have not kept pace
    with inflation, costs-of-living increases, and annual fixed costs
    expenses. As a result, the refuge and the science center have had to
    make up these costs by effectively reducing their budgets to make up
    the operational costs, the cost-of-living increases, and the fixed
    costs that continue to grow dramatically due to inflationary pressures.
    The net result has therefore been budget reductions and a lack of
    ability to fulfill their missions. These facilities must be adequately
    funded to achieve their approved level of service in FY 2025.
        Patuxent Research Refuge is unique among the National Wildlife
    Refuges of our Nation. It is the only refuge dedicated to wildlife
    research. Additionally, it is critically located within the fast-
    developing Baltimore/Washington corridor. The 13,000 acres of PRR have
    been called ``the green lungs of Baltimore and Washington'' by the late
    Sen. Paul Sarbanes. Patuxent is not only home to vital wildlife
    research and conservation, but also serves as a crucial conservation
    and educational resource to a burgeoning urban population which it
    serves.
        In general, we request Congress to allocate $602.3 million in
    funding for National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance
    account under the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
    Recent additions of refuges and new responsibilities have enhanced the
    Refuge System and benefited the communities around these refuges, but
    this growth has also put more pressure on the already stressed and
    underfunded Refuge System. The insufficient funding and capacity
    impacts are felt System-wide, impacting conservation planning, wildlife
    and habitat management, visitor services, law enforcement, and
    maintenance. Many volunteer programs have also been cut back or
    eliminated due to a lack of supervision from professional FTEs or
    necessary infrastructure. We see these effects at the Patuxent Research
    Refuge, which notably has been identified as one of FWS's urban
    refuges.
        Specifically for the Eastern Ecological Science Center under the US
    Geological Survey (USGS), we would like to see Congress address several
    urgent research needs. These include providing an additional $6 million
    (at least $2 million to start) to the US Geological Survey Ecosystem
    Mission Area's Biological Threats and Invasive Species Program to
    develop a comprehensive, multi-pronged and science-based response plan
    in collaboration with State agencies and coordinate a research program
    to understand the ecological and socio-economic impacts and inform
    population monitoring, control and mitigation strategies in Chesapeake
    Bay. USGS is the right organization and has the inherent capability to
    take on this mission.
        Additionally, the recent proliferation of invasive catfish in our
    Nation's waterways, especially the blue catfish, is now endemic in many
    of the Chesapeake Bay's major rivers and has the potential to disrupt
    the Baywide restoration efforts of not only the Federal Government, but
    a broad partnership of State, local, and nonprofit partners, and limit
    the full potential restoration of this critical ecosystem. USGS can
    increase science leadership and harness the technical capabilities to
    work with stakeholders, academics, and resource managers to provide a
    more strategic approach for managing this challenge.
        Thank you for considering our request of $602.3 million for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System in FY2025 and the specific requests for
    additional research funding for the Eastern Ecological Science Center
    of USGS. Please feel free to contact Richard Dolesh, the chair of the
    board of directors of the Friends of Patuxent Research Refuge.

    Contact information for Richard Dolesh:
        dolesh@gmail.com
        301-848-8154 (cell)
        19603 Aquasco Road
        Aquasco, MD, 20608

        [This statement was submitted by Richard Dolesh, Chairman of the
    Board of Directors of the Friends of Patuxent Research Refuge.]
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Friends of Prime Hook
        I am submitting this testimony as a lover of our Nation's wildlife
    heritage, especially as found in our National wildlife refuges. I am a
    member of the Friends of Prime Hook NWR and a director of the National
    Wildlife Refuge Association, but I do not represent them in this
    testimony.
        Over the last 20 years I have visited refuges in Alaska, Hawaii,
    and many of the lower 48 States, including my native Virginia and
    coastal Delaware where I have a house. Over these two decades I have
    seen staff cut and cut, reducing public access to, and enjoyment of,
    our wonderful lands. I beg you to reverse this terrible trend,
    beginning this year by funding the Refuge System's Operations and
    Maintenance account under the Fish and Wildlife Service at $602.3
    million.
        The following facts detailing the challenges to the Refuge System
    are courtesy of the National Wildlife Refuge Association.
        Since 2010 the Refuge System has added 21 new refuge units and 549
    million submerged marine acres, opened 6 million acres for hunting and
    fishing, and seen visitation grow to over 68 million annual visitors-an
    increase of 47 percent since FY2011. While these additions have
    enhanced the Refuge System and benefited the communities around these
    refuges, this growth has also put more pressure on the already stressed
    and underfunded Refuge System.
        Funding for the Refuge System has only increased by 4.7% since
    FY2010 to $527 million, or $5.55 per land acre. When accounting for
    total land and water acres, the Refuge System budget is a mere .62 per
    acre. Considering inflation and the increased needs of the Refuge
    System since FY2010, the Refuge System budget has substantially
    decreased.
        The number of FTEs -already a fraction of those of the other
    comparable Federal land agencies, has fallen by 27% since FY2011. This
    has made it difficult for the Refuge System to manage its vast network
    of lands and waters and to fulfill its mission of conserving wildlife
    and habitats. The insufficient funding and capacity impacts are felt
    System-wide, impacting conservation planning, wildlife and habitat
    management, visitor services, law enforcement, and maintenance. No
    refuges are fully staffed, and more than half of refuges have zero
    staff on site. Multiple refuges have been closed to the public and are
    completely unmanaged. Many employees must manage multiple wildlife
    refuge units, sometimes traveling hundreds of miles per day. Many
    volunteer programs have also been cut back or eliminated due to a lack
    of supervision from professional FTEs or necessary infrastructure.
        Ultimately, the Refuge System needs at least $2.2 billion in annual
    appropriations to effectively fulfill its conservation mission, provide
    opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation, and connect
    communities to nature. The President's FY2025 Budget Request of $602.3
    million is an important step towards that goal.
        Thank you for considering this request.
        Please feel free to contact me at robmorgan322@gmail.com.

        [This statement was submitted by Rob Morgan, Director of the
    National Wildlife Refuge Association.]
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge
        I have been a member of the Friends of Rachel Carson National
    Wildlife Refuge for the past 35 years. The group was founded in 1987,
    we are a small group supporting the refuge and it's staff in various
    ways. The mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is to work with
    others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants and
    their habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. For
    FY25, I request that this subcommittee allocate $1.9 billion in funding
    for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). This includes $602.3 million
    to address the National Wildlife Refuge System's Operations and
    Maintenance Budget. For Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge , I
    request $1.5M in land acquisition funds for the purchase of critical
    wildlife habitat.
        The Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge is named in honor of one
    of the Nation's foremost and forward-thinking biologists. After
    arriving in Maine in 1946 as an aquatic biologist for the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service, Rachel Carson became entranced with Maine's coastal
    habitat, leading her to write the international best-seller The Sea
    Around Us. This landmark study, in combination with her other writings,
    The Edge of the
        Sea and Silent Spring, led Rachel Carson to become an advocate on
    behalf of this nation's vast coastal habitat and the wildlife that
    depends on it. Our Friends group continue to have community activities
    that involve the local schools and neighbors with the teachings of
    Rachel Carson and her impact on the awareness of the natural world. In
    the past few years , The Friends have had a photography contest with
    the winners displayed in yearly Friends Calendar. We have kept busy
    working with the new Visitor Service Specialist in various educational
    programs and public outreach. With the refuge's building of a new
    headquarters, we will have a new Visitor's Center and a Multi-purpose
    room that will aid in more continuous community engagement. The Friends
    will have a bookstore and office by early 2026. People can use the
    refuge as a springboard to connect to nature by experiencing wildlife
    observation, environmental education, interpretation, wildlife
    photography, hunting and fishing.
        Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1966 in
    cooperation with the State of Maine to protect valuable salt marshes
    and estuaries for migratory birds. Located along 50 miles of coastline
    in York and Cumberland Counties, it consists of 11 divisions in 12
    municipalities protecting approximately 5,600 acres within a 14,800
    acre acquisition zone. Consisting of meandering tidal creeks, coastal
    upland, sandy dunes, salt ponds, marsh, and productive wetlands, the
    Rachel Carson NWR provides critical nesting and feeding habitat for the
    threatened piping plover and a variety of migratory waterfowl, and
    serves as a nursery for many shellfish and finfish. The proximity of
    the Refuge to the coast and its location between the eastern deciduous
    forest and the boreal forest creates a biodiverse composition of plants
    and animals not found elsewhere in Maine. Major habitat types present
    on the Refuge include forested upland, barrier beach/dune, coastal
    meadows, tidal salt marsh, and the distinctive rocky coast. The Refuge
    provides public recreational opportunities, including wildlife
    observation, fishing, hunting, photography, and kayaking for the
    growing, and increasingly diverse and more urban, population of
    southern Maine and its summer visitors.
        With 568 units, the National Wildlife Refuge System is a model for
    conservation around the world. More than 160 coastal refuges buffer
    communities from the increasing frequency and intensity of storms, and
    even more provide habitat for millions of migrating birds each year.
    All of the refuges are in dire need of staffing and upkeep. An
    investment in the Nation's Refuge System is an excellent investment in
    the American economy, generating $3.2 billion and creating about 41,000
    jobs in local economies. Without increased funding for refuges,
    wildlife conservation and public recreation opportunities will be
    jeopardized. Overall, the National Wildlife Refuge System requires at
    least $602.3M in Operations and Maintenance Funding to be considered
    ``full funding'', which all refuges staffed, with adequate maintenance,
    biological, hunting, fishing, environmental education, and
    interpretation programs. The failure to offset the impacts of inflation
    has led to unsustainably low staffing levels and lost capacity. Over
    800 permanent positions have been lost since FY2011-an enormous 25%
    loss in capacity. Much of the Refuge System is virtually unprotected
    due to the lack of law enforcement officers, with some officers
    covering entire States and refuge units hours away from one another.
    Several much-needed positions like these are eliminated every year as
    congressional appropriations lag behind inflation and actual funding
    needs. This also impacts the Friends Refuge volunteer groups like ours,
    as many volunteer programs-critical for the operation and maintenance
    of refuges-are being cut back or eliminated entirely due to a lack of
    supervision from full-time professional staff. We urge the subcommittee
    to do everything possible to bridge this inflation gap and provide the
    necessary additional funding of $602.3M to adequately fund the Refuge
    System.
        Here in Maine, Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge is seeking is
    have $1.5M secured in LWCF monies for land acquisition for 146 acres of
    vital marshland and upland habitat. FWS is in negotiations with
    landowners to acquire tracts that contain riparian and tidal habitats.
    These acquisitions will support salt marsh migration which is crucial
    to the long-term viability of this salt marsh focused Refuge. One
    parcel encompasses the west bank of the Little River in Kennebunkport,
    one of the least developed tidal river habitats in southern Maine. The
    parcel is adjacent to Timber Point and existing Refuge lands in the
    Little River Division in Biddeford and Kennebunkport. In 2009, your
    subcommittee was very supportive in securing funds to acquire Timber
    Point and it's surrounding lands, the refuge is now requesting to allow
    further expansion within the division. This acquisition would connect
    these parcels and improve public access for kayaking, fishing, and
    hunting on the river. The parcels are in very desirable areas of
    development in southern Maine and the funds are needed to conserve
    several properties. With towns in the area growing rapidly--at rates
    ranging between 11 percent and 32 percent over the next 10 years--
    development pressures continue to spiral upwards and additional coastal
    properties are under threat. RCNWR needs the $1.5M.This will provide
    great dividends for refuge trust resources such as shorebirds and
    waterfowl and life and safety for local communities. As well as
    delivery of ecosystem services such as clean water, air, economically
    important marine resources and coastal protection in the face of sea
    level rise and increased storm incidences fueled by global climate
    change.
        I again extend our appreciation to the subcommittee for its ongoing
    commitment to our National Wildlife Refuge System and respectfully
    request the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations
    subcommittee allocate $1.9B for the USFWS , $602.3M for the Refuge
    System's O & M Budget and $1.6M for Rachel Carson National Wildlife
    Refuge from the LWCF.
        Thank you again, Chair Merkley and Ranking Member Murkowski for the
    opportunity to present this testimony in support of protecting wildlife
    and it's habitat. Enjoy your next walk out on a National Wildlife
    Refuge.

        [This statement was submitted by Bill Durkin, President, Friends of
    Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Friends of the Savannah Coastal Wildlife Refuges
        All public lands are our Nations greatest treasure, one of our
    proudest achievements, and an ideal that separates us from other
    countries. They are truly American, however they are not treated the
    same. The National Wildlife Refuge System encompasses more acres than
    all other public lands combined, a staggering 62%, yet is appallingly
    underfunded to the pitiful amount of $0.62 per acre; roughly 4% of
    total appropriations amongst all public lands. While I struggle to
    comprehend the reasons for this disparity, I ask that the budget for
    the National Wildlife Refuge System be brought in-line with an
    appropriate respect to the other public land agencies.
        I choose to refrain from any lengthy discussion about staffing
    shortages or deferred maintenance projects, to which much could be
    said, because the truth is that no one will judge us, or remember, how
    many jobs we created or what backlog we cleared. Instead, we will all
    be judged on what we chose to invest in and what we saved for the
    future. If I could raise the stakes a bit higher, these underfunded
    refuges are some of our last bastions of hope against climate change
    here in America. They are home to some of our greatest carbon sinks,
    our greatest natural filters of drinking water, our greatest sponges
    against rising sea levels, yet we are dangerously close to losing them
    if we don't start investing in their protection, and subsequently our
    own.
        But it's not solely the ecosystem services the refuges bestow, a 27
    billion+ annual benefit to our Nation\1\, that's in jeopardy but our
    Nation's character- our American spirit. Near my home in Savannah,
    Georgia each refuge contains tidal salt marsh. No other place in the
    world has the same unique charm that the marsh provides here. It's the
    embodiment of legend, the very subject of song and verse, the reason
    that millions visit and the privileged few stay. Just one opportunity
    to witness the hypnotic sway of the grasses, the gentle texture of the
    late afternoon colors that awash the horizon in shades of gold, the
    rich umber browns of the plough mud that clings to your feet and binds
    to your soul- and your heart will ache at the thought of ever losing
    it.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Molly W. Ingraham, Shonda Gilliland Foster, The value of
    ecosystem services provided by the U.S. National Wildlife Refuge System
    in the contiguous U.S., Ecological Economics, Volume 67, Issue 4, 2008,
    Pages 608-618, ISSN0921-8009, https://doi.org/10.1016/
    j.ecolecon.2008.01.012. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/
    pii/S0921800908000396)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        What will we lose as a country if we allow these refuges to slip
    away? What will it say about us as a society, when we cannot prioritize
    that which we cannot create ourselves?
        If not to save it for us, those who have already been blessed with
    these environs, then to save it for future generations, who may miss
    out through no fault of their own. What America will we choose to leave
    them? One without wonder, without wild places, without hope?
        I support these refuges because I choose to save the promise of a
    better tomorrow. One where alligators bellow under moss draped oaks,
    where snowy egrets dance in shallow pools, and where hardwood giants
    shield entire islands from view.
        I support these refuges because they hold the secrets needed to
    protect us from the worst effects of climate change.
        And I support these refuges because my children still run with open
    arms to the ocean, because their eyes still twinkle at the sight of
    fireflies, and because I want their children, one day, the chance to
    see the same magic.
        So now I ask you, for your support of these, our last wild places.

        [This statement was submitted by Matthew Emmer, President, Friends
    of the Savannah Coastal Wildlife Refuges, Inc.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Friends of Seney National Wildlife Refuge
        This testimony is being submitted on behalf of the Friends of Seney
    National Wildlife Refuge which was formed in 1987 to support the Seney
    National Wildlife Refuge in Germfask, Michigan located in Michigan's
    Upper Peninsula. We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on
    the fiscal year (FY) 2025 Interior Appropriations bill. We request
    Congress to allocate $602.3 million in funding for National Wildlife
    Refuge System Operations and Maintenance account under the United
    States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
        We are a volunteer-powered nonprofit membership organization and a
    proud partner of the Seney National Wildlife Refuge. Our mission is to
    support the Seney National Wildlife Refuge through community building,
    awareness and education, and fundraising. We've been working hard to
    build community engagement, raise private funding and communicate the
    importance of wild spaces like the refuge. We've been more successful
    than ever this past year, joining together with people who love the
    wildness of the refuge and who want to preserve and nurture it into the
    future. No matter how hard we work, as volunteers we can never make up
    the gap of lost funding caused by many years of inadequate Federal
    appropriations.
        The refuge is critical to the economy of our region in addition to
    its importance in maintaining essential biodiversity. Many visitors
    come to the UP for outdoor recreation and Seney is almost always a
    stop. The refuge protects wildlife and habitats and provides a level of
    resilience for our communities in responding to climate hazards.
    Without tourism, and people's love of our wilderness, we would lose
    many jobs and families would be forced to move elsewhere to make a
    living.
        Since 2010 the Refuge System has added 21 new refuge units, 549
    million submerged marine acres, opened 6 million acres for hunting and
    fishing, and visitation has grown to over 68 million annual visitors-an
    increase of 47 percent since FY2011. While these additions have
    enhanced the Refuge System and benefited the communities around these
    refuges, this growth has also put more pressure on the already stressed
    and underfunded Refuge System.
        Funding for the Refuge System has only increased by 4.7% since
    FY2010 to $527 million, or $5.55 per land acre. When accounting for
    total land and water acres, the Refuge System budget is a mere .62 per
    acre. Considering the level of inflation, annual fixed costs, and
    increased needs of the Refuge System since FY2010, the Refuge System
    budget has effectively decreased.
        The number of full-time employees (FTEs)-already a fraction of the
    other comparable Federal land agencies at 2,500 FTEs-has decreased by
    16% since FY2010. This has made it difficult for the Refuge System to
    manage its vast network of lands and waters and to fulfill its mission
    of conserving wildlife and habitats. The insufficient funding and
    capacity impacts are felt System-wide, impacting conservation planning,
    wildlife and habitat management, visitor services, law enforcement, and
    maintenance. No refuges are fully staffed, and more than half of
    refuges have zero staff on site. Multiple refuges have been closed to
    the public and are completely unmanaged. Many employees must manage
    multiple wildlife refuge units, sometimes traveling hundreds of miles
    per day. Many volunteer programs have also been cut back or eliminated
    due to a lack of supervision from professional FTEs or necessary
    infrastructure.
        We urge Congress to prioritize the Refuge System and address these
    overarching funding challenges to ensure that the USFWS is equipped to
    effectively manage the wildlife, habitat, programs, and visitorship
    that rely on the health and integrity of the Refuge System. Ultimately,
    the Refuge System needs at least $2.2 billion in annual appropriations
    to effectively fulfill its conservation mission, provide opportunities
    for wildlife-dependent recreation, and connect communities to nature.
    The President's FY2025 Budget Request of $602.3 million is an important
    step towards that goal.
        Thank you for considering our request of $602.3 million for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System in FY2025. Please feel free to contact
    William MacLachlan, the President of the Friends of Seney at
    friends@friendsofseney.org.

        [This statement was submitted by Polly Sheppard, Member, Board of
    Directors, Friends of Seney National Wildlife Refuge.]
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the Friends of Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge
        This testimony is being submitted on behalf of the Friends of
    Sherburne NWR, which was formed in July 1993 to support the Sherburne
    National Wildlife Refuge, Zimmerman, MN. We appreciate the opportunity
    to submit comments on the fiscal year (FY) 2025 Interior Appropriations
    bill. We request Congress to allocate $602.3 million in funding for
    National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance account
    under the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
        The Friends of Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge is a grassroots
    nonprofit organization with more than 600 members. We have a single
    purpose: to nurture an appreciation for, and the conservation of, the
    Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge. We are a 501(c)(3) Minnesota
    corporation founded in 1993 with a formal partnership agreement with
    the Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge, a unit of the U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service. We are an all-volunteer organization with no paid
    staff, and we serve visitors from Central Minnesota and beyond,
    including the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, outstate
    Minnesota, neighboring States, and beyond to the entire United States
    and even foreign countries. Our areas of strategic focus include
    Education, Advocacy, Volunteerism, Sustainability, and Diversity/
    Equity/Inclusion.
        The refuge, within 50 miles of downtown Minneapolis, is a unique
    place with 30,700 acres of rare oak savanna as well as prairie,
    wetlands, and some woodlands. Well over 100,000 visitors come in all
    seasons of the year to explore the Blue Hill, Mahnomen, and Oak Savanna
    Learning Center hiking trails, tour the Wildlife Drive, and enjoy
    birding-from spring migrants, to summer nesting favorites like
    trumpeter swans and sandhill cranes, to the tens of thousands of
    sandhill cranes that stage at the refuge each fall before heading to
    the Gulf Coast and other southern locations for the winter. Hunting-
    including waterfowl, deer, and turkey-is popular as well, and the
    refuge's nature education program serves thousands of students of all
    ages throughout the year. In addition, the refuge's events draw
    visitors from miles around. The highlight of the event calendar is the
    fall Wildlife Festival, which has attracted as many as 2,000 visitors
    in one day. Visitors especially flocked to the refuge for an escape in
    nature during the 2020 pandemic, when trailhead parking lots overflowed
    and lines of vehicles crowded the Wildlife Drive.
        We have seen that Sherburne NWR offers notable benefits beyond
    conservation. Refuge visitors and the refuge itself significantly
    enhance the quality of life as well as the economy of the surrounding
    area. Spaces like ours bring people together-regardless of age,
    ability, background, or political preference. It seems to us that
    funding for the Refuge System should be a winning proposition for
    Congress members, regardless of political party.
        The Friends of Sherburne do much to support the refuge through
    outreach in surrounding communities and volunteering to assist with
    education and conservation programs. We also raise funds to support the
    refuge's nature education program, free public events, informational
    brochures and signage for visitors, and more. Local support is
    important to both us and the refuge. We have recently raised more than
    $400,000 from the community to construct an amphitheater adjacent to
    the Oak Savanna Learning Center on the refuge. We have also raised
    funds to contract with a naturalist to assist the refuge's Visitor
    Services staff member.
        During my 25-year ``career'' as a Friends member and volunteer for
    the refuge and US Fish and Wildlife Service, I have watched refuge
    visitor and program numbers increase while the Service staff has
    shrunk. In fact, I would estimate that the current staff is only about
    half of what it was in 2010. Unfortunately, as staff numbers have
    decreased, funding has as well. In short, fewer people are being asked
    to do the same amount of work-and even more-but with much less
    financial support. When a staff member retires, transfers to another
    site, or otherwise leaves our refuge, that person is very rarely
    replaced. My greatest fear is that if we lose our Visitor Services
    Specialist-who works for the benefit of volunteers as well as visitors-
    we may no longer be supported to do the very valuable work that we
    perform as volunteers. By the way, volunteers perform as much as 20% of
    the work done on National Wildlife Refuges each year!
        This sad situation is not unique to Sherburne Refuge! I am
    acquainted with many Friends and Service staff from across the United
    States, and I don't know any of them who currently have a full staff at
    their Service site. To me this is an unforgivable situation and shows
    no respect for the American people, for whom Service staff are
    ``working with others to conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife,
    and plants and their habitats for the continuing benefit of the
    American people.''
        So how has this happened? Let's take a look back. Since 2010 the
    Refuge System has added 21 new refuge units and 549 million submerged
    marine acres, opened 6 million acres for hunting and fishing, and seen
    visitation grow to more than 68 million annual visitors-an increase of
    47 percent since FY2011. While these additions have enhanced the Refuge
    System and benefited the communities around these refuges, this growth
    has also put more pressure on the already stressed and underfunded
    Refuge System.
        Funding for the Refuge System has only increased by 4.7% since
    FY2010 to $527 million, or $5.55 per land acre. When accounting for
    total land and water acres, the Refuge System budget is a mere .62 per
    acre. Considering the level of inflation, annual fixed costs, and
    increased needs of the Refuge System since FY2010, the Refuge System
    budget has effectively decreased. I recently read that ``the five
    branches of the United States armed forces maintain nearly 150 military
    bands ... with annual spending on music ensembles in excess of $300
    million.'' We have nothing against the military or its bands but
    believe that we can-and should-do better than $527 million to support
    the Refuge System's 95 million land acres and 755 million water acres.
        The number of full-time employees (FTEs)-already a fraction of the
    other comparable Federal land agencies at 2,500 FTEs-has decreased by
    27% since FY2011. This has made it difficult for the Refuge System to
    manage its vast network of lands and waters and to fulfill its mission
    of conserving wildlife and habitats. The insufficient funding and
    capacity impacts are felt System-wide, impacting conservation planning,
    wildlife and habitat management, visitor services, law enforcement, and
    maintenance. No refuges are fully staffed, and more than half of
    refuges have no staff at all on site. Multiple refuges have been closed
    to the public and are completely unmanaged. Many employees must manage
    multiple wildlife refuge units, sometimes traveling hundreds of miles
    per day. Many volunteer programs have also been cut back or eliminated
    due to a lack of supervision from professional FTEs or necessary
    infrastructure.
        We urge Congress to prioritize the Refuge System and address these
    overarching funding challenges to ensure that the USFWS is equipped to
    effectively manage the wildlife, habitat, programs, and visitors that
    rely on the health and integrity of the Refuge System. Ultimately, the
    Refuge System needs at least $2.2 billion in annual appropriations to
    effectively fulfill its conservation mission, provide opportunities for
    wildlife-dependent recreation, and connect communities to nature. The
    President's FY2025 Budget Request of $602.3 million is an important
    step towards that goal.
        Thank you for considering our request of $602.3 million for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System in FY2025. For more information, please
    feel free to contact Carol J Mertesdorf, President of the Friends of
    Sherburne NWR, at cjmertesdorf@yahoo.com

        [This statement was submitted by Susan L Hix, Member, Friends of
    Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge, Inc.]
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Friends of St. Marks Wildlife Refuge
        This testimony is being submitted on behalf of the Friends of St.
    Marks Wildlife Refuge, which was formed in 1987 to support the St.
    Marks National Wildlife Refuge in St. Marks, Florida. We appreciate the
    opportunity to submit comments on the fiscal year (FY) 2025 Interior
    Appropriations bill. We request the Senate to allocate $602.3 million
    in funding for National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and
    Maintenance account under the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
    (USFWS).
        The Friends of St. Marks Wildlife Refuge group was founded in 1987
    to support the educational and biological objectives of the St. Marks
    National Wildlife Refuge in Florida. It was awarded the National
    Friends Group of the Year in 2021 and the groups' accomplishments are
    numerous. Signature programs developed and implemented by the Friends
    include: support of over 73 youth conservation interns over 10 years to
    support endangered species management on the refuge; fundraising over
    $1 million for the extensive restoration of the St. Marks Lighthouse, a
    National Historic Site; support of a staffed ``lighthouse keeper'' to
    run the lighthouse volunteer program for thousands of visitors;
    advocacy and support of the full-time staff to run the Nationally
    recognized Environmental Education program; coordination of the
    donation of the 160-acre Byrd Hammock archeological site to the Refuge;
    and providing direct funding and facilitated donations by environmental
    partners to acquire Smith's Island, an important bird rookery.
        St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge in St. Marks, Florida was
    established in 1931. Stretching along 45 miles of fragile Gulf Coast in
    northern Florida, the refuge is of vital importance to the local
    community, maintaining healthy ecosystems that protect residents and
    their property and attracts over 320,000 visitors annually. Also, it is
    an asset to people and wildlife as the refuge:

      --is part of the North American Coastal Plain ``biodiversity
            hotspot,'' one of 36 biologically rich and deeply threatened
            regions across the globe targeted by Conservation International
            for plant and wildlife conservation and critical to human
            survival.

      --protects 32,000 acres of pristine Apalachee Bay as an Executive
            Closure Boundary to benefit migratory birds and marine
            resources.

      --is embedded within a matrix of over 1.46 million acres of nearly
            contiguous public lands.

      --contains 17, 746 acres of Wilderness salt marshes, designated by
            Congress in 1975.

      --is the only refuge in Florida to host a segment of the Florida
            National Scenic Trail.

      --is designated as a Globally Important Bird Area in the United
            States and considered in the top 50 sites nationally for
            birding.

      --is recognized as the National Land Management Research
            Demonstration Area for the endangered Longleaf Pine ecosystem.

      --offers one of the few Environmental Education programs with a full-
            time staff position in the National Wildlife Refuge System,
            reaching thousands of pre-school students- adults annually.

      --staff actively recruits youth conservation interns to support
            monitoring and maintenance of the endangered red-cockaded
            woodpecker and frosted flatwoods salamander populations.

        Since 2010 the Refuge System has added 21 new refuge units, 549
    million submerged marine acres, opened 6 million acres for hunting and
    fishing, and visitation has grown to over 68 million annual visitors-an
    increase of 47 percent since FY2011. While these additions have
    enhanced the Refuge System and benefited the communities around these
    refuges, this growth has also put more pressure on the already stressed
    and underfunded Refuge System.
        Funding for the Refuge System has only increased by 4.7% since
    FY2010 to $527 million, or $5.55 per land acre. When accounting for
    total land and water acres, the Refuge System budget is a mere .62 per
    acre. Considering the level of inflation, annual fixed costs, and
    increased needs of the Refuge System since FY2010, the Refuge System
    budget has effectively decreased.
        The number of full-time employees (FTEs)-already a fraction of the
    other comparable Federal land agencies at 2,500 FTEs-has decreased by
    16% since FY2010. This has made it difficult for the Refuge System to
    manage its vast network of lands and waters and to fulfill its mission
    of conserving wildlife and habitats. The insufficient funding and
    capacity impacts are felt System-wide, impacting conservation planning,
    wildlife and habitat management, visitor services, law enforcement, and
    maintenance. No refuges are fully staffed, and more than half of
    refuges have zero staff on site. Multiple refuges have been closed to
    the public and are completely unmanaged. Many employees must manage
    multiple wildlife refuge units, sometimes traveling hundreds of miles
    per day. Many volunteer programs have also been cut back or eliminated
    due to a lack of supervision from professional FTEs or necessary
    infrastructure.
        Specific challenges facing the St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge
    include reduced law enforcement presence and biological inventory and
    management capacity due to reduced staffing and expansion of the
    staff's geographic areas of responsibility; aging and unsafe
    infrastructure; inadequate space for professional staff, interns,
    volunteers and Friends in a 45-year-old wooden Visitor Center/Office
    and lack of funding to over come these challenges. This coastal
    wildlife refuge will continue to face resiliency issues for wildlife
    and visitors with climate change ongoing and increased pressure from
    development and invasive species encroachment.
        We urge the Senate to prioritize the Refuge System and address
    these overarching funding challenges to ensure that the USFWS is
    equipped to effectively manage the wildlife, habitat, programs, and
    visitor ship that rely on the health and integrity of the Refuge
    System. Ultimately, the Refuge System needs at least $2.2 billion in
    annual appropriations to effectively fulfill its conservation mission,
    provide opportunities for wildlife-dependent recreation, and connect
    communities to nature. The President's FY2025 Budget Request of $602.3
    million is an important step towards that goal.
        Thank you for considering our request of $602.3 million for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System in FY2025. Please feel free to contact
    Myrtle Bailey, Vice President, of the Friends of St. Marks Wildlife
    Refuge at (850)524-5756 or myrbailey@aol.com for more information.

        [This statement was submitted by Myrtle Bailey, Vice President,
    Friends of St. Marks Wildlife Refuge.]
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Friends of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife
                                    Refuges
        This testimony is being submitted on behalf of the Friends of the
    Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges which was formed in 2008 as a 501c
    3 to support the Tampa Bay Refuges, which include Egmont Key, Passage
    Key, and Pinellas National Wildlife Refuges. We appreciate the
    opportunity to submit comments on the fiscal year (FY) 2025 Interior
    Appropriations bill. We request that Congress allocate $602.3 million
    in funding for National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and
    Maintenance account under the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
    (USFWS) for the 2025 fiscal year.
        The Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuge Islands are a part of the
    Crystal River National Wildlife Refuge Complex located in west central
    Florida. The offices are located roughly 90 miles north of Tampa Bay.
    Our Tampa Bay Friends group has over 300 members who spend many hours
    volunteering and raising funds. Our volunteer hours this past year were
    the equivalent of 1.5 full time employees. Our members are passionate
    about the environment, the wildlife, and the history of Egmont,
    Pinellas, and Passage Keys.
        The Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuge islands were set aside for
    nesting and resting birds as well as preserving the ruins of Ft. Dade
    on Egmont Key NWR. The refuge complex has lost almost all of its staff
    due to budget cuts and staff retirements. They are not even close to
    having enough personnel to carry out their mission and mandates. The
    Tampa Bay NWR's have one visitor services manager for Tampa Bay but he
    frequently has to fill in at the Refuge Headquarters in Crystal River.
    There is almost always a budget shortfall towards the end of the fiscal
    year causing staff to discontinue many of the activities they should be
    doing to fulfill the mandates for each refuge. The Complex has a
    Project Leader, Visitor Services Manager, Visitor Service Specialist,
    and one maintenance employee to cover the five refuges which are
    located a hundred miles apart. The Complex doesn't even have a
    Biologist! The complex used to have 12 staff members and now they have
    4. It is a next to impossible task for the few staff left. Our Friends
    group is understandably concerned that there is not enough staff to
    protect these incredible places and wildlife on our refuges.
        The Tampa Bay Refuges large populations of wonderful birds, gopher
    tortoises, box turtles, and Loggerhead sea turtles are important to the
    community as well as our Friends members. The Friends do monthly bird
    counts for Pinellas Refuge Islands, but are not equipped to count
    Egmont or Passage Keys, that requires a biologist. The Friends also
    fill the gap of providing environmental education and field trips for
    adults and kids, as well as public outreach at festivals and
    presentations. Friends spend countless hours repairing boats to get to
    the islands, refurbishing informational kiosks, picking up trash,
    pulling invasive plants, and posting and reposting signs to keep the
    birds safe. We fund items for the refuges as needed if we have the
    funds and apply for community grants for larger projects to help
    protect the islands from erosion.
        Tampa Bay loves the refuges. Egmont Key NWR has hundreds of
    thousands of visitors each year who enjoy the beaches, see the Ft. Dade
    ruins, and watch the birds in the areas that are open to the public.
    Visitors are always thrilled to see the healthy gopher tortoises and
    some of the more than 150,000 birds during nesting season. Many of
    these folks are from all over the U.S. and abroad. Boating across the
    bay, exploring the island, and beachcombing gives people a feeling of
    relaxation and a way to unwind. Everyone needs that. It is important to
    protect Egmont and equally important for Passage Key and Pinellas
    Refuges which do not have visitors but supply the area with new
    generations of beautiful birds.
        Since 2010 the Refuge System has added 21 new refuge units, 549
    million submerged marine acres, opened 6 million acres for hunting and
    fishing, and visitation has grown to over 68 million annual visitors-an
    increase of 47 percent since FY2011. While these additions have
    enhanced the Refuge System and benefited the communities around these
    refuges, this growth has also put more pressure on the already stressed
    and underfunded Refuge System.
        Funding for the Refuge System has only increased by 4.7% since
    FY2010 to $527 million, or $5.55 per land acre. When accounting for
    total land and water acres, the Refuge System budget is a mere .62 per
    acre. Considering the level of inflation, annual fixed costs, and
    increased needs of the Refuge System since FY2010, the Refuge System
    budget has effectively decreased.
        The number of full-time employees (FTEs)-already a fraction of the
    other comparable Federal land agencies at 2,500 FTEs-has decreased by
    16% since FY2010. This has made it difficult for the Refuge System to
    manage its vast network of lands and waters and to fulfill its mission
    of conserving wildlife and habitats. The insufficient funding and
    capacity impacts are felt System-wide, impacting conservation planning,
    wildlife and habitat management, visitor services, law enforcement, and
    maintenance. No refuges are fully staffed, and more than half of
    refuges have zero staff on site. Multiple refuges have been closed to
    the public and are completely unmanaged. Many employees must manage
    multiple wildlife refuge units, sometimes traveling hundreds of miles
    per day. Many volunteer programs have also been cut back or eliminated
    due to a lack of supervision from professional FTEs or necessary
    infrastructure.
        We urge Congress to prioritize the Refuge System and address these
    overarching funding challenges to ensure that the USFWS is equipped to
    effectively manage the wildlife, habitat, programs, and visitation that
    rely on the health and integrity of the Refuge System. Ultimately, the
    Refuge System needs at least $2.2 billion in annual appropriations to
    effectively fulfill its conservation mission, provide opportunities for
    wildlife-dependent recreation, and connect communities to nature. The
    President's FY2025 Budget Request of $602.3 million is an important
    step towards that goal.
        Thank you for considering our request of $602.3 million for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System in FY2025. Please feel free to contact
    me, Barbara Howard, President of the Friends of the Tampa Bay National
    Wildlife Refuges at 727-512-4914 or Friends@TampaBayRefuges.org.

        [This statement was submitted by Barbara Howard, President, Friends
    of the Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Friends of Tualatin River National Wildlife
                                 Refuge Complex
        I am submitting this testimony on behalf of Friends of Tualatin
    River National Wildlife Refuge Complex. We appreciate the opportunity
    to submit comments on the fiscal year (FY) 2025 Interior Appropriations
    bill. We request Congress to allocate $602.3 million in funding for
    National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance account
    under the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
        I appreciate the opportunity to provide written testimony on behalf
    of the Friends of Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Complex
    (Friends), near Portland, Oregon. Friends is a 501 (C) (3) nonprofit
    organization whose mission is to promote the conservation and welfare
    of the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge for all dependent
    species and to enrich the lives of citizens through education and
    experience. Our organization has approximately 350 members. I am
    President of the Board of this organization. The Refuge Complex also
    includes Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge, in Gaston, OR. Our
    volunteer organization helps to support these two refuges and the
    refuge system. We provide thousands of volunteer hours each year to
    assist our understaffed and underfunded refuges and refuge system.
        In 2020, when the pandemic quickly shutdown most federal, State,
    and local parks, our beloved Oregon Coast beaches, and other public
    lands in the Portland area, there was one place where visitors could go
    and safely bask in nature. That place was Tualatin River National
    Wildlife Refuge. Although the Visitor Center and restrooms and even
    part of the parking lot were closed for a time, we flocked there by the
    thousands to soak up our much-needed ration of nature. The refuge
    became just that for humans as well as wildlife and we value it more
    today than ever.
        Located just 15 miles from the heart of Portland, OR, Tualatin
    River National Wildlife Refuge, founded in 1992 and opened to the
    public in 2006, is cradled in Portland's southwest suburbs and is
    easily accessible to this urban population including being accessible
    by public transportation with a bus stop at its main gate and a wheel-
    chair friendly trail. The refuge has existed as a designated Urban
    Refuge since it was created. I am blessed to live less than a mile from
    the main gate of the refuge. As a 4th generation Idahoan, I grew up
    outdoors in nature and am passionate to protect these treasured places
    for all to enjoy.
        As more and more people ``discovered'' the Refuge as a respite in a
    very stressful time, there has been a heightened public awareness of
    its value as a resource to our community. But, with increased awareness
    and usage comes increased need for upkeep and protection. Being in an
    urban area results in a higher level of required management to
    safeguard the wildlife and habitat.
        Our Fish and Wildlife Staff has done a stellar job of preserving
    the refuge, but they are working at a great handicap. In 2012, the
    refuge consisted of 1,384 acres under the management of a full-time
    staff of 6. In 2013, the 944-acre Wapato Lake National Wildlife Refuge
    was created and complexed with Tualatin River NWR with no additional
    staff or funding. Since then, additional acres have been added to
    Tualatin River NWR, bringing it to over 1,800 acres. Managed acres have
    increased by 50% but there is still only a staff of 6. Complexing these
    two refuges also results in staff having to travel substantial
    distances several times a week to juggle duties on multiple refuges.
        Without sufficient staff, the progress toward public access at
    Wapato Lake and the date for opening to the public was delayed until
    last year. Restoration, conservation, and access to this refuge is
    extremely significant to the local communities and to the Confederated
    Tribes of Grand Ronde who are the original caretakers of this land. It
    also provides habitat for a variety of wildlife (https://youtu.be/-
    GcQ_ORL-9M ) including many migratory waterfowl that stop-over in the
    winter. But the refuge is amazing year-round.
        Historically, the Wapato lakebed filled and receded with the rise
    and fall of the Tualatin River. A pump system and earthen levees,
    designed to facilitate farming, were installed in the 1930s. Eighty
    years later, the economic and public health risks of this aging
    infrastructure had become evident. The failing dikes on the Lake must
    be repaired to protect surrounding private and public lands, to ensure
    the safety of drinking water, and to enable US Fish and Wildlife
    Service Staff to adequately control water levels for the benefit of
    wildlife. The $9M that had been allocated toward the anticipated total
    $21M cost of the project was redirected without any thought to how this
    would impact Wapato Lake. The citizens of Gaston are wondering what
    will happen when the dikes fail and water from the lake contaminates
    the drinking water for their city.
        Challenges at Wapato Lake involved not only the aging
    infrastructure, but also the developing a significant level of
    collaboration, funding and expertise that would be needed to transform
    this expansive and critical site into a haven for wildlife and an asset
    to the surrounding communities.
        The past 3 years have been a time of exciting change at Tualatin
    River National Wildlife Refuge as well. Chicken Creek that flows across
    the main unit of the refuge has been reoriented to a sinuous flow,
    replacing the straight channel that was created when the land was
    converted for agricultural use over a century ago. The project created
    a 280-acre connected, naturally functioning wetland system on the
    Refuge's Atfalat'i Unit. A reconfigured pedestrian trail now allows
    visitors to access the new natural wetland and creek area.
        Both projects have been accomplished with the help of numerous
    community partners making the refuge more meaningful to even more
    members of our communities.
        Since 2010 the Refuge System has added 21 new refuge units and 549
    million submerged marine acres, opened 6 million acres for hunting and
    fishing, and seen visitation grow to over 68 million annual visitors-an
    increase of 47 percent since FY2011. While these additions have
    enhanced the Refuge System and benefited the communities around these
    refuges, this growth has also put more pressure on the already stressed
    and underfunded Refuge System.
        Funding for the Refuge System has only increased by 4.7% since
    FY2010 to $527 million, or $5.55 per land acre. When accounting for
    total land and water acres, the Refuge System budget is a mere .62 per
    acre. Considering the level of inflation, annual fixed costs, and
    increased needs of the Refuge System since FY2010, the Refuge System
    budget has effectively decreased.
        The number of full-time employees (FTEs)-already a fraction of the
    other comparable Federal land agencies at 2,500 FTEs-has decreased by
    27% since FY2011. This has made it difficult for the Refuge System to
    manage its vast network of lands and waters and to fulfill its mission
    of conserving wildlife and habitats. The insufficient funding and
    capacity impacts are felt System-wide, impacting conservation planning,
    wildlife and habitat management, visitor services, law enforcement, and
    maintenance. No refuges are fully staffed, and more than half of
    refuges, including Wapato Lake NWR, have zero staff on site. Multiple
    refuges have been closed to the public and are completely unmanaged.
    Many employees must manage multiple wildlife refuge units, sometimes
    traveling hundreds of miles per day. Many volunteer programs have also
    been cut back or eliminated due to a lack of supervision from
    professional FTEs or necessary infrastructure.
        ``National Wildlife Refuges are places where the music of life has
    been rehearsed to perfection, where nature's colors are most vibrant,
    where time is measured in seasons, and where the dance of the crane
    takes center stage. They are gifts to ourselves and to generations
    unborn- simple gifts unwrapped each time a birder lifts binoculars, a
    child overturns a rock, a hunter sets the decoys, or an angler casts
    the water.'' This is a quote taken from Fulfilling the Promise in the
    forward by then U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS)Director Jamie
    Clark
        We urge Congress to prioritize the Refuge System and address these
    overarching funding challenges to ensure that the USFWS is equipped to
    effectively manage the wildlife, habitat, programs, and visitorship
    that rely on the health and integrity of the Refuge System. Ultimately,
    the Refuge System needs at least $2.2 billion in annual appropriations
    to effectively fulfill its conservation mission, provide opportunities
    for wildlife-dependent recreation, and connect communities to nature.
    The President's FY2025 Budget Request of $602.3 million is an important
    step towards that goal.
        Thank you for considering our request of $602.3 million for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System in FY2025. Please feel free to contact
    me, the President of the Friends of Tualatin River National Wildlife
    Refuge Complex at oregonchart@comcast.net or 503 758-5534.

        [This statement was submitted by Cheryl Hart, Board President,
    Friends of Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Complex.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Tualatin River and Wapato National Wildlife
                                    Refuges
        I am submitting this testimony as a volunteer at the Tualatin River
    and Wapato National Wildlife Refuges in Portland, Oregon. We appreciate
    the opportunity to submit comments on the fiscal year (FY) 2025
    Interior Appropriations bill. We request Congress to allocate $602.3
    million in funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System Operations
    and Maintenance account under the United States Fish and Wildlife
    Service (USFWS).
        Founded in 1993, the Friends of Tualatin River National Wildlife
    Refuge (the Friends) is a community-based nonprofit organization.
    Unlike most refuges, Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge was
    established due to the vision and hard work of a group of local
    citizens who saw the value of having a National Wildlife Refuge in the
    midst of a rapidly growing urban area. These founders worked with local
    political leaders to gain approval for the establishment of the Refuge.
        The Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuges as urban sanctuaries,
    aim not only for ecological restoration but also to engage
    underrepresented communities in conservation efforts. However, progress
    in community involvement has been severely hindered by a shortage of
    USFWS staff and budgetary limitations. As volunteers, we are restricted
    from initiating projects without staff oversight, which has postponed
    projects due to staffing shortages. I have been a passionate supporter
    of community science projects that engage high school students in
    conservation. Still, the limited USFWS staff resources have prevented
    the launch of new initiatives in this area.
        Since 2010 the Refuge System has added 21 new refuge units, 549
    million submerged marine acres, opened 6 million acres for hunting and
    fishing, and visitation has grown to over 68 million annual visitors-an
    increase of 47 percent since FY2011. While these additions have
    enhanced the Refuge System and benefited the communities around these
    refuges, this growth has also put more pressure on the already stressed
    and underfunded Refuge System.
        Funding for the Refuge System has only increased by 4.7% since
    FY2010 to $527 million, or $5.55 per land acre. When accounting for
    total land and water acres, the Refuge System budget is a mere .62 per
    acre. Considering the level of inflation, annual fixed costs, and
    increased needs of the Refuge System since FY2010, the Refuge System
    budget has effectively decreased.
        The number of full-time employees (FTEs)-already a fraction of the
    other comparable Federal land agencies at 2,500 FTEs-has decreased by
    16% since FY2010. This has made it difficult for the Refuge System to
    manage its vast network of lands and waters and to fulfill its mission
    of conserving wildlife and habitats. The insufficient funding and
    capacity impacts are felt System-wide, impacting conservation planning,
    wildlife and habitat management, visitor services, law enforcement, and
    maintenance. No refuges are fully staffed, and more than half of
    refuges have zero staff on site. Multiple refuges have been closed to
    the public and are completely unmanaged. Many employees must manage
    multiple wildlife refuge units, sometimes traveling hundreds of miles
    per day. Many volunteer programs have also been cut back or eliminated
    due to a lack of supervision from professional FTEs or necessary
    infrastructure.
        We urge Congress to prioritize the Refuge System and address these
    overarching funding challenges to ensure that the USFWS is equipped to
    effectively manage the wildlife, habitat, programs, and visitorship
    that rely on the health and integrity of the Refuge System. Ultimately,
    the Refuge System needs at least $2.2 billion in annual appropriations
    to effectively fulfill its conservation mission, provide opportunities
    for wildlife-dependent recreation, and connect communities to nature.
    The President's FY2025 Budget Request of $602.3 million is an important
    step towards that goal.
        Thank you for considering our request of $602.3 million for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System in FY2025.

        [This statement was submitted by Willem Stoeller, Vice-President,
    Friends of the Tualatin River National Wildlife Refuge Complex.]
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of Geological Society of America
                                    summary
        The Geological Society of America (GSA) recommends that Congress
    provide $1.85 billion in annual appropriations for the U.S. Geological
    Survey (USGS) in Fiscal Year 2025. As one of our Nation's key science
    agencies, the USGS plays a vital role in locating, characterizing and
    documenting mineral and energy resources that underpin economic
    security and growth; researching and monitoring potential natural
    hazards that threaten U.S. and international security; keeping
    communities informed about the impacts of a changing climate; and
    determining and assessing water quality and availability. Approximately
    two thirds of the USGS budget is allocated for research and
    development. In addition to supporting the science activities and
    decisions of the Department of the Interior, USGS research, data, and
    products are used by communities across the Nation to make informed
    decisions in land-use planning, emergency response, natural resource
    management, engineering, and education. To fully implement the agency's
    mission and fulfill the USGS 21st-Century Science Strategy will require
    $1.85 billion in annual appropriations.

    The Geological Society of America (GSA) is a scientific society with
    19,000 members from academia, government, and industry. Through its
    meetings, publications, and programs, GSA enhances the professional
    growth of its members and promotes the geosciences in the service of
    humankind. GSA encourages cooperative research among earth, life,
    planetary, and social scientists, fosters public dialogue on geoscience
    issues, and supports all levels of earth science education.

        The Geological Society of America (GSA) thanks the Committee for
    recognizing the importance of the work of the U.S. Geological Survey
    (USGS) to protect lives, property, and national security, and to
    stimulate economic growth. GSA urges Congress to provide USGS $1.85
    billion in Fiscal Year 2025. This increase will allow the USGS to
    implement new initiatives, maintain the base funding for critical
    research and monitoring, fill vacant positions, and address deferred
    maintenance on existing facilities.
    u.s. geological survey contributions to national security, health, and
                                    welfare
        The USGS is one of the Nation's premier science agencies, with the
    unique capacity to engage interdisciplinary teams of experts to gather
    data, conduct research, and develop integrated decision-support tools.
    USGS research is used by communities across the Nation to make informed
    decisions regarding land-use planning, emergency response, natural
    resource management, engineering, and education. USGS provides
    practical, pragmatic science that informs many of society's greatest
    challenges related to national and economic security, health, and
    welfare. Several are highlighted below.
                                natural hazards
        Natural hazards are a major cause of fatalities and economic
    losses. In 2023 alone, NOAA found that Federal costs due to natural
    disasters in the U.S. exceeded $90 billion. An improved scientific
    understanding of geologic and atmospheric hazards will reduce future
    losses by informing effective planning, mitigation, and resilience.
    USGS's products are innovative, reliable, timely, and actionable,
    providing critical information on potential and developing hazards like
    floods, droughts, earthquakes, volcanos, landslides, and space weather
    events. GSA urges Congress to continue supporting efforts for USGS to
    both maintain its fundamental research capabilities, and modernize and
    upgrade its natural hazards monitoring and warning systems, such as the
    ShakeAlert Earthquake Early Warning System which can improve our
    ability to predict and mitigate the impacts of these events, ultimately
    saving lives and reducing economic losses.
        Decision makers in many sectors rely upon USGS data to respond to
    natural hazards. For example, USGS volcano monitoring provides data to
    enable decisions to ensure aviation safety. Similarly, the USGS plays a
    key role in the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program by tracking
    tsunami sources using seismic data, and USGS research on storm surge is
    used by the National Hurricane Center.
        USGS is a key partner in obtaining data necessary to predict severe
    space weather events, which affect the electric power grid, satellite
    communications, and navigation systems. The Promoting Research and
    Observations of Space Weather to Improve the Forecasting of Tomorrow
    Act (PROSWIFT Act) provides a path forward for USGS research to
    understand and mitigate space weather risks. In addition, the Space
    Weather Advisory Group established by the PROSWIFT Act conducts
    comprehensive surveys to identify the research, observations,
    forecasting, and modeling advances required to improve response to
    space weather products.
        GSA recommends adequate funding to implement recently-enacted
    hazards-related legislation. For example, the National Landslide
    Preparedness Act expanded the USGS Landslide Hazards Program, and
    authorized the 3D Elevation Program (3DEP) which leverages partnerships
    with the private sector, State and local governments, and other
    agencies to update and coordinate the collection of high-resolution
    elevation data across the country. Directives to USGS include
    identifying, mapping, and understanding landslide hazards, responding
    to landslide events, and developing landslide guidelines for
    geoscientists, emergency management personnel, and land-use decision-
    makers in order to reduce landslide losses and protect communities at
    risk.
                              energy and minerals
        As articulated in the Energy Policy Act of 2020, there is a vital
    need to understand the global and domestic abundance and distribution
    of critical mineral resources, as well as the geologic processes that
    form them. Achieving this goal will require continually expanding
    collection and analysis of geological, geochemical, and geophysical
    data. Specifically, GSA supports completing the new Energy and Minerals
    Research Facility on the Colorado School of Mines campus, a USGS
    facility that will be critical to establishing the workforce needed to
    secure our energy future by expanding STEM talent, and increasing
    diversity through student engagement and university partnerships.
        GSA supports energy and minerals science, research, data collection
    and analysis that will allow for more economic and environmental
    management and utilization. GSA appreciates congressional support for
    the EarthMRI program, which will both provide new resources and
    leverage current data to accelerate geological and geophysical mapping,
    identify critical mineral sites for further scientific study to aid
    defense, security, and economic uses. The mapping has a central focus
    on minerals still in the ground and minerals that may be reprocessed
    from legacy mine waste, and will also provide important data for
    abandoned mine remediation and for understanding other natural
    resources.
                                water resources
        Improved understanding of the quantity, quality, distribution, and
    use of water resources through monitoring, assessment, research, and
    delivery of actionable information by the USGS and associated partners
    is necessary to ensure adequate and safe water resources for the health
    and welfare of society. For example, the USGS national network of
    stream gages provides key data for the weekly U.S. Drought Monitor Maps
    and classifications, but its funding has been flatlined for many years.
    A reinvestment in this program will allow the Survey to maintain
    significant long-term data collection necessary for assessing impacts
    to water resources brought on by stressors such as climate change.
    Improved representation of geological, biological, and ecological
    systems in USGS models-including underlying physical and chemical
    processes and their interactions-is needed to fully assess water
    availability across the U.S., and develop the tools needed to utilize
    them responsibly.
                                 climate change
        USGS research on climate impacts is used by local policymakers and
    resource managers to make sound decisions based on the best possible
    science. In addition to fundamental, long-term climate change research,
    the USGS provides scientific information necessary to anticipate,
    monitor, and adapt to the effects of climate change at regional and
    local levels, allowing communities to make smart, cost-effective
    decisions. Much of this work operates through the network of nine
    regional Climate Adaptation Centers (CASC). For example, the Alaska
    CASC has assessed future landslide risks along road corridors in Denali
    and other Alaska parks, which will assist planning for new and existing
    infrastructure to endure under a changing climate. The Southeast CASC
    is using artificial intelligence to predict flood damage changes in
    response to rising sea levels across the country, and Northwest CASC
    researchers studied the impacts of wildfire severity and climate change
    on tree species that rely on fire to release their seeds. Additionally,
    the Federal Climate Data Portal will provide actionable climate tools
    and products that will help public and private decision-makers address
    climate risks.
             core science systems, facilities, and science support
        Activities from hazard monitoring to mineral forecasts are
    supported by Core Science Systems, Facilities, and Science Support.
    These programs and services, such as geologic mapping, data
    preservation, and satellite observation, provide critical information,
    data, and infrastructure that underpin the research of the USGS.
    Investment in advanced scientific computing will allow the agency
    cutting-edge analytics and models needed to study wildfires and
    droughts. Stagnant funding has created backlogs in the hiring of new
    scientists. Increased investment is needed to fill these critical roles
    and allow for the recruitment and training of a strong and diverse STEM
    workforce pipeline, paving the way for increased diversity, equity,
    inclusion, and accessibility within the field of Earth sciences.
        GSA appreciates the committee's recent investments in USGS
    facilities, including the support of the Energy and Mineral Research
    Facility included in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and encourages
    continued investment to assure the completion of these important, new
    facilities and to address deferred maintenance issues on older
    facilities. GSA also recommends long-term funding and support for the
    USGS Library, which is used by both Federal scientists and external
    researchers. The Library houses more than 1.5 million volumes and more
    than three million maps, photographs and field records, with much of
    the information unique to the USGS or available from very sources
    worldwide.
        The Landsat satellites have amassed the largest archive of remotely
    sensed land data in the world, a tremendously important resource for
    land use planning, and for assessment of water, energy, mineral and
    other natural resources, the impacts of natural disasters, and global
    agriculture production. GSA encourages continued support for existing
    programs, as well as interagency efforts for Landsat Next with improved
    spatial resolution and the ability to provide updated imagery with
    greater frequency.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony about the U.S.
    Geological Survey. For additional information or to learn more about
    the Geological Society of America--including GSA Position Statements on
    climate change, water resources, mineral and energy resources, natural
    hazards, and public investment in Earth science research--please visit
    www.geosociety.org or contact GSA's Science Policy office at
    sciencepolicy@geosociety.org.

        [This statement was submitted by Dr. Christopher Bailey, President,
    The Geological Society of America.]
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of Grantmakers in the Arts
        On behalf of Grantmakers in the Arts, we urge you to increase
    funding in Fiscal Year 2025 to $211 million for the National Endowment
    for the Arts (NEA) in the Interior Appropriations bill. Grantmakers in
    the Arts represents over 300 arts supporters across the Nation. As the
    only national association of public and private arts funders,
    Grantmakers in the Arts provides members with resources and leadership
    to support artists and arts organizations that advance the use of
    philanthropic and governmental resources to support the growth of the
    arts and culture across the United States.
        GIA has witnessed firsthand how NEA funding supports artists and
    organizations, ensuring that they can thrive and continue to contribute
    to American culture. However, as we look towards the future, it's clear
    that increased investment in the NEA is essential to sustain and
    amplify these efforts. The arts sector has faced unprecedented
    challenges, from the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic to
    ongoing struggles with equity and access. By bolstering NEA funding, we
    can provide much-needed support to these individuals and institutions,
    fostering innovation, resilience, and cultural equity. Moreover,
    increased investment in the NEA will yield significant returns, not
    only in terms of economic growth but also in fostering social cohesion
    and community well-being.
        Additionally, we know that the widespread and multiplying effects
    of these NEA investments are undeniable. For every dollar spent on
    direct grants, nine dollars in private and other public funds are
    leveraged, generating more than $500 million in matching support.
    Moreover, 40 percent of NEA's grant-making budget is re-granted through
    State arts agencies and regional arts organizations. These re-grants
    are often to communities not served by private philanthropy, such as
    rural and remote communities. Private support cannot substitute the
    leveraging role of government cultural funding.
        The arts and cultural industries in our country contribute over $1
    trillion to the U.S. economy. The nonprofit arts and culture sector
    alone generated $151.7 billion in economic activity in 2022 with $73.3
    billion spent by arts and cultural organizations and an additional
    $78.4 billion in event-related expenditures by audiences. This activity
    in the nonprofit arts and culture sector supported 2.6 million jobs,
    provided $101 billion in personal income to residents, and generated
    $29.1 billion in tax revenue to local State and Federal Governments.
        The arts also play a significant role in well-rounded educational
    opportunities for our Nation's students. In recent years, there have
    been consequential declines in the teaching of arts. Loss of access to
    arts education is a fundamental matter of equity, which is especially
    important to address considering how creative learning bolsters
    academic success. Students with an education rich in the arts have
    higher GPAs and graduation rates. The positive impact of arts education
    has been shown to be greater in low-income communities, a positive
    result for the equity, efficiency and effectiveness of investing in
    arts education as an intervention to support increasingly equitable
    outcomes. The NEA's education programs have helped sustain support in
    local communities for arts education, which has been proven to close
    the education achievement gap, and benefit children and adults in many
    critical ways throughout their lives.
        We encourage you to consider increasing funding for the NEA both to
    bolster support and opportunities for all communities to be able to
    access and participate in the arts, but also for the significant impact
    it has on our Nation's economy.

        [This statement was submitted by Eddie Torres, President and CEO,
    Grantmakers in the Arts.]
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the Great Lakes Coalition
        My name is Laura Rubin, Director of the Healing Our Waters-Great
    Lakes Coalition, a Coalition that since 2004 has been harnessing the
    collective power of more than 180 groups representing millions of
    people, whose common goal is to restore and protect the Great Lakes.
    Today, the HOW Coalition joins our regional partners in asking you to
    support full funding for the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
    Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) at $450 million and other
    Great Lakes restoration priorities in Fiscal Year 2025.
        The Great Lakes define our region's way of life, serving as the
    drinking water source for more than 42 million people, providing a rich
    aquatic habitat supporting a $7 billion annual fishing industry, and
    supporting a Great Lakes recreation industry that draws millions of
    tourists who boost the economies of our communities. In short, the
    Great Lakes are where millions of people live, work and play.
        Congress has long recognized how important the Great Lakes are to
    our region and our Nation. Protecting and restoring them is a non-
    partisan priority for the people in the eight-state region and we are
    grateful for the much-needed support the region has received. We are
    seeing on-the-ground results because of the investments in Illinois,
    Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
    Wisconsin. However, the Great Lakes still face many urgent challenges.
    Legacy pollutants persist, well-known contaminants like lead and toxic
    PFAS make drinking water unsafe, critical habitat continues to degrade,
    emerging contaminants are uncovered, and severe storms and floods
    overwhelm aging infrastructure. Ongoing Federal investments to face
    these challenges are especially important if we are to help the
    communities that have been most burdened by pollution and environmental
    harm.
        The Federal Government is an essential partner in our shared
    endeavor to help heal the lakes through our undertaking of one of the
    world's largest freshwater ecosystem restoration projects, the GLRI.
    Non-governmental groups, industries, businesses, cities, and States are
    forging partnerships to clean up toxic hot spots, restore fish and
    wildlife habitat, and combat invasive species. And we know we have more
    work to do before Great Lakes restoration is complete. The region still
    faces fish consumption advisories, beach closures, and drinking water
    restrictions. Without the continued full support from Congress this
    progress will slow, the challenges we face will get worse, and the
    price we pay will rise. We urge the subcommittee to support full
    funding for the GLRI at $450 million in Fiscal Year 2025.
                      environmental and economic benefits
        Great Lakes restoration efforts are improving the lives of millions
    of people and work is underway or completed on more than 8,000
    restoration projects throughout the region. These projects are
    benefiting communities, strengthening their resilience, and cleaning up
    the source of drinking water for over 30 million Americans. Because of
    GLRI investments, we are seeing impressive results: \1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.glri.us/results

      --5 Areas of Concern (AOC), the most polluted rivers and harbors in
            the region--Presque Isle, Pa.; Deer Lake, Mich.; White Lake,
            Mich.; Lower Menominee River, Mich. & Wis.; and Ashtabula
            River, Ohio--have been delisted since the GLRI began. The
            management actions necessary to delist 10 additional AOCs have
            also been completed. In the previous two decades before the
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            GLRI, only one AOC had been cleaned up.

      --113 beneficial use impairments (BUIs), a benchmark of environmental
            harm that characterize AOCs, have been addressed in Illinois,
            Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and
            Wisconsin under the GLRI, over 11 times the total number of
            BUIs removed in the preceding 22 years.

      --Vital support for the early detection, monitoring, and regional
            response to address the threat of new and existing aquatic
            invasive species, including invasive carp has been provided.
            Invasive species control activities have been implemented on
            more than 250,000 acres in coordinated efforts with federal,
            State, and local partners.

      --2.2 million farmland acres in priority watersheds have received
            technical and financial support, in partnership with other
            programs, to implement nutrient management actions.
            Conservation efforts across the Great Lakes have resulted in a
            projected reduction of 2.8 million pounds of phosphorus runoff,
            a major contributor to toxic algal blooms.

      --Over 7,400 river miles have been cleared of dams and barriers
            resulting in fish swimming into stretches of river where they
            have been absent for decades and increasing biodiversity and
            water quality overall.

      --Habitat and wildlife connectivity continue to improve as the Fish
            and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Natural Resources
            Conservation Service, and National Oceanic and Atmospheric
            Administration worked with partners to restore, protect, or
            enhance more than 500,000 acres of habitat, including 65,000
            acres of coastal wetlands.

        Moreover, investments in Great Lakes restoration create jobs and
    lead to long-term economic benefits for the Great Lakes States and the
    country. A 2018 assessment estimated that for every $1 the GLRI
    invested through 2016 to clean up toxic hot spots in Areas of Concern
    (AOC), control invasive species, restore wildlife habitat, protect
    wetlands, and reduce toxic algal blooms more than $3 in additional
    economic activity regionwide will be produced through 2036 (see
    chart).\2\ The GLRI is revitalizing our waterfronts and leading a
    resurgence in water-based outdoor recreation and increasing tourism
    across the region.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ University of Michigan. 2018. ``Socioeconomic Impacts of the
    Great Lakes Restoration Initiative.'' Research Seminar in Quantitative
    Economics.

        While these numbers are impressive, the stories behind them are
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    more illuminating:

      --When the small town of Grand Marais, Minnesota, on the coast of
            Lake Superior realized their stormwater runoff was polluting
            the lake, they acted. With funds from the Great Lakes
            Restoration Initiative, in partnership with State and local
            support, the town is updating part of the city's green
            stormwater infrastructure, using natural features to restore
            habitat, improve water quality, and reduce flooding by
            enlarging its main stormwater ponds to handle the more frequent
            100-year storms the city is now experiencing.

      --The iconic Two-Hearted River in Michigan has seen increased
            opportunities for recreation and fishing thanks to restoration
            that stabilized the riverbanks. In addition, 23 road crossings
            over the river were repaired and culverts were replaced. The
            combination of this work connected 35 miles of river and
            reduced sediment pollution by more than 625 tons per year.

      --At the Ashtabula River in Ohio, a sediment cleanup and habitat
            restoration project has restored the lower two miles of the
            river and advanced efforts to get it de-listed as a Great Lakes
            Area of Concern. The project has improved water quality and
            deepened the river channel, making the lower Ashtabula suitable
            again for maritime commerce, fishing, and recreational boating.

        These stories and more can be found here and at
    www.healthylakes.org.
                            building on a solid base
        How the region is accomplishing all this work is as impressive as
    what we are doing. The GLRI is a model for large, landscape-scale
    restoration. It ensures that the focus remains on the highest regional
    priorities that are identified by stakeholders through the GLRI Action
    Plans \3\, which are themselves based on a larger restoration strategy
    called the ``Great Lakes Regional Collaboration Strategy to Restore and
    Protect the Great Lakes.'' It also provides a way for the U.S. to meet
    its commitments under the 2012 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement with
    Canada. The GLRI is a critical component towards ensuring that the
    goals we set for ourselves in both the agreement and in this
    comprehensive plan can be achieved.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Draft GLRI Action Plan IV is now out for comment through May
    24th, 2024, and can be found here: https://glri.us/action-plan
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, the GLRI is effectively allowing Federal agencies to
    obligate their GLRI funds quickly to on-the-ground work. The EPA,
    working with other Federal agencies like the USACE, USFWS, USGS, NOAA,
    NRCS, and NPS, quickly convert the funding they receive to supplement
    restoration activities through existing, authorized programs. This
    structure allows for funds to move quickly from EPA through the
    interagency agreements EPA reaches with other Federal agencies and onto
    the ground to complete important restoration work. This model also
    ensures accountability through the establishment of an ``orchestra
    leader'' (EPA), helps accelerate progress, and avoids potential
    duplication, all of which help save taxpayers money while focusing
    efforts on the highest, consensus-based priorities.
        This model, however, works best when both existing Federal agencies
    and programs, as well as the GLRI, have the funding they need to
    support each other.
                   maintaining support until the job is done
        Even with the tremendous results we are seeing, the Great Lakes
    face serious threats. Sixteen U.S. AOCs are still contaminated with
    toxic sediment, threatening the health of people, curtailing
    recreational opportunities, and stunting the development of
    communities. Harmful runoff from farm fields continues to pollute our
    waters, causing toxic algal outbreaks that threaten water systems,
    public health, and economic vitality. Habitat loss and aquatic invasive
    species continue to damage our region's outdoor way of life and outdoor
    ecomomy. And communities across the Great Lakes region continue to
    grapple with crumbling, antiquated drinking water and wastewater
    infrastructure and are faced with a staggering $225 billion \4\ over
    the next 20 years for needed improvements, upgrades, and repairs in the
    eight-state region. Many of these threats disproportionately impact
    communities that have historically borne the brunt of environmental
    injustice, underscoring an urgency to address these issues for everyone
    in the region.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Data from the EPA's ``Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2012 Report
    to Congress'' and the 2023 ``Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
    and Assessment--7th Report to Congress''.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We have solutions to these problems. Congress must continue to fund
    the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) and other fundamental
    restoration programs that produce results. Congressional investments
    can help communities replace lead pipes, address emerging contaminants
    like PFAS, end polluted stormwater runoff, and keep water affordable
    and safe for everyone. Congress must support action to stop invasive
    carp and other aquatic invasive species from invading the Great Lakes
    and support communities in enhancing their resilience to more frequent
    severe weather and flooding to help the Great Lakes adapt to a changing
    climate. We also need strong clean water protections, as well as
    institutions that are adequately staffed and funded to enforce
    protections that we all depend on.
                                   conclusion
        There is work to be done, and to keep restoration on track, we
    recommend support for the following Great Lakes programs under the
    subcommittee's jurisdiction: at least $450 million for the Great Lakes
    Restoration Initiative; $8 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service's
    Great Lakes Fish and Wildlife Restoration Program; $15 million for the
    U.S. Geological Survey's Great Lakes Science Center; $35 million for
    invasive carp prevention undertaken by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service; and $15 million for the USGS to continue making progress on
    invasive carp research. We also urge the subcommittee to support
    national programs like EPA's Sec. 106 and 319 programs and fully fund
    EPA's Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds consistent
    with the bi-partisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Public Law
    117-58).
        The GLRI and other Great Lakes restoration investments are
    producing results. But serious threats remain. Cutting restoration
    funding now will only make projects harder and more expensive the
    longer we wait.
        Thank you again for your support and the opportunity to share our
    views with you. If you have any questions regarding this request,
    please do not hesitate to contact our Coalition's Senior Policy
    Manager, Alexis Lopez-Cepero, at alopez-cepero@npca.org.

        [This statement was submitted by Laura Rubin, Director of the
    Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition.]
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission
      department of the interior, bureau of indian affairs, operation of
                                indian programs
        a. Trust-Natural Resources Management, Rights Protection
    Implementation (RPI) No less than $50,643,000 for FY 2025, with
    $8,125,000 for Great Lakes Area Resource Management. An overall need of
    no less than $66 million has been identified by the five Commissions
    funded within RPI, presuming historically proportionate shares for each
    Commission.

        b. Trust-Natural Resources Management, Tribal Management/
    Development Program (TM/DP): At least the $18,696,000 proposed for FY
    2025 and the TM/DP requests of GLIFWC's member Tribes.

        c. Trust-Natural Resources Management, Fish/Wildlife/Parks Program:
    At least $24,019,000 the amount proposed for FY 2025.

        Funding Authorizations: Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. s. 13; Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act, (Public Law 93-638), 25
    U.S.C. ss. 450f and 450h; and the treaties between the United States
    and GLIFWC's member Ojibwe Tribes.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Specifically, the Treaty of 1836, 7 Stat. 491; Treaty of 1837,
    7 Stat. 536; Treaty of 1842, 7 Stat. 591; and Treaty of 1854, 10 Stat.
    1109. The rights guaranteed by these treaties have been affirmed by
    various court decisions, including a 1999 US Supreme Court case.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        environmental protection agency
        a. Environmental Programs and Management, Geographic Programs,
    Great Lakes Restoration: At least $368,000,000, including no less than
    $20,900,000 for the Distinct Tribal Program (DTP).

        b. State and Tribal Assistance Grants, Categorical Grants, Tribal
    General Assistance Program: At least $85,009,000, the amount proposed
    in FY 2025.

        Funding Authorizations: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. s. 1268(c);
    Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, Pub. L. 114-322
    s. 5005; and treaties cited above.
        These programs fulfill Federal treaty, trust, and contract
    obligations to GLIFWC's member Tribes, providing vital resources to
    sustain their governmental programs. We ask that Congress maintain and
    enhance these programs.
                  glifwc's fy 2025 funding request highlights
        1. Should Congress provide an increase to the RPI line item, GLIFWC
    will use its share to address salary disparities between its staff and
    their colleagues at State and Federal agencies--$300,000 of that
    increase would be used specifically to address the 44% vacancy rate in
    the Commission's warden force. While GLIFWC was able to use its FY 2023
    increase to adjust its pay scale, years of Continuing Resolutions have
    led to a recruitment and retention problem in GLIFWC's warden force,
    primarily based on salary disparities with other similar agencies.
    GLIFWC's next funding priority with its proportionate share of the
    remaining RPI increase will be to compensate all its employees at rates
    similar to their State and Federal counterparts, a situation that is
    similarly hindering its ability to attract candidates for open
    positions. Annual RPI increases are needed to keep pace with the
    Federal scale so that no such shortfall occurs again.

        2. Great Lakes Restoration Initiative funding of no less than
    $368,000,000, as proposed in FY 2025, with an increase to the Distinct
    Tribal Program (DTP) to at least $20,900,000.

        3. Full funding for contract support costs, as required by the
    ISDEA Act.

        4. Sufficient funding in the Tribal Management and Development line
    item for GLIFWC's member Tribes to fulfill their needs for reservation-
    based natural resource programs and to fund the Circle of Flight
    wetlands program.
      glifwc's goal--a secure funding base to fulfill treaty purposes and
                               legal obligations
        For over 35 years, Congress has funded GLIFWC to implement
    comprehensive conservation, natural resource protection, and law
    enforcement programs that: 1) ensure member Tribes are able to
    implement their treaty reserved rights to hunt, fish, and gather
    throughout the ceded territories; 2) ensure a healthy and sustainable
    natural resource base to support those rights; 3) protect public
    safety; and 4) promote healthy, safe communities. These programs also
    provide a wide range of public benefits, and facilitate participation
    in management partnerships in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota.
     glifwc's programs--promoting healthy communities and educating tribal
                     members through treaty rights exercise
        Established in 1984, GLIFWC is a natural resources management
    agency of 11 member Ojibwe Tribes with resource management
    responsibilities over their ceded territory (off-reservation) hunting,
    fishing, and gathering treaty rights. These ceded territories extend
    over a 60,000 square mile area in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and
    Michigan.\2\ GLIFWC employs over 80 full-time staff, including natural
    resource scientists, technicians, conservation enforcement officers,
    policy specialists, and public information specialists.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ GLIFWC's programs do not duplicate those of the Chippewa Ottawa
    Resource Authority or the 1854 Treaty Authority. GLIFWC also
    coordinates with its member Tribes with respect to Tribal treaty
    fishing that extends beyond reservation boundaries by virtue of the
    Treaty of 1854 and the reservations' locations on Lake Superior.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        GLIFWC strives to implement its programs in a holistic, integrated
    manner consistent with the culture and values of its member Tribes,
    especially in light of Tribal lifeways that the exercise of treaty
    rights supports. This means not only ensuring that Tribal members can
    legally exercise their rights but supporting community efforts to
    educate them about the benefits (physical, spiritual, and cultural) of
    harvesting and consuming a more traditional diet, as well as promoting
    inter-generational learning and the transmission of traditional
    cultural and management practices.
        GLIFWC and its member Tribes thank Congress, and particularly this
    subcommittee, for its continuing support of these treaty obligations
    and its recognition of the ongoing success of these programs. GLIFWC's
    FY 2025 funding request includes two main elements:
    1. BIA Rights Protection Implementation/Great Lakes Area Management
            (Within the RPI Line Item):
        No less than $50,643,000. The five treaty commissions have
    estimated the cost of full implementation of the court orders governing
    their treaty-reserved rights at, collectively, no less than
    $66,000,000. The recent increases to RPI are greatly appreciated, but
    many years of Continuing Resolutions has led to shortfalls that are
    self-perpetuating without a proactive approach. With the FY 2023
    increase, GLIFWC was able to adjust its pay to the FY 2023 pay scale.
    However, the funding discrepancy is still significant. GLIFWC estimates
    that it would need an increase of at least $963,000 to fully adjust its
    compensation structure.
        Appropriating through Continuing Resolutions has not allowed the
    RPI line item to keep up with inflation and cost-of-living increases.
    This shortfall is most acutely felt in GLIFWC's warden force. To
    highlight the significance of this shortfall, GLIFWC's warden force has
    a 44% vacancy rate. GLIFWC provides conservation officers that enforce
    Tribal conservation codes and who work with local authorities when they
    detect violations of State or Federal criminal and conservation codes.
    These officers also play a significant role in educating Tribal youth,
    including teaching hunter safety classes, cultural practices, and
    harvesting regulations; they provide Tribal youth meaningful, healthy,
    and safe ways to engage in outdoor activities; and they build trust
    between communities and law enforcement. While recruitment and
    retention of law enforcement officers is difficult nationwide, the
    stagnation of RPI funding has made it impossible for GLIFWC to compete
    with State and Federal counterparts; no amount of creative thinking has
    made up for the difference in wages. Beginning GLIFWC field wardens
    make an average of $6,000 less than those employed by MI, WI, and MN,
    and by the time they reach 7 years at their respective agencies, GLIFWC
    wardens will make, on average, $31,670 less than their colleagues with
    the same experience in MI; $34,660 less than those in WI; and $49,758
    less than those in MN.
        These warden vacancies make meeting the treaty obligations to
    monitor treaty harvest more burdensome and are a blow to partnering
    jurisdictions. GLIFWC's wardens are often called upon to assist other
    jurisdictions in emergency situations, particularly in the more rural
    areas of Michigan's Upper Peninsula. In 2023, GLIFWC wardens responded
    to over 170 calls for assistance, for which they have received numerous
    acknowledgements. The Upper Peninsula of Michigan is currently without
    a stationed GLIFWC warden and relies on coverage from wardens that may
    be stationed many hours away. Seasonal harvesting activities, such as
    spring spearing, require wardens to travel to lakes located in areas
    with warden vacancies, and create added costs in travel and lodging for
    the duration of the season. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle of
    burnout and makes it increasingly difficult to hire new wardens as
    senior officers retire.
        There is a long history of Federal funding for treaty rights
    protection and implementation programs. By now, this subcommittee is
    aware of GLIFWC's holistic approach to protecting and supporting treaty
    rights and the natural resources that support them. We have always
    enjoyed and appreciated the subcommittee's ongoing support for GLIFWC,
    its member Tribes, and its programs. We urge the subcommittee to
    support increases to the RPI line item that allow the Commission's work
    to continue unabated.
    2. EPA Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: $368,000. Distinct Tribal
            Program (DTP): $20,900,000.
        GLIFWC supports continued funding for the Great Lakes Restoration
    Initiative (GLRI) as an important non-regulatory program that enhances
    and ensures coordinated governance in the Great Lakes, fulfillment of
    international agreements, and substantive natural resource protection
    and restoration projects. GLIFWC supports the continuation of GLRI
    funding at no less than $368,000,000 proposed in FY 2025.
                   results and benefits of glifwc's programs
        1. Maintain the Requisite Capability to Meet Legal Obligations, to
    Conserve Natural Resources, and to Regulate Treaty Harvests: At its
    most basic level, GLIFWC's programs support Tribal compliance with
    court decrees and intergovernmental agreements that govern the Tribes'
    treaty-reserved rights. Funding for science and research enhances
    GLIFWC's ability to address ecosystem threats that harm treaty natural
    resources, including those related to climate change.

        2. Remain a Trusted Management and Law Enforcement Partner, and
    Scientific Contributor in the Great Lakes Region: GLIFWC has become a
    respected and integral part of management and law enforcement
    partnerships that conserve natural resources and protect public safety.
    It brings a Tribal perspective to interjurisdictional Great Lakes
    management forums and would use its scientific expertise to study
    issues and geographic areas that are important to its member Tribes but
    that others may not be examining.

        3. Maintain the Overall Public Benefits That Derive From its
    Programs: Over the years, GLIFWC has become a recognized and valued
    partner in natural resource management. Because of its institutional
    experience and staff expertise, GLIFWC has built and maintained
    numerous partnerships that: i) provide accurate information and data to
    counter social misconceptions about Tribal treaty harvests and the
    status of ceded territory natural resources; ii) maximize each
    partner's financial resources and avoid duplication of effort and
    costs; iii) engender cooperation rather than competition; and iv)
    undertake projects that achieve public benefits that no one partner
    could accomplish alone.

        4. Encourage and Contribute to Healthy Tribal Communities. GLIFWC
    works with its member Tribes' communities to promote the benefits of
    treaty rights exercise. These include the health benefits associated
    with a more traditional diet and the intergenerational learning that
    takes place when elders teach youth. In addition, GLIFWC sponsors a
    camp each summer where Tribal youth build leadership skills, strengthen
    connections to the outdoors, and learn about treaty rights and careers
    in natural resource fields.

        [This statement was submitted by Jason Schlender, Executive
    Administrator, Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission.]
                                     ______

                       Prepared Statement of GreenLatinos
        GreenLatinos is an active community of Latino leaders confronting
    national and local environmental issues in Latino communities. We thank
    you for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed FY 2025
    Department of Interior budget.
        The Department of Interior is a critical agency charged with the
    stewardship of some of the United States' most critical cultural and
    environmental resources including over 480 million acres of lands. We
    expect that all agencies within DOI, especially the National Park
    Service (NPS) and Bureau of Land Management which administer public
    lands significant to Hispanic and Latino cultures and histories, are
    accountable to the various executive orders and agency memorandums
    intending to establish increasingly equitable outcomes for underserved
    communities, including but not limited to:

      --Executive Order 13171--Hispanic Employment in the Federal
            Government

      --Executive Order 13985--Advancing Racial Equity and Support for
            Underserved Communities Through the Government

      --Executive Order 14045--Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence,
            and Economic Opportunities for Hispanics

      --Executive Order 13583--Establishing a Coordinated Government-wide
            Initiative to Promote Diversity and Inclusion in the Federal
            Workforce

      --Executive Order 11478--Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal
            Government

      --Executive Order 14035--Executive Order on Diversity, Equity,
            Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce

      --Presidential Memorandum on Promoting Diversity and Inclusion in Our
            National Parks, National Forests, Marine Protected Areas, and
            other Public Lands and Waters

      --Department of Interior Secretary Order 3406 establishing the
            Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility (DEIA) Council

        We appreciate the overall commitment demonstrated in the FY 2025
    budget towards improving the quality of equitable outcomes for the
    Department of Interior's workforce and managed lands. In order for the
    Department of Interior to meet its statutory and legislative mandates,
    it must be adequately funded and staffed in order to ensure success of
    its initiatives. To this end, we are supportive of the overall proposal
    of $17.8 billion for FY 2025, an $800,000,000 increase from 2023
    levels. This funding will be essential to ensure success of the America
    the Beautiful Initiative, ensuring equitable representation within
    public lands administration, and addressing the longstanding public
    lands maintenance backlog. While estimates vary, all studies
    demonstrate need much larger than current funding levels. The National
    Park Service estimates that as of FY 2023 Quarter 4 there is
    $23,263,000,000 in deferred maintenance and repair. At the local level,
    the 2021 Report Card for America's Infrastructure also identifies a
    maintenance backlog of an additional $5.6 billion for state parks and
    $60 billion for local parks.
        GreenLatinos has identified three budgetary categories for
    improvement regarding the proposed FY 2025 budget. Generally, our
    concerns can be categorized under the following:

        1. Ensuring accurate and equitable representation of Latino
    histories at conservation and recreation sites under DOI jurisdiction.

        2. Ensuring adequate funding for the maintenance of existing Latino
    Heritage sites and public lands in close proximity to communities of
    color and;

        3. Advancing equitable hiring practices and removing barriers to
    career pathways within DOI and its umbrella agencies to ensure fair and
    equitable representation of Hispanics and Latinos in employment through
    the Federal Government

    1. Ensuring accurate and equitable representation of Hispanic and
            Latino histories at conservation and recreation sites
    contemporary latino underrepresentation in public land protections and
                                  designations
        The FY 2025 NPS appropriations for National Recreation and
    Preservation programs, and the Historic Preservation Fund indicate
    specific program funding related to African American, Japanese
    American, Indigenous American, and Native Hawaiian histories and
    cultural resources including but not limited to historic sites,
    landscapes, ecosystems, parks and rivers. We celebrate and commend the
    Park Service's work to elevate the stories of underserved communities.
    But there are minority groups that are not explicitly prioritized by
    the Historic Preservation Fund, National Recreation and Preservation,
    and other program appropriations. At worst, the exclusion of other
    racial and ethnic groups of color makes a Statement that those who are
    excluded do not matter. Hispanic and Latino Americans, Middle-Eastern
    Americans, and Alaska Natives have been excluded from meaningful
    investments in the Historic Preservation Fund and the National
    Recreation and Preservation appropriations year after year during the
    Biden Administration. As a result, despite the robust framework of
    policy direction, Latinos, communities of color, and various other
    underrepresented identity groups such as the LGBTQ+, Asian American and
    Pacific Islander, and other communities are not currently equitably
    represented in lands administered by DOI agencies.
        For example, less than eight percent of NPS managed National
    Historic Register of Places units specifically conserve the stories of
    Native Americans, African Americans, American Latinos, Asian Americans,
    women and other underrepresented groups. Only 190 out of the nearly
    96,000 (0.02%) National Historic Register sites center Latino
    histories, and many are tied to Spanish colonial or military history.
    States like California, New Mexico, and Texas have many units on the
    Historic Register, but other States with significant Latino populations
    have much less Latino Heritage sites. Other States do not have any
    federally-protected Latino Heritage Sites at all. Additionally, the
    National Park Foundation reports that only 24 of 429 (5.6%) National
    Park units specifically preserve Latino/a/x history; most represent the
    history of Spanish colonization rather than recognizing contemporary
    history and the multitude of Latino cultures.
        Recommendation: Establish program funding specifically for Latino
    Heritage Conservation
        As is, the NPS budget does not meet its declared intention to fund
    ``new and critical responsibilities at parks preserving the stories of
    underrepresented communities and for interpretive projects that tell
    these stories''. We recommend a one-time allocation of $3,000,000 to
    allow DOI, in close collaboration with agency staff and conservation,
    historical, and community experts to conduct a national systematic
    review of reinterpretation opportunities for existing parks, recreation
    areas, and historic sites to identify areas to include Latino history
    where appropriate, including the identification of new sites for
    Federal protections.
    2. Increase funding for the maintenance of existing Latino Heritage
            Sites and public lands in close proximity to communities of
            color
        Latino communities, and communities of color in general,
    disproportionately lack access to healthy and protected green spaces.
    Black and Latino families with children are the most nature-deprived
    groups compared to any demographic. Moreover, Latino history in America
    exists far into history preceding Spanish colonization. And one in
    every four Americans by the year 2060 will be Hispanic/Latino. Yet
    Latino heritage represents a mere fraction of all federally-protected
    lands. As such, protecting the small number of existing sites while
    supporting efforts to expand equitable access to nature must be
    prioritized in the final FY 2025 budget.
        Budget recommendations for increasing funding for the maintenance
    of existing Latino Heritage Sites and public lands in close proximity
    to communities of color
        Given the scale of nature deprivation and underrepresentation in
    currently protected Federal public lands, FY 2025 must ensure robust
    levels of funding for flagship programs such as the Historic
    Preservation Fund and Outdoor Recreation Legacy Program but also
    smaller, yet effective initiatives to expand representation, education,
    and awareness of underrepresented communities. Specifically we
    recommend the following FY proposals:

        Funding for public lands in close proximity to communities of color

      --Support $125,000,000 for the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Program
            Initiative. (Budget of the US Government FY 2025, 95-96)

      --Support $2,203,886,000 for the National Parks and Public Land
            Legacy Restoration Fund (DOI Office of Secretary: FY 2025
            Department Wide Budget Justification, GAOA -3)

      historical interpretation, education, and cultural preservation of
                             existing and new sites
      --Increase allocation of Historical Preservation Fund from $151
            million to $250 million

      --Support $84,400,000 for National Recreation and Preservation (NPS
            FY 2025 Budget Justification, Overview--3)

      --Support $11,200,000 for New and Critical Responsibilities (NPS FY
            2025 Budget Justification, Overview--8), including $215,000 for
            Interpretation and Education Capacity at the Cesar E Chavez
            National Monument, (NPS FY 2025 Budget Justification,
            Overview--9,13)

      --Support $145,627,000 for Cultural Resource Stewardship (NPS FY 2025
            Budget Justification, ONPS-28)

      --Support $287,058,000 for Interpretation and Education (NPS
            GreenBook, ONPS--42) including the Fund Latino Heritage
            Internship Program (NPS FY 2025 Budget Justification, ONPS--50)

      --Support $10,050,000 for Interpretation and Education Programs (NPS
            FY 2025 Budget Justification, ONPS--43)

      --Support $4,567,000 increase in overall funding for Interpretation
            and Education Programs (NPS FY 2025 Budget Justification,
            Overview--67)

      --Support $3,768,000 for Informational Publications (NPS FY 2025
            Budget Justification, Overview--67)

      --Support $3,848,000 for Interpretation and Education Program (NPS FY
            2025 Budget Justification, Overview--68)

      --Support $331,000 for Interior's Museum Program ``to provide policy,
            guidance, training, and technical support for the Department
            bureaus and offices that together manage over 75 million museum
            objects in over 2,000 locations nationwide and abroad.'' (DOI
            Office of Secretary: FY 2025 Department Wide Budget
            Justification, DO 34-35)
                    increased representation on public lands
      --Support $3,100,000 for Increasing Representation on Our Public
            Lands (NPS FY 2025 Budget Justification, ONPS--44) including
            support for $385,000 for continuing start -up costs for
            Blackwell School NHS (NPS FY 2025 Budget Justification,
            Overview--5,6)

      --Support $11,000,000 for ``new sites that preserve the stories of
            the cultures and history across America'' (NPS FY 2025 Budget
            Justification, Overview -8)
    3. Addressing Diversity Deficits in DOI Workforce Composition
        We support DOI's increased funding to expand the total number of
    full-time equivalent staff (FTEs) up to 1,369 FTEs through 2023.
    Although progress has been made on the aforementioned commitments to
    diversify DOI's workforce composition, much work is needed to ensure
    this projected expansion includes Latinos and other members of
    underserved communities. For example, a 2021 DOI assessment of
    workplace composition revealed that:

      --26.2 percent of the total DOI workforce in FY 2021 was identified
            of race and ethnicity categories other than ``White'' or ``Not
            Identified.''' In comparison, the Civilian Labor (CLF)
            benchmark from 2014 to 2018 was 32.5 percent

      --69.8 percent of the total DOI workforce was from the category
            ``White'' in FY 2021, a 3.9 percentage decrease from 73.7
            percent in FY 2014

      --6 of 11 bureaus fall below the DOI average of 26.2 percent for
            workforce representation from race and ethnicity categories
            other than ``White'' or ``Not Identified'' in FY 2021

      --65.7 percent of the promotions in 2021 were issued to employees in
            the category ``White"

      --Of the 887,383 applications received for DOI job opportunities that
            were audited in FY 2021, 78.4 percent of the applicants were
            ``White"

      --81.6 percent of selected applicants in FY 2021 were ``White"
     budget recommendations to address diversity deficit in doi workforce
                                  composition
        We support allocations dedicated to advancing DEIA initiatives
    within DOI agencies. Congress must support the Biden Administration's
    proposed budget allocations to ensure timely advancement and adequate
    resourcing of these efforts. Successful implementation will help
    eliminate access barriers for underrepresented communities. We support
    the $2.8 million proposed for implementation of the DOI Equity Action
    Plan through the Office of Diversity, Inclusion, and Civil Rights;
    Office of Human Capital; and Office of Collaborative Alternative
    Dispute Resolution (DOI Office of Secretary--Department Wide Budget
    Justification, OS-11).
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide our recommendations. For
    any questions or clarifications please reach out to Pedro Hernandez,
    GreenLatinos Public Lands Advocate, at pedrohernandez@greenlatinos.org
    and Olivia Juarez, GreenLatinos Public Land Program Director, at
    oliviajuarez@greenlatinos.org.

        [This statement was submitted by Pedro Hernandez, Public Lands
    Advocate, GreenLatinos.]
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
        I am Howard Learner, Executive Director of the Environmental Law &
    Policy Center (ELPC), the Midwest's leading environmental legal
    advocacy and sustainability innovation organization. ELPC's staff works
    throughout the Great Lakes States, in Washington D.C., and with Canada
    to protect the Great Lakes. Since 2008, ELPC has engaged with
    policymakers and partners to build, effectively implement, and expand
    the successful Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI).
        Thank you Chair Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski and all members
    of the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony in support
    of full funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative for FY 2025
    at $450 million as provided in the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
    Act of 2019 (signed into law on January 5, 2021). GLRI funds have been
    effectively deployed to protect safe clean drinking water supplies,
    clean up toxic sites, protect wetlands and shorelines, hold off
    invasive species from entering the Great Lakes, and safeguard aquatic
    resources. Restoring the Great Lakes creates substantial environmental,
    public health, and recreational benefits, while fostering economic
    growth. GLRI is a program that has worked very well and has
    demonstrated consistent successes.
        The Great Lakes are a global gem. They contain 21% of the planet's
    surface fresh water supply, and 42 million people rely on the Great
    Lakes for safe drinking water. They provide a rich aquatic habitat for
    many species. They support a $7 billion annual fishing industry, and
    Great Lakes recreation draws millions of tourists who boost the
    economies of shoreline communities. In short, the Great Lakes are where
    many millions of people live, work, and play.
        ELPC strongly supported reauthorization of the GLRI and the ramp up
    of funding to $475 million in 2026, matching the funding the program
    received in its initial year. We request that the Committee fully fund
    the GLRI program with at least the authorized $450 million for FY 2025
    and, hopefully, consider a higher amount.

        I'll make two points in support of fully funding the GLRI:

        First, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is vitally important,
    and it is successful. This is a model Federal program providing
    significant environmental and economic benefits, and it is working
    well.
        Second, the challenges to the Great Lakes from increases in harmful
    algal blooms and climate change merit full funding of at least the
    authorized $450 million for FY 2025 and, again, the program could
    benefit from an even higher amount.
        1. The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative is vitally important and
    successful. This is a model Federal program providing important
    benefits, and it is working well with strong bipartisan federal, State,
    and local support.
        The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative has been a breakthrough
    program, injecting vitally needed funding and structure that had been
    missing in order to restore the Great Lakes. Over the past 14 years,
    the GLRI has achieved strong results with sustained funding. As the
    third GLRI Action Plan States: ``the GLRI has been a catalyst for
    unprecedented Federal agency coordination, which has, in turn, produced
    unprecedented results.'' The program supports shoreline and wetlands
    protection projects, keeping out invasive species, and reducing harmful
    algal blooms. Congress' recognition of the effectiveness of the Great
    Lakes Restoration Initiative is reflected in the strong bipartisan
    support for fully funding this program and, in some years, increasing
    funding.

        The GLRI funds and supports thousands of projects across the Great
    Lakes States to:

      --Improve water quality for safe drinking water supplies, fisheries,
            and aquatic habitats.

      --Protect shorelines and restore wetlands.

      --Protect and restore native habitats and species.

      --Help prevent and control invasive species.

      --Clean up toxic sediments on lake bottoms.

      --Reduce agricultural and other nutrient pollution that causes
            harmful algal blooms.

        The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative creates an effective system
    of coordination among Federal agencies, State entities, and local
    partners to achieve important outcomes to make a meaningful difference
    for the Great Lakes. Since its inception, the program has achieved
    strong results with sustained funding.
        There are countless examples of GLRI projects that deliver multiple
    benefits to the Great Lakes, from watershed and natural area
    restoration projects to addressing and ultimately delisting Areas of
    Concern. Below are three examples of projects ranging from smaller more
    community-based work to major projects to clean up waterways. The
    Healing Our Waters Coalition provides additional examples of projects
    across the Great Lakes region.

      --Powderhorn Prairie and Marsh Nature Preserve on Chicago's Southeast
            Side: This project next to the Calumet Area of Concern restored
            192 acres of wetland habitat, 630 linear feet of stream habitat
            and 45 acres of native vegetation, in an area burdened by
            industrial pollution and flooding. This project benefits the
            community by decreasing flooding and reconnecting Powderhorn
            Lake with Wolf Lake and Lake Michigan, thereby allowing passage
            for native fish and wildlife.

      --Gorge Dam Removal, Cuyahoga River: This project will remove 100
            years of accumulated dangerous sediment (nearly 900,000 cubic
            yards) that sits behind the Gorge Dam to allow for its removal.
            This project will improve water quality in the Cuyahoga River
            and bring recreational opportunities and economic development.
            The four local partners include the Northeast Ohio Regional
            Sewer District, the city of Akron, FirstEnergy, and the Ohio
            EPA.

      --Milwaukee Waterways Clean Up: This multi-year project will address
            a century of pollution that entered the Milwaukee River, the
            Menomonee River, and Milwaukee's Inner Harbor and created an
            ``area of concern.'' This project will result in cleaner water,
            safer fish, and access to recreation. The five local partners
            on the project include the Wisconsin Department of Natural
            Resources, Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District, We
            Energies, the City of Milwaukee and Milwaukee County Parks.

        GLRI projects bring together a broad array of partners to achieve
    the program's goals and create jobs. The GLRI Action Plan III details
    work to address Areas of Concern (AOC). As of October 2023, six AOCs
    have been delisted including the Ashtabula River in Ohio, Lower
    Menominee River in Wisconsin, Presque Isle Bay in Pennsylvania, and
    Deer Lake and White Lake in Michigan. Work toward delisting has been
    completed in 10 areas. Significant work remains to be done, however, to
    fully address Areas of Concern across the Great Lakes basin.
        GLRI has broad regional economic benefits. A University of Michigan
    study showed that every Federal dollar spent on GLRI projects between
    2010 and 2016 will produce $3.35 in additional economic activity in the
    Great Lakes region through 2036.
        2. The challenges to the Great Lakes from fluctuating lake levels
    and increases in harmful algal blooms and climate change merit full
    funding of at least the authorized $450 million for FY 2025, and we
    urge Congress to consider a higher amount.
        While recognizing the GLRI's success, the growing threats from
    recurring severe algal outbreaks and climate change are getting worse.
        ELPC commissioned 18 leading Midwestern and Canadian university and
    research center scientists to write the state-of-the-science report, An
    Assessment of the Impacts of Climate Change on the Great Lakes, which
    we released in 2019, along with recommended policy solutions. The
    scientists concluded that climate change is causing significant and
    far-reaching impacts on the Great Lakes region, including increasingly
    extreme water level fluctuations, which wreak havoc on communities,
    homes, beaches, businesses, and the overall shoreline's built
    environment. Annual precipitation in the region has increased at a
    higher percentage than in the rest of the country, and more
    precipitation is coming in unusually large events, such as derechos and
    intense storms. Lake Michigan had record-high water levels in 2021--
    especially when strong winds whip up heavy large waves, causing the
    extensive flooding that damaged the shoreline and infrastructure.
        According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
    (NOAA), March 2024 was the warmest March on record and the December
    2023 through February 2024 was the warmest such winter time period on
    record. NOAA reports that there is a 55% chance that 2024 will be the
    warmest year in NOAA's 175-year record and a 99% chance it will rank in
    the top five. Climate change impacts the Great Lakes.
        ELPC issued our Rising Waters: Climate Change Impacts and Toxic
    Risks to Lake Michigan's Shoreline Communities report in June 2022
    focused on the threats to people, communities, and businesses from high
    Lake Michigan water and wave levels, Using NOAA's Enhanced Digital
    Elevation Model data, this report visualizes the extent and severity of
    inundation at 12 hot spots along Lake Michigan's shoreline and
    surrounding areas due to extreme weather events of the scale expected
    in the near future. This report points to opportunities for the GLRI
    and other programs to invest in projects that will enhance coastal
    protection, resilience, and flood control.
        Climate change impacts on the Great Lakes also exacerbate the
    growing problem of agricultural pollution--mostly fertilizers and
    animal waste--in waterways that is the principal cause of severe
    recurring toxic algae outbreaks in western Lake Erie and other Great
    Lakes areas including Green Bay, WI and Saginaw Bay, MI. The Ohio EPA
    concluded that agricultural pollution accounts for about 90% of the
    phosphorus flowing into western Lake Erie.
        The current GLRI Action Plan provides a detailed look at strategies
    to reduce this harmful agricultural pollution, noting that GLRI
    projects have kept more than one million pounds of phosphorus out of
    the Great Lakes. Nutrient pollution threats to the Great Lakes region
    continue, and are amplified by changing rainfall patterns. Industrial-
    scale animal facilities, often called concentrated animal feeding
    operations (CAFOs), produce enormous volumes of waste, including those
    that enter the Maumee River basin and then flow into Lake Erie. A more
    robust GLRI will continue to be an important source of solutions for
    this urgent problem.
        In conclusion, the Environmental Law & Policy Center and I commend
    the Senate Appropriations Committee and this subcommittee's strong
    support for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative with each year's
    budget. GLRI is a successful program and a model for federal, State,
    and local cooperation. We urge the full Committee and this subcommittee
    to fully fund the successful GLRI program with at least the authorized
    $450 million for FY 2025 and, also, to consider additional funding. In
    addition to this funding request, the Environmental Law & Policy Center
    is pleased to support S. 3738, the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
    Act of 2024, which extends the GLRI program through FY 2031.
        Thank you for your and the subcommittee Members' consideration, and
    I would be pleased to address any questions or suggestions that you and
    the other Members may have.

        [This statement was submitted by Howard Learner, Executive
    Director, Environmental Law & Policy Center.]
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of Healthy Schools Network
        Children are not just little adults, and schools are not just
    little offices.
        We, the undersigned forty-four education, health, environment, and
    children's health groups from coast to coast, urge the Committee to
    include $100 million for the US Environmental Protection Agency Office
    of Air and Radiation/Indoor Environments Division (EPA/OAR/IED) to
    protect school children and personnel from unhealthy environments in
    schools and childcare facilities and to help improve the environmental
    conditions of our Nation's schools.
        Indoor air quality (IAQ) has been ignored for over 30 years (US GAO
    1995, US GAO 2020), eroding children's health, thinking, and learning.
    EPA/OAR/IED needs $100 million to lead a national educational campaign,
    with expanded national and regional education and training grants,
    including $50M for State grants, and for direct technical assistance to
    schools. EPA must also update or prepare guidance to enhance school
    indoor environments which will deteriorate in warmer, wetter outdoor
    conditions, and for site resiliency and adaptation that will help
    schools stay open or reopen quickly after severe disasters.
        Since it takes months if not years to rebuild a storm-damaged
    school, schools clearly need to be more resilient to extreme weather
    and or to reopen safely and quickly after disasters. EPA should also
    issue new guidance to States and schools' communities on how to assess
    and remediate storm damages, including risks from legacy toxics exposed
    by structural damages (lead, asbestos, PCBs, pesticides, lab, leaning
    chemicals, vehicle maintenance chemicals).
        Indoor air pollution is a serious threat that is hard to address:
    there are multiple potential sources to consider. Other EPA pollutants,
    such as lead in drinking water, PCBs, asbestos, or hazardous waste, are
    simpler to identify. Air pollutants can come from poor construction and
    siting near hazardous facilities; leaky roofs and growing molds;
    chemical spills and odors from science labs; kitchen, locker room,
    lavatory stench; carbon dioxide accumulations; lack of incoming fresh
    air; carbon monoxide leaks; cleaning and disinfecting products; and
    pests and pesticides, or from occupants themselves and the processes
    and products used in classes. It is complicated, which is why high-
    turnover school leaders and boards of education, as well as personnel
    and communities, need long-term sustained education, guidance, and
    support.
        Why school environments and impacts on children are urgent issues.
    Education is a social determinant of health. During a school year,
    about fifty-five million children in the US spend the majority of their
    waking hours when not at home in schools. Numerous studies have
    documented that school conditions such as polluted IAQ, mold, dust and
    debris, high heat, poor siting, proximity to hazards, noise, and poor
    lighting and sanitation, damage children's ``health, thinking, and
    learning'' (Harvard SPH 2017; NRC 2006). Today, 40% of school-aged
    children have at least one existing chronic health condition (CDC),
    including asthma, which affects 1 in 13 school-aged children and
    remains the leading cause of school absenteeism due to chronic illness.
    When we as a nation put health-compromised children in polluted
    buildings every day, we cannot expect the next generation to be as
    healthy or competitive as we are today.
        Schools as critical infrastructure for children. Schools are not
    climate-ready--which means more frequent long-term school closures, and
    not epidemic-ready, again suggesting more frustrating closures and
    hybrid learning schemes. Schools are in fact critical infrastructure
    for children, families, and communities. Indeed, attendance is
    mandatory in all States, and 98% of US children are in school every
    day.

      --Schools are more densely occupied than nursing homes and less well
            maintained

      --95% of school occupants are women and children

      --Nearly half of all public school students are children and youth of
            color.

      --The poorest communities hardest hit by COVID and climate change are
            also the communities where children's health and learning are
            impacted by the worst conditions.

      --An estimated 50 percent of public schools have outdated heating and
            ventilation systems, and thousands of schools likely contain
            PCBs and asbestos, as well as old, outdated chemical products.

      --The nation's public schools today contain over 8 billion square
            feet of learning space valued at over $3 trillion, which means
            more frequent long-term school closures ahead if they are not
            physically resilient. Investments in electric buses and energy
            retrofits are appreciated and welcome but will not guarantee
            that a facility will survive the next super-storm intact.
        This is the Senate moment to act. Put the EPA's existing
    authorizations and 30 years of expertise on indoor air/environmental
    quality to work to improve school buildings and grounds, and thus
    health and learning outcomes for children, especially for those most
    disadvantaged, including children with disabilities.
        We appreciate the funding for school infrastructure through the
    various COVID programs, ARPA, BIL, and IRA, however EPA gets a scant
    $50 million over 10 years from IRA to address indoor air. While the
    Department of Energy (DOE), Department of Education (ED), and CDC have
    far larger programs, none match EPA's knowledge and experience on the
    physical environment of schools and its impact on children: neither ED
    nor CDC has an authorization or in-house expertise on school
    facilities. To date, EPA's level of funding is embarrassingly small,
    considering the documented environmental problems in schools, and the
    lack of knowledge in communities and among education leaders on how to
    address those issues effectively.
        Of the $100 million annual funding that we recommend for EPA's
    indoor air program to improve school indoor air and related issues, we
    urge that half be awarded to States, and the balance through
    cooperative agreements and regional grants to Tribes, cities,
    universities, and nongovernmental organizations to provide ``hands-on''
    technical assistance and education to k-12 constituencies and NGOs. EPA
    regional offices should also have at least one expert in school Indoor
    Environments. EPA's authorizations and guidance for States, drawn rom
    existing State policies, has been enriched with inputs from multiple
    state users. Local and State-level agencies can be helpful partners
    with EPA in addressing key issues of low-income schools and rural-
    remote schools.
        Thank you for your consideration of our request.

        AFT Connecticut
        Airthings, GA
        Alaska Community Action on Toxics
        American Lung Association
        Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America
        BrainWorks, GA
        Cedar Creek Elementary School, TX
        Children's Environmental Health Network
        Citizens' Committee for Children of New York
        Climate Families NYC
        Coalition for Healthier Schools
        Comunidades Sin Fronteras CSF-CT INC, CT
        Connecticut Roundtable on Climate and Jobs
        Cool Green Schools, MD
        Environmental Working Group
        First Focus on Children
        Great Neck Breast Cancer Coalition, NY
        Healthy Schools Network
        Healthy Schools Now, WEC, NJ
        Informed Green Solutions, VT
        International WELL Building Institute
        Learning Disabilities Association of America
        MADE SAFE, NY
        MD Children's Environmental Health Coalition (MD CEHC)
        Mothers Out Front, MA
        National Association of Federally Impacted Schools
        National Association of School Nurses
        National Center for Healthy Housing
        New Jersey Association of Designated Persons
        NYS Parent Teacher Association
        Protect Education, OH
        Public Advocacy for Kids (PAK), VA
        Pure Air Solutions of PA
        Responsible Purchasing Network
        Society for Public Health Education
        Society of State Leaders of Health and Physical Education
        Texas Environmental Justice Advocacy Services
        The Autistic People of Color Fund, NE
        Vermont Public Interest Research Group
        WellAir, CT
        Wing's Testing & Balancing Co., Inc., CT
        Women for a Healthy Environment, PA
        Women's Voices for the Earth, MT

        [This statement was submitted by Claire L. Barnett, Executive
    Director, Healthy Schools Network.]
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Hualapai Tribe of Arizona
        The Hualapai Tribe thanks the subcommittee for the opportunity to
    present this testimony in support of the Bureau of Indian Affairs'
    request in the amount of $45 million to begin to fulfill the United
    States' obligations under the Hualapai Tribe Water Rights Settlement
    Act, Public Law 117-349.
        This settlement was enacted in 2022 to resolve all of the Tribe's
    reserved water right claims in the State of Arizona. The act settled
    those claims by securing to the Tribe 4,000-acre-feet per year of
    Central Arizona Project water from the Colorado River, and authorizing
    $312 million to be deposited into a Hualapai Water Trust Fund to allow
    the Tribe to implement the settlement by constructing and operating an
    infrastructure project to deliver this water to our Reservation.
        The Settlement Act provides that Congress must appropriate all the
    settlement funds by April 15, 2029, for the settlement to remain in
    effect. If this does not happen, the Settlement Act will by its terms
    be repealed and the benefits of the settlement for not only the Tribe,
    but for all of the parties-including the United States, the State of
    Arizona, the Central Arizona Project, the Salt River Project and
    Freeport Minerals Company-will evaporate.
        A key component of the Settlement Act is that as soon as any
    appropriated funds are deposited into a Hualapai Water Trust Fund, the
    Tribe can begin to expend these monies to do the compliance activities
    required by Federal law for construction of the infrastructure project,
    including the environmental studies required by the National
    Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The appropriation of the $45 million
    requested by the Bureau of Indian Affairs will allow the Tribe to begin
    to do this important NEPA work now-so that when the Trust Fund is fully
    funded, the Tribe can begin the actual construction of the project that
    will finally deliver a safe and secure supply of water to the
    Reservation. It is urgent that this be accomplished as soon as possible
    for the reasons set forth below.
        The Hualapai Reservation encompasses approximately one million
    acres in northwestern Arizona. The Colorado River forms the 108-mile
    northern boundary of the Reservation through a portion of the Grand
    Canyon. The Reservation is arid. It has no significant surface streams
    other than the Colorado River. It has very limited groundwater
    resources. The Tribe's groundwater wells are a depletable resource and
    well levels on the Reservation have been dropping for years.
        The Tribe's principal residential community at Peach Springs relies
    exclusively on three groundwater wells in the Truxton Aquifer near the
    Reservation's southern boundary. Since those wells were installed in
    1975, the piping for the system is 49 years old and has failed in the
    recent past, leaving our community without water for several days. One
    of the wells has also suffered episodes of dangerous E-coli and
    coliform contamination and we have not been able to locate the source
    of the contamination. When that well is out of service because of
    contamination, we are unable to supply sufficient water to the
    community, so we have to implement strict mandatory conservation
    measures. Because this groundwater is currently the only source of
    water for our residential needs on the Reservation, we are very
    vulnerable to any short-term interruptions in supply from these wells,
    and also to the long-term decline in the levels in the Truxton Aquifer
    that supplies our groundwater.
        The situation is even worse elsewhere on the Reservation. There is
    a small well on the east side of the Reservation that provides water to
    ranchers and wildlife in that area, but the water is not potable for
    human consumption. On the western side of the Reservation, the Tribe
    successfully operates a tourist attraction, called Grant Canyon West,
    that overlooks the Grand Canyon and has one million visitors per year
    while employing several hundred Tribal members. For the past 3 years,
    after the two wells that served Grand Canyon West failed, the Tribe has
    been forced to haul water 15 miles to the original well sites, where
    the water must then be pumped for 35 miles out to Grand Canyon West.
    This patchwork system is burdensome, insecure and very expensive, but
    it is the only way we can continue our vital tourist operations at
    Grand Canyon West.
        The Colorado River is the only feasible water supply for satisfying
    the long-term future needs of people who live on our Reservation. Our
    Tribe needs delivery of Colorado River water both to provide a
    permanent and secure water supply for the domestic and residential
    needs of our present and future population, and also to fully realize
    the unique opportunities for economic development that we have at Grand
    Canyon West.
        The $45 million in the BIA funding request is the first installment
    of the Hualapai Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act and is essential if
    our Tribe is to attain a secure future on our Reservation. We have done
    everything possible to allow our Reservation to be a permanent livable
    homeland, including developing our government and developing an economy
    to provide jobs and income to our people-but the lack of a secure and
    replenishable water supply on our Reservation has been a major obstacle
    that prevents us from achieving economic self-sufficiency, a goal that
    Federal Indian policy has long favored. This is why we finalized the
    water right settlement with the State of Arizona and its major water
    users.
        Passage of the Hualapai Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act was an
    historic event for the Hualapai Tribe, but it will be a hollow victory
    if Congress does not provide the resources to fully fund and implement
    the act before the Enforceability Date in 2029. In the history of
    Indian land and water settlements Congress has never failed to provide
    the funding necessary by the Enforceability Date of a settlement.
    Therefore, we urgently ask the subcommittee to now take the first step
    to full implementation of the act and include $45 million in the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs Indian Water Rights Settlement Account for the
    Hualapai Tribe Water Rights Settlement Act.

        [This statement was submitted by Sherry Parker, Chairwoman, the
    Hualapai Tribe of Arizona.]
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Humane Society Legislative Fund and The
                      Humane Society of the United States
        Chair Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to offer testimony on
    matters of importance to our organizations and to our millions of
    supporters. We thank you for the support and investment in animal
    protection in the subcommittee's Fiscal Year 2024 appropriations bill.
    We appreciate your continued consideration of our priorities in Fiscal
    Year 2025 and urge you to include the following requests in the FY25
    Department of Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies bill:
    u.s. fish and wildlife service--big cat public safety act enforcement &
                           office of law enforcement
        The Big Cat Public Safety Act (Public Law 117-243) was signed into
    law on December 20, 2022. This law revises restrictions on the
    possession and exhibition of big cats, including restrictions on direct
    contact between the public and big cats. On June 12, FWS issued a
    strong interim final rule implementing the act. Numerous large cat
    species are now subject to seizure and forfeiture when possessed or
    exhibited illegally, the disposition of which will require
    collaboration with U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of
    Justice, and private sector entities to ensure proper placement and
    care.

    We urge the inclusion of the following report language:

        On June 12, 2023, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued its
    plans and regulations for implementing the Big Cat Public Safety Act
    (Public Law 117-243).

        The Service is directed to use all available enforcement tools,
    including confiscation, to quickly address violations of the law in
    order to limit harm to the public and covered big cats. The Service is
    further directed to provide a report to the Committee no later than 90
    days after enactment of this act describing any resource needs required
    to fully address this issue, expected coordination with other Federal
    agencies, State and local law enforcement and key stakeholders, and
    plans to raise public awareness on how to report violations.

        We also support and urge inclusion of the President's FY25 Budget
    request of $110.8 million, an increase of $18.94 million more than the
    FY24 enacted level, to appropriately enforce and the Big Cat Public
    Safety Act and other wildlife laws. This function is within the Office
    of Law Enforcement's Law Enforcement Operations program.
    u.s. fish and wildlife service--endangered species act implementation &
                          ecological services program
        In 1973, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) was signed into law,
    establishing science-backed national protections to recuperate
    critically threatened plant and animal populations from the brink of
    extinction. As once-common wildlife and plants are dwindling worldwide,
    and scientists warn that one million animal and plant species are
    headed toward extinction, many in the next few decades, due to habitat
    loss, climate change, wildlife exploitation, and other human-caused
    factors, the ESA continues to be one of the strongest tools the United
    States has to combat the current extinction crisis.
        Thousands of animal and plant species depend on the ESA for
    survival, yet it has been systematically and severely underfunded for
    decades. Currently, the Service only receives around one third of the
    funding needed to fully implement the act. As a result, many species
    sit in limbo, or receive funding only after declining even closer to
    extinction, when the costs of action are higher or the conservation
    options are more limited. The requested funding level of $857.32
    million will ensure every listed species receives a minimum of $101,000
    per year for recovery, allowing the ESA to be implemented the way
    Congress originally intended.
        Furthermore, we request the rejection of any policy riders
    impacting the recovery of species protected by the Endangered Species
    Act, including grizzly bears and gray wolves. Legislating ESA listing
    decisions undermines the statute itself, which vests this authority
    within Federal agencies. For over 50 years, the success of this act, a
    bedrock environmental law supported by the majority of Americans, has
    been supported by the idea that listing and delisting decisions under
    the ESA are best made by scientists and other technical experts at the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, not by Congress.
        Maintaining Endangered Species Act protections for large native
    carnivores such as grizzly bears and gray wolves is vital to the long-
    term, sustainable recovery of these species, to our Nation's interest
    in preventing the loss of vulnerable species, and to maintaining
    healthy ecosystems. Large native carnivores are particularly likely to
    be imperiled. In addition to their direct killing by poachers, trophy
    hunters, and trappers, they face many other threats, including loss of
    habitat and prey species. This is exacerbated by the fact that they
    have long reproductive cycles and produce relatively few offspring. As
    dozens of U.S. and international scientists have documented, the loss
    of top native predators such as wolves results in trophic downgrading
    and the subsequent disruption of ecosystem functions.
                 u.s. fish and wildlife service--trophy hunting
        African elephant and lion numbers have dropped steeply in the last
    decade from poaching, habitat loss, and other threats. Poorly managed
    trophy hunting exacerbates this decline. The Endangered Species Act
    requires that imports of these and other listed species enhance their
    survival. Congress previously directed FWS to reevaluate its trophy-
    import policy to this end, but the agency has not yet done so. It is
    time for FWS to show that importing African elephant and lion trophies
    helps, not harms, the species.

    We therefore urge the inclusion of the following bill language:

        None of the funds made available by this act may be used to issue a
    permit for the import of a sport-hunted trophy of an African elephant
    (Loxodonta cyclotis and Loxodonta africana) or lion (Panthera leo). The
    limitation described in this section shall not apply in the case of the
    administration of a tax or tariff.

    We also request the inclusion of the following report language:

        The Committee reiterates its concern first declared in the
    explanatory material accompanying Public Law 116-94 regarding the
    efficacy of the Service's policies for evaluating import applications
    for African elephant and lion trophies. These two species have
    undergone steep declines in the last decade, driven in part by trophy
    hunting. The FWS updated its regulations regarding the importation of
    elephant trophies in March 2024, adding some additional criteria that
    the country of origin must meet. This change does not apply to African
    lion trophies, making FWS trophy hunting regulations an inconsistent
    patchwork that do not prioritize species conservation. Furthermore, it
    remains permissible to import African elephant and lion trophies into
    the U.S., a policy that continues to harm the viability of these
    species. Therefore, the Committee includes bill language that prohibits
    the issuance of any permit for the import of a sport-hunted African
    elephant or lion.
      u.s. fish and wildlife service- office of international affairs and
                    multinational species conservation fund
        The Multinational Species Conservation Fund supports international
    conservation efforts through five congressionally established grant
    programs benefiting several of the world's most imperiled species in
    their native habitats, often in conjunction with efforts under the
    Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. We join a
    broad coalition of organizations in requesting $30 million for the MCFS
    to continue supporting the conservation of iconic species such as
    tigers, African and Asian elephants, rhinos, great apes, turtles, and
    tortoises.
        Additionally, we request $31 million for USFWS' International
    Affairs program which supports broader conservation efforts of our
    planet's rich wildlife diversity. By providing oversight of domestic
    laws and international treaties that promote the long-term conservation
    of plant and animal species by ensuring that international trade and
    other activities do not threaten their survival in the wild, the
    program is critical in building capacity for landscape-level wildlife
    conservation and stopping illegal wildlife trade.
            bureau of land management--wild horse and burro program
        To maintain the wild horse population in a humane and fiscally
    conservative manner, we, along with our partner stakeholders in the
    Path Forward for Wild Horse and Burro Management, request continued
    support for BLM's implementation of a humane, nonlethal, and effective
    program. We support a funding level of $171.917 million for the Wild
    Horse and Burro Program, an increase of $29.945 million from the FY24
    enacted level. We support directives to implement a nonlethal
    management strategy with specific attention on: increasing the use of
    fertility control, including measurable objectives in reducing
    population growth with fertility controls; targeting removals from the
    most heavily ecologically impacted and populated areas; expanding long-
    term, off-range humane holding; developing contingency plans for
    emergency situations to ensure the continuation of proactive management
    under a variety of conditions including extreme drought; and continuing
    adoptions while fully implementing and enforcing existing safeguards,
    including pre-approval of adoption applicants and postadoption
    compliance checks for adopted wild horses and burros. Additionally, we
    request that the agency act expeditiously to fill the high number of
    staff vacancies within the program.
        bureau of land management & u.s. forest service--prohibition on
                 destruction of healthy wild horses and burros
        We strongly support and urge the subcommittee to include the bill
    language requested in the President's FY25 request that bars BLM and
    USFS from sending any wild horse or burro to slaughter or selling/
    transferring any horse or burro in a manner that results in its
    destruction, and bars any federal, state, or local government that
    receives any wild horse or burro transferred from BLM or USFS from
    doing likewise.
       environmental protection agency--commitment to ending vertebrate
                                    testing
        The EPA has a history of embracing new approach methodologies
    (NAMs) that do not use animals to assess the safety of pesticides and
    chemicals. In 2019, EPA confirmed its commitment to NAMs by setting a
    goal to end reliance on mammalian testing for its regulated products by
    2035 and achieve a 30% reduction by 2025 (including tests commissioned
    in-house and that businesses must conduct). The Frank R. Lautenberg
    Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act (Public Law 114-182) included
    statutory language to reduce and ultimately end use of animals in
    toxicity testing for risk assessments of chemicals under the Toxic
    Substances Control Act.
        Non-animal approaches include cell cultures, computer modeling,
    organ-on-a-chip technologies, and other methods that are often faster,
    cheaper and more predictive of human health or environmental risks than
    animal tests. Different animal species and even differing sexes or sub-
    species can respond differently when exposed to the same chemicals. As
    a result, results from animal tests may not be relevant to humans or
    other non-target species, or may under- or over-estimate health
    hazards. NAMs, by contrast, are much more likely to provide relevant
    safety information to protect human health and the environment.
    Finally, because animal testing is time-consuming and expensive, it
    limits the number of chemicals and products that can be tested.
    Thousands of new chemicals are created every year with tens of
    thousands more already in use. Using animal tests to evaluate the human
    and environmental safety of all these chemicals would take decades to
    complete and cost millions of animal lives.

    We therefore urge the inclusion of the following report language:

        The Committee recognizes that new approach methods (NAMs) represent
    the cutting edge of toxicity testing and should be prioritized for use
    in assessing the safety of pesticides and industrial chemicals over the
    use of animals and encourages EPA to continue to fund the rapid
    development and acceptance of NAMs and eliminate requirements for
    animal testing wherever possible.

        [This statement was submitted by Tiffany Mendoza-Farfan, Senior
    Legislative Specialist, Humane Society Legislative Fund.]
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of Interstate Mining Compact Commission
        My name is Thomas L. Clarke. I serve as Executive Director of the
    Interstate Mining Compact Commission (IMCC), an interstate organization
    comprised of 26 States that together produce over 98% of the Nation's
    coal, as well as other important minerals. My address is 437 Carlisle
    Drive, Suite A, Herndon, VA 20170. My phone number is 703 709 8654. My
    email is tclarke@imcc.isa.us. We request that, at a minimum, the FY
    2021 funding level of $68.59 million be restored in the budget of the
    Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) of the
    Department of the Interior for State and Tribal regulatory grants under
    Title V of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
    (SMCRA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025. We also request that at least $65
    million be appropriated for the hardrock abandoned mine lands (AML)
    program authorized by section 40704 of the Infrastructure Investment
    and Jobs Act (IIJA) in FY 2024. Most of this funding for hardrock AML
    can come from claims maintenance fees being paid by industry under the
    General Mining Law of 1872. Currently, a portion of these fees go to
    the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), but a significant amount in excess
    of BLM's needs is going to the US Treasury. We understand that the
    Interior Department and industry both support using this money for
    hardrock AML.
        States are given exclusive jurisdiction, or ``primacy,'' over
    regulation of the environmental impacts of coal mining under Title V of
    SMCRA. The core regulatory functions under this Federal law are carried
    out by the member States of IMCC. These duties include inspection and
    enforcement, ensuring that timely reclamation occurs following mining,
    designating lands as unsuitable for mining and permitting of mining and
    reclamation activity, as mandated by SMCRA. SMCRA calls for the cost of
    coal regulatory programs to be borne equally by the States and the
    Federal Government for mining on non-federal lands. The Federal
    Government pays one hundred percent of the cost of the program on
    Federal lands.
        Primacy States are being caught in a squeeze. Congress has cut
    OSMRE's budget for regulatory grants to States and Tribes for SMCRA
    Title V Regulatory Programs twice now in the last three fiscal years.
    The FY 2024 budget cut funding to $62.4 million, down from $65 million
    in FY 2023. A cut to $65 million was made in the FY 2022 budget. In the
    FY 2021 budget, and for many years before, coal regulatory grants to
    States were funded at $68.59 million per year. At the same time these
    cuts are being made, inflation is hitting these programs hard. All the
    States' costs are increasing. Chief among them are personnel costs
    (salaries, benefits plus indirect costs paid on a per person basis),
    which comprise over 80% of the total cost of program operation.
    Competitive pay and benefits for staff are unavoidable costs. According
    to State coal program managers' estimates, personnel costs, alone, will
    be $15.8 million higher in FY 2025 than in FY 2022. Under SMCRA, the
    Federal share of the personnel cost increase is $8.9 million.
        Congress has an obligation to provide at least enough coal
    regulatory funding to States to meet the requirements SMCRA imposes on
    the Federal Government. As noted above, the Federal Government is
    supposed to pay 100% of the program cost for Federal lands and 50% of
    the program cost elsewhere. It has not been living up to these
    obligations. In the 3-year period since funding was cut in the FY 2022
    budget, States have often been required to pay more than their share of
    the program costs. The Federal Government needs to live up to its part
    of the bargain with primacy States. The total grant requests for all
    State and Tribal Title V regulatory programs combined have consistently
    exceeded $71 million. For the last five fiscal years, the total of
    State and Tribal Title V budget requests has ranged from $71 to $76
    million. These requests represent what the States believe they will
    need from the Federal Government to operate their regulatory programs
    for the year.
        Fulfilling SMCRA's Federal mandate for effective environmental
    regulation of coal mining impacts comes at quite a bargain to the
    Federal Government. Just the fact that a significant portion of the
    cost is shifted to primacy States, alone, allows the Federal Government
    to avoid these costs. In addition, the Federal Government also realizes
    significant savings by using state employees to carry out the core
    program functions because state pay scales are, for the most part,
    lower than those of the Federal Government. With personnel costs being
    the biggest single category of Title V program expense (over eighty
    percent (80%) of the total cost of program operation), the States'
    lower personnel cost is another feature of state regulation that makes
    it cost-effective. If you compare the cost of operating any State's
    program under SMCRA per ton of coal produced to what the Federal
    Government spends to operate a Federal coal regulatory program in the
    State of Tennessee, you will find what a true bargain state
    implementation of SMCRA is. If State coal regulatory programs become
    ineffective because they are starved for funding, the only alternative
    is to replace them with Federal regulatory programs, which will be far
    more costly to the Federal Government than simply providing adequate
    funding for the States.
        It is no secret that coal production in America has declined.
    Instead of simplifying the regulatory challenge for States, the effect
    of this decline has been the opposite. The challenge of effectively
    regulating the environmental impacts of an industry in decline is much
    greater than when its markets were robust. Not only do States have the
    challenge of gaining compliance from mine operators who face declining
    and disappearing revenue, they also have the challenge of navigating
    their way through complex, high-stakes bankruptcies. Meanwhile, the
    number of permits that States must inspect has not declined at anywhere
    close to the falling rate of coal production. In addition, each
    individual coal mine continues to require inspection and enforcement,
    ensuring that timely reclamation occurs, and permitting for revisions
    to reclamation activities, as mandated by SMCRA throughout the multi-
    year liability period. In many instances the regulatory workload may
    increase once production decreases or ceases altogether. Adequate
    funding to protect people and the environment from the adverse impacts
    of coal mining is more important than ever. Appropriation of adequate
    funding for State regulatory programs is essential if these programs
    are to achieve the objectives Congress established for them.
        A forward-looking observation that should be made concerns the
    potential impact of actions to eliminate emissions of greenhouse gases.
    A foreseeable collateral impact of greenhouse gas regulation may be
    reduction or elimination of revenue from the coal industry many States
    have been using to pay for their state share of the cost of SMCRA Title
    V regulatory programs. If this happens, the States are likely to need a
    significant increase in the Federal Government's share of regulatory
    program funding to make up the difference. In the aftermath of any
    significant new regulation of greenhouse gas emissions, well-funded
    State regulatory programs will be essential to the effort to
    effectively address the environmental impacts of existing mines.
        Clear indications from Congress that reliable, consistent funding
    will continue will do much to stimulate support for these programs by
    State legislatures and budget officers who, in the face of difficult
    fiscal climates and constraints, have had to deal with the challenge of
    matching Federal grant dollars with state funds. This is particularly
    true for those States whose match is partially based on fees from the
    mining industry, where significant reductions in mining and permitting
    activity translate to lower revenue, but not necessarily a
    corresponding reduction in the volume of regulatory work for State
    agencies.
        For all the above reasons, IMCC urges Congress to approve not less
    than $68.59 million for State and Tribal Title V regulatory grants in
    FY 2025, the same amount enacted by Congress in recent fiscal years
    through FY 2021. In doing so, Congress will continue to fulfill its
    obligation to ensure the States have the resources they need to
    continue their work on the forefront of environmental protection and
    preservation of public health and safety.
        In addition to the States' funding needs under Title V of SMCRA,
    there are some other issues on which the Committee's attention may be
    beneficial. First, an OSMRE rule that takes effect on May 9, 2024,
    makes radical changes that totally redefine the federal-state
    relationship, contrary to the letter and spirit of the law. Primacy
    States are granted ``exclusive'' regulatory jurisdiction. OSMRE has no
    direct authority in a primacy State over permitting, enforcement or any
    other matter. OSMSRE retains two main types of authority: (1) to
    conduct oversight of the States' efforts; and (2) to notify a State of
    a potential violation by a mine operator (a ``Ten Day Notice'' or
    ``TDN'') so the State can take appropriate action. The new rule
    effectively merges these two processes by redefining and expanding the
    term ``violation'' to include anything OSMRE does not like about the
    way the State is operating its program. Thus, the new rule transforms
    the TDN process from its statutory purpose (correction of violations by
    mine operators) into an enforcement mechanism for OSMRE's use in
    regulating the State, itself. Any distinction between the separate TDN
    and oversight processes is eliminated. There is no limit on the number
    of Ten Day Notices OSMRE can issue. Authority to issue a barrage of
    TDNs completely abrogates the ``exclusive'' regulatory authority States
    are supposed to enjoy. By caprice, OSMRE has seized authority Congress
    withheld from it and gave to the States. This cannot be allowed.
        Second, OSMRE has plans to adopt a rule regulating emergency action
    plans (EAPs) for coal related dams as well as related implementation
    procedures for EAPs. One problem with this plan is that OSMRE has zero
    statutory authority to intrude into this area. Another problem is that
    it is an intrusion on the authority of 49 of the 50 States that already
    have state laws, independent of SMCRA, governing EAPs for all dams, not
    just those that are coal related. EAPs establish the procedures for
    notifying the public and actions to be taken in the event of a dam
    safety emergency. Having two sets of potentially conflicting rules on
    this subject can only result in confusion as to what should happen in
    the event a real emergency occurs, which could be very dangerous. This
    is a solution in search of a problem OSMRE has no business pursuing.
        Third, until 3 years ago, OSMRE met with States at least twice
    every year and provided a detailed briefing on where the States stood
    in utilization of the funds Congress appropriated for regulatory
    program grants under Title V of SMCRA. During these meetings, OSMRE
    accounted for all funds appropriated by Congress for these purposes.
    Despite many State requests to resume these discussions over the last
    three plus years, OSMRE has yet to provide this transparency. OSMRE has
    this information but has been unwilling to share it. This information
    is extremely useful to the States in wisely managing their program
    finances, which is now more important than ever following two cuts in
    Title V funding over the last 3 years. OSMRE needs to account to
    Congress and the States for the disposition of all funds appropriated
    for Title V grants since 2019. It also needs to be encouraged to resume
    financial briefings with the States like those it held in the past, so
    States do not remain in the dark as to what has happened with the US
    taxpayers' funds Congress appropriated for State use.
        In addition to the Committee's consideration of our funding
    requests, we urge the Committee to, through report language or
    otherwise:

        1. Prohibit OSMRE from spending any money to implement the new TDN
    rule.

        2. Prohibit OSMRE from spending any money to promulgate an EAP rule
    for dams.

        3. Require, as a condition of funding provided to OSMRE, that it:

        (a) account for the disposition of all funds appropriated for State
    Title V grants from FY 2019 forward, and

        (b) be required to meet with State Title V program managers twice
    per year and provide a complete, transparent breakdown on utilization
    of Title V funds.

        With regard to funding for State Title IV Abandoned Mine Land (AML)
    program grants, in FY 2025, the States and Tribes should receive the
    mandatory appropriation (before sequestration) under the pre-existing
    AML Title IV program as well as grant amounts set under Section 40701
    of the IIJA. We also support appropriation of $135 million for the AML
    economic revitalization (AMLER) program for economic and community
    development goals. IMCC very strongly supports direct payment of money
    appropriated for the AMLER program to States and Tribes within 90 days
    of enactment, as the FY 24 budget required. IMCC also supports funding
    for watershed cooperative agreements at $1.5 million.
        Section 40704 of the IIJA authorized a multi-year $3 billion
    hardrock AML program that would provide badly needed grants to States
    and Tribes to address the legacy hazards of non-coal mining.
    Unfortunately, the appropriation necessary to make this program a
    reality was omitted from the IIJA. Appropriations for FY 2022 through
    2024 have only supplied $5 million per year for the program, with only
    $1.7 million per year targeted to State grants. IMCC appreciates that
    demand for Federal funding is great, but much more is needed for this
    program to make meaningful progress in eliminating legacy mining
    hazards. The amounts in the Administration's proposed budgets for FY
    2022 and 2023, $65 million per year, would be a good start. We urge you
    to appropriate at least this amount for the IIJA Section 40704 hardrock
    AML program in FY 2025. As noted above, funding for most of this is
    available from fees being paid by industry.
        We appreciate the opportunity to submit this statement on OSMRE's
    budget for FY 2025. We also endorse the statement of the National
    Association of Abandoned Mine Land Programs (NAAMLP), which goes into
    greater detail regarding the implications of OSMRE funding for the
    States and Tribes related to the AML program, as well as hardrock AML
    funding needs. We would be happy to answer any questions.

        [This statement was submitted by Thomas L. Clarke, Executive
    Director, Interstate Mining Compact Commission.]
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of InterTribal Buffalo Council
                          introduction and background
        Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski and distinguished
    members of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on the Interior,
    Environment and Related Agencies, my name is Ervin Carlson, and I am a
    member of the Blackfeet Nation in Montana and serve as the President of
    the InterTribal Buffalo Council (ITBC). I greatly appreciate the
    opportunity to provide testimony to the members of this subcommittee.
    My testimony primarily involves funding requests from the Department of
    the lnterior (DOI) (specifically the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA)),
    but funding could also be obtained from the National Park Service
    (NPS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Indian Health
    Service (IHS).
        ITBC was granted a Federal charter in 2009 pursuant to Section 17
    of the [Indian Reorganization Act and is comprised of eighty-three
    federally recognized Indian Tribes in twenty-one States now with over
    sixty buffalo herds. The combined membership of the ITBC Tribes is
    approximately 1,000,000 Indian people.
        American Indians have a long-standing spiritual and cultural
    connection with buffalo that has not diminished with the passage of
    time. Historically, buffalo provided the Tribes with food, shelter,
    clothing, and essential tools for survival. The near extinction of
    buffalo was analogous to the tragic history of American Indians in this
    country. However, today's efforts at restoring buffalo on Tribal lands,
    largely through the efforts of ITBC, signifies survival of the revered
    Tribal buffalo culture. ITBC Member Tribes strive to restore buffalo to
    Tribal lands to rekindle the cultural, traditional, and spiritual
    relationship between buffalo and Tribes and to utilize buffalo to
    promote the health, and economic well-being of Tribal populations.
        On behalf of the Member Tribes of ITBC, I am requesting an
    appropriation of $17 million which is a definite increase over the $1.4
    million we are presently receiving from the Department of Interior for
    funds to allow the organization to: 1) increase funds for the Tribal
    herd development grant program to sustain and grow Tribal buffalo
    herds, 2) to fund ITBC efforts to serve as a meaningful buffalo
    management partner to Federal agencies, and 3) to fund scientific
    research on the benefits of buffalo meat for the prevention and
    treatment of diet related diseases. The majority of this requested
    amount comes from totaling the requests for herd development funds from
    our member Tribes. We have been receiving funding in the vicinity of $1
    million for years despite growing from a dozen Tribes to 83 Tribes.
    Clearly, we are not able to make the types of transfers our members
    would like and need to establish or sustain herds.
                                funding history
        ITBC has been funded through various methods from the Department of
    Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs including the President's budget,
    Congressional earmarks, or administrative action since 1992. ITBC's
    funding history illustrates Congressional and Administrative support
    for ITBC's restoration and management program and the Tribal buffalo
    herds. Annual funding of ITBC provides evidence that buffalo
    restoration and management is not a limited or one-time ``project'' but
    a ``recurring program.'' ITBC has most recently been funded from the
    BIA, Natural Resources, Tribal Management/Development Program line
    item.
        The ITBC has worked for several years on the Indian Buffalo
    Management Act to create a permanent buffalo restoration and management
    program in the Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs. This
    act would authorize an annual appropriation for Tribal buffalo programs
    and allow ITBC to expand technical services to its member Tribes. The
    Indian Buffalo Management Act was originally introduced by
    Representatives Don Young, Deb Haaland, Tom Cole, and others and passed
    the House in 2021. It was more recently introduced by Senators Martin
    Heinrich, Markwayne Mullin, Jon Tester, and Dan Sullivan in this
    Congress (S. 2908). The House companion bill from Congressman Doug
    LaMalfa, Mary Peltola and others was reported out of the House
    Committee on Natural Resources in March. The Department of Interior has
    testified in favor of the bill during both Republican and Democratic
    administrations.
                    federal commitment to traditional foods
        At the request of the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian
    Affairs, ITBC prepared a written comparison of the funding provided to
    Tribal fish commissions and the funding provided ITBC, primarily due to
    the fact both entities were funded out of the same line items of the
    Department of Interior budgets. This analysis of public records,
    historical documents and case law revealed that seven fish commissions
    receive Federal funding in an amount exceeding $140 million annually
    from various Federal agencies at the Department of Interior, the
    Department of Commerce, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The
    seven fish commissions cover 52 Tribes over 12 States, and an
    approximate population of 525,000 enrolled Tribal members. A single
    fish commission employs 10 times the staff we do and operates two
    additional offices. We don't begrudge these Tribes or the funding they
    receive. It is clearly deserved and needed but the comparison to the
    buffalo Tribes is stark.
        The level of Federal funding to fish commissions is largely due to
    the well-known Boldt decision that awarded fishing Tribes co-management
    authority over salmon with the States, access to half of the returning
    fish each year, and declared the security of Indian fishing rights was
    a trust obligation of the United States. While the Boldt decision
    focused on Tribal access to fish, the ruling supports all American
    Indians having a right to their traditional foods. This decision
    supports an argument that the Federal Government's trust responsibility
    extends to the return of buffalo to Tribes.
        Article XI of the 1868 Treaty of Fort Laramie guarantees Tribes
    access to buffalo ``so long as buffalo may range.'' Unfortunately like
    many other treaty provisions, the Federal Government has failed to live
    up to this promise. Recently, the United States Supreme Court examine
    the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty and upheld Tribal off-reservation hunting
    rights in the Herrera decision. Adequate funding for Tribal buffalo
    restoration provides an opportunity for the Federal Government to honor
    the 1868 Treaty language and a commitment for Tribes to access a
    traditional food source.
        An increase in funding to ITBC will enhance the necessary
    infrastructure to provide buffalo to a larger segment of the Indian
    community. This in turn will Lead to greater self-determination and
    food-sovereignty opportunities for Tribes through production of their
    own traditional foods and creation of economic opportunities. I
    respectfully request an increase in the Tribal Management and
    Development Program and the Fish, Wildlife, and Parks and Natural
    Resources Tribal Priority Allocation Programs in the BIA. The
    subcommittee may also consider using programs in the NPS and USFWS to
    increase the allocations for buffalo restoration and management
    involving the InterTribal Buffalo Council. We do routinely provide an
    important service to the National Parks who have herds of buffalo. When
    those Parks reach their carrying capacity they call ITBC, and we round
    up and transport identified buffalo from them (obviating the culling of
    those herds). We then find Tribes who want to take those buffalo, so we
    transport them, presently at no cost to the National Park involved.
                         funding increase justification
        ITBC's primary objectives are to restore buffalo to Tribal lands,
    and to sustain, conserve and manage existing Tribal herds through the
    promotion of traditional buffalo handling practices and beliefs. ITBC
    strives to aid Tribes to meet the needs and desires of individual
    Tribal programs. ITBC attempts to balance the varying interests of
    Member Tribes from maintaining herds for spiritual purposes to
    utilizing buffalo as viable economic development endeavors. ITBC
    accomplishes these objectives as follows:
                    increase in herd development grant funds
        ITBC distributes $1,000,000 of its funding directly to ITBC Member
    Tribes via Herd Development Grants (HDG). The HDG funding has been
    stagnant despite the continued growth of the Tribal membership of the
    organization. In FY 2025, unmet needs for ITBC members exceeded $17
    million based upon the exigent needs of Tribal buffalo herd managers.
    ITBC members use these funds for a variety of purposes including water
    development, range management, fence construction and repair, corrals,
    purchasing handling equipment, supplemental feed, and administrative
    costs. These funds will create new jobs in Indian Country, create
    sustainable Tribal buffalo herds, and allow Tribes to utilize buffalo
    for economic development. I am requesting an increase of $15,600,000 to
    provide ITBC members with this desperately needed aid.
                    funding for federal agency partnerships
        ITBC is a member of various Federal and State working groups
    organized to address buffalo issues. ITBC collaborates with NPS, the
    U.S. Forest Service, and the USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection
    Service regarding Yellowstone buffalo. ITBC provides critical
    transportation for translocation of Yellowstone buffalo to Tribal
    lands. However, ITBC cannot participate to its full potential and serve
    as a meaningful partner due to a lack of funding for these
    collaborative efforts.
        Since its inception, ITBC has partnered with the NPS on buffalo
    management efforts including population management through roundups and
    distribution of buffalo to Tribes. Badlands, Theodore Roosevelt, and
    Wind Cave National Parks have surplus buffalo that need to be moved
    from the parks to ensure that those ecosystems remain intact. This also
    allows NPS to avoid slaughtering these surplus buffalo which negates
    likely public outcry with needless slaughters. ITBC bears the costs of
    transporting these surplus buffalo but has not been funded for its role
    in these activities. Additionally, the USFWS does not provide funding
    programs to Tribes for buffalo restoration efforts. I would request the
    Committee appropriate funds to support ITBC's role in protecting NPS's
    wildlife and provide buffalo restoration in the USFWS in the amount of
    $2,000,000.
               health related research and school lunch programs
        ITBC has a long-term objective to prevent and treat diet related
    diseases in Native populations through the reintroduction of buffalo
    meat into daily diets. ITBC has eight Member Tribes serving Tribal
    raised buffalo in their school lunch programs to address health
    concerns of school-age children. ITBC anticipates expanding this
    program to 20 Tribes in the next 3 years with increased funding.
    However, these efforts to coordinate with health care providers have
    been limited by the lack of scientific evidence of the health benefits
    of natural, grass-fed buffalo diets. ITBC believes research to develop
    concrete evidence of these health benefits will facilitate ITBC
    partnerships with health programs to prevent and treat diet related
    diseases in Native populations. This critical research will support
    ITBC's efforts to provide buffalo meat to school lunch programs as a
    healthy alternative to other meat products. ITBC wants to partner with
    IHS to fund this research to promote traditional, healthy Tribal diets.
    I am requesting $100,000 to promote and fund this research.
                 technical assistance, education, and outreach
        ITBC assesses current and potential Tribal buffalo programs to
    determine technical service and infrastructure needs. After this
    assessment, ITBC then provides technical assistance in the areas of
    wildlife management, ecological management, range management, buffalo
    health, cultural practices, and economic development. Further, ITBC
    assists with construction of fencing and corrals, facility design,
    water development, and equipment research. ITBC provides annual
    training sessions (national and regional) designed to enhance Tribal
    buffalo handling and management. However, current funding levels do not
    allow ITBC to be responsive to the needs of the growing ITBC
    Membership. ITBC only has two technical services providers which limits
    the frequency our member-Tribes receive this support. The hiring of
    more technical services providers would assist Tribes with reaching
    goals of self-sufficient herds.
        Additionally, ITBC staff provide educational presentations to
    school-age youth, Tribal buffalo managers, and others. The topics of
    these presentations range from buffalo restoration, conservation
    efforts, and the historical, cultural relationship between buffalo and
    American Indians. However, current funding limits outreach, educational
    efforts, and staff training. Additional funding in the amount of
    $500,000 would allow more American Indian youth to benefit from the
    important history of buffalo and Tribal.
                                   conclusion
        ITBC has existed for over three decades to assist Tribes with
    restoration of buffalo to Tribal lands for cultural purposes. No other
    program exists to assist Tribes with buffalo restoration and
    protection. ITBC and its Member Tribes have created a new Indian
    Reservation industry that includes job creation and new revenue for the
    Tribal economies. ITBC ultimately hopes to restore Tribal herds large
    enough to support local Tribal health needs and generate sufficient
    revenue to achieve economically self-sufficient herds.
        ITBC and its Member Tribes are appreciative of past and current
    support from Congress and the Administration. However, I urge the
    Committee to increase ITBC funding to a total of $17,000,000 which is a
    level commensurate with the growth of the Tribal Buffalo Programs and
    other Tribal wildlife programs. This increase will demonstrate
    Congressional respect for the National mammal and allow ITBC to fulfill
    its responsibilities to restore, protect, and manage buffalo.
        I would like to thank this Committee for the opportunity to present
    testimony and I invite you to visit ITBC Tribal buffalo projects and
    experience firsthand their successes. Questions and/or comments
    regarding any of the issues presented within this testimony may be
    directed to Mr. Ervin Carlson, President, Troy Heinert, Executive
    Director, and/or to Ms. Majel Russell, Legal Counsel, at (406) 259-
    8611. ITBC's office is located at 520 Kansas City Street, Suite 300,
    Rapid City, SD 57701.

        [This statement was submitted by Ervin Carlson, President,
    InterTribal Buffalo Council.]
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
        On behalf of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, I am pleased to submit
    this written testimony on our funding priorities and requests for the
    Fiscal Year 2025 Department of the Interior (DOI) U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS), Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and Indian
    Health Service (IHS) budgets.
        The following investments will strengthen Tribal nation-building
    and support our goal of self-sufficiency:

         tribal funding priority--u.s. fish and wildlife service (fws)
        1. $1 Million for the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe's Co-Management/Co-
    Stewardship of the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge

        2. Amend the Appropriations Act's Contract Support Cost (CSC)
    Provision for Non-BIA Agreements
           tribal funding priorities--bureau of indian affairs (bia)
        1. $36.6 Million to Fully Fund and Expand the TIWAHE Initiative

        2. $177.018 Million Increase Funding for Top Ten Tribal Priority
    Allocations (TPA) and Recurring Base Funding
             tribal funding priorities--indian health service (ihs)
        1. $383.64 Million increase over FY2024 enacted to Support Current
    Services

        2. $10.26 Billion for Purchased & Referred Care
    tribal and national funding priorities--bureau of indian affairs (bia),
     bureau of indian education (bie), and the indian health service (ihs)
        1. Advanced Appropriations for Tribal Programs and Services

        2. Mandatory Funding for Contract Support Costs (CSC) and Section
    105(l) Leases

        3. Ensure Agencies are Sufficiently Staffed to Carryout Trust and
    Treaty Obligations
        Funding for Tribal Nations accounts for approximately 1.16% of the
    entire Federal budget despite mandatory Federal trust and treaty
    obligations. Since Tribal programs and services are funded with non-
    defense discretionary appropriations, the funding levels are severely
    deficient and unable to address our Tribal communities' unmet needs;
    and these unfulfilled Federal obligations continue to grow
    exponentially on an annual basis. As a result, American Indians and
    Alaska Natives (AI/AN) continue to rank near the bottom of all
    Americans in terms of health, education, and employment status. These
    harrowing statistics and funding inequities demand a shift in the
    current governmental appropriations paradigm not only because it is the
    right thing to do but because it fails to align with the legally
    enforceable fiduciary obligation on the part of the United States to
    protect Tribal treaty rights, lands, resources, and assets.
        Congress can take proactive steps to empower Tribal governments,
    and strengthen Tribal economies, and Indian communities by enacting
    measures that respect Tribal sovereignty and are truly reflective of
    the Government-to-Government relationship. First and foremost, expand
    Tribal Self-Governance and Self-Determination across the Federal
    system. Self-Governance generates a larger return on the Federal
    investment and allows for maximum flexibility and better programmatic
    outcomes at the local level. It is the most effective policy for the
    economic vitality of Tribal Nations and has proven successful in
    helping Tribal Nations rebuild, grow, and thrive.
        Other measures Congress can adopt to aid in the promotion of Tribal
    Nation Building and self-sufficiency include, providing mandatory
    funding for all Tribal programs and services, requiring the
    Administration to submit on an annual basis the total cost to fully
    fund trust and treaty obligations, provide direct funding to Tribes,
    demolish funding silos and create a legal mechanism to allow funding
    from all sources to be combined and allocated through Self-Governance
    compacts, increase funding for Tribal priority allocations and other
    recurring base programs, and ensure there are Tribal set asides for
    every funding opportunity.
         tribal funding priority--u.s. fish and wildlife service (fws)
        $1 Million Dollars--U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--Jamestown
    S'Klallam Tribe's Co-Management/Co-Stewardship of the Dungeness
    National Wildlife Refuge--Our Tribe requests a Federal investment of
    one million dollars to support our Co-Management/Co-Stewardship
    Agreement with the U.S. FWS. This funding will support a range of
    critical services and ensure the health and vitality of our ancestral
    homelands, the Dungeness National Wildlife Refuge (DNWR). The Tribe's
    ability to undertake this co-management role is unquestioned and is
    evidenced by the primary role the Tribe has and continues to play in
    habitat preservation, conservation, and environmental stewardship of
    our ancestral homelands, traditional waterways, and resources.
        Amend the Appropriations Act Contract Support Cost (CSC) Provision
    for Non-BIA Agreements--We urge Congress to amend the Appropriations
    Act Contract Support Cost (CSC) provision to allow Tribes to fully
    realize the intent of the Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act (ISDEAA) and address the structural impediments that
    hinder Tribal-Federal Co/Management/Co-Stewardship Agreements with land
    management agencies within the Department of the Interior (DOI). The
    ISDEAA requires full payment of CSC for administrative and overhead
    costs associated with implementation of contracted and compacted
    programs, services, functions, or activities (PSFAs). However, at
    present, the indefinite CSC appropriation is only available to the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE)
    and other DOI agencies/bureaus must pay CSC out of programmatic
    dollars, leaving less funding for land management functions. This
    inconsistency undermines the intent of the ISDEAA and discourages
    Tribal-Federal co-management agreements. Congress can alleviate the
    incongruent interpretations of the ISDEAA and ensure consistent
    application of the law across DOI by amending the current language by
    deleting ``Bureau of Indian Affairs and Bureau of Indian Education''
    and replacing it with Department of the Interior.
           tribal funding priorities--bureau of indian affairs (bia)
        $36.6 Million to Fully Fund and Expand the TIWAHE Initiative--The
    TIWAHE Initiative, established in 2015, fosters a dynamic approach to
    the delivery of services by embracing the Self-Governance/Self-
    Determination service delivery model that has proven successful in
    enhancing the health and well-being of Tribal families and communities.
    Current funding levels support 10 (10) demonstration sites,
    representing sixty-five (65) Tribes. BIA's one time funding opportunity
    this past year allowed for planning grants for an additional 12 (12)
    TIWAHE Incubator Tribes seeking to become demonstration sites.
    Jamestown is one of the Tribes that was selected to participate as an
    incubator Tribe. We used the TIWAHE planning funding to create a
    synergistic model for the delivery of programs and services that better
    align with our community customs, values, and traditions.
        Adopting a coordinated approach that is grounded in Tribal values
    and principles leads to better outcomes at the local level. TIWAHE
    provides Tribes greater flexibility to build social service
    infrastructure that functions as all-inclusive and is responsive to
    addressing a broad range of issues such as poverty, substance abuse,
    domestic violence, youth suicide and other related issues. We are
    confident an additional investment of $36.6 million in the TIWAHE
    program will prove successful in promoting the development of
    prosperous, resilient, and self-sufficient Tribal communities.
        $177.018 Million Increase Funding for Top Ten Tribal Priority
    Allocations (TPA) and Recurring Base Funding--Tribal Priority
    Allocations (TPA) and Recurring Programs are consistently identified as
    funding priorities by the Tribal Interior Budget Council (TIBC) because
    they provide core funding that supports critical government programs
    and services. Flexibility in the use of funds to support local needs is
    an important aspect of this funding. TPA and Recurring Program funding
    provides security and certainty for Tribes rather than funding provided
    through grant dollars. There has been a growing trend among agencies to
    fund Tribal programs and services with grant dollars rather than
    providing base and recurring funding. Grant funding is incongruent with
    the trust and treaty obligations and Tribal Self-Governance.
             tribal funding priorities--indian health service (ihs)
        $383.64 Million increase over FY2024 enacted to Increase Support
    for Current Services
        The Federal trust obligation requires significant investment in
    Tribal healthcare systems. To maintain current services, factors such
    as the inflationary rate, pay costs, contract support costs, population
    growth and staffing needs for recently constructed facilities all need
    to be fully funded. When these mandatory factors are not funded, Tribes
    must supplement programs with their own limited revenue, or chose
    between limiting services or shutting down services completely.
        $10.26 Billion Purchased and Referred Care (PRC)--PRC funds are
    used to purchase essential health care services, including inpatient
    and outpatient care, routine emergency ambulatory care, transportation,
    and medical support services, such as diagnostic imaging, physical
    therapy, laboratory, nutrition, and pharmacy services. PRC funds are
    extremely important to the Portland Area Tribes because the Portland
    Area lacks hospitals and specialty care centers, so Tribes in the
    Northwest are forced to turn to the private sector to fulfill this
    need.
    tribal and national funding priorities--bureau of indian affairs (bia),
     bureau of indian education (bie), and the indian health service (ihs)
        $8.74 billion Behavioral Health Mental and Alcohol and Substance
    Abuse -The Jamestown Healing Clinic provides a holistic approach to
    treatment for those who suffer from opioid use disorder through the
    provision of wrap-around services, to include, primary care, dental
    services, transportation to and from the clinic, employment, housing,
    and other associated needs.
        Advance Appropriations for Tribal Programs and Services--Providing
    appropriations 1 year in advance for the BIA, BIE and IHS will mitigate
    the adverse financial effects of Federal budgetary uncertainties and
    allow Tribes to engage in more effective strategic planning, spend
    funds more efficiently, grow our Tribal economies and businesses and
    increase the quality of care and well-being of our Tribal citizens and
    community. Tribal Nations are resilient but the continuous delays and/
    or lapse in Federal appropriations continues to disrupt the execution
    of Tribal government operations. The Federal Government has a legal and
    moral obligation to make sure that funding for trust and treaty
    obligations is not delayed. Time is of the essence when it comes to the
    survival of our people, our language, our culture, our homelands and
    resources and our sovereignty. Advance appropriation is a budgetary
    solution that does not impact spending caps and allows Tribes to
    continue to provide critical services.
        Reclassify Discretionary Spending for Section 105(l) Leases and
    Contract Support Costs to Mandatory--The agencies are legally required
    to compensate Tribes for Section 105(l) lease obligations and contract
    support costs (CSC) in accordance with the ISDEAA, but these
    obligations have grown tremendously since their inception. As far back
    as 2014, Congress acknowledged that obligations of this nature are
    typically addressed under mandatory appropriations because they have
    the potential to impact other programs. Separate, indefinite accounts
    were established to support Section105(l) leases and CSC but have
    resulted in the unintended reduction of funding for critical Tribal
    programs. Reclassifying mandatory funding for CSC and 105(l) leases is
    needed to prevent programmatic decreases.
        Ensure Agencies are Sufficiently Staffed to Carryout Trust and
    Treaty Obligations--Retention and recruitment of staff continues to be
    a challenge for our Federal Agency partners. The Federal Government
    must have competitive hiring packages and effective and efficient
    recruitment practices in place. The impacts of an understaffed
    workforce trickle down to the Tribal level with severe consequences--
    funding distribution is delayed, and the processing of paperwork and
    other essential transactions impede Tribal programs and services. In
    addition, many of the Agencies, such as the BIA have taken on
    additional responsibilities associated with the number of new
    initiatives to include 477, Missing and Murdered, TIWAHE, 105(l)
    Leases, Federal Indian Boarding School, and others requiring additional
    staff and funding.
        The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe continues to support the requests and
    recommendations of our Regional and National Indian Organizations.
    Thank you.

        [This statement was submitted by Hon. W. Ron Allen, Tribal
    Chairman/CEO, Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe.]
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of Johnson County Department of Health and
                                  Environment
        Our country's programs to reduce air pollution have been a
    tremendous success but, despite nationwide progress, air pollution
    still causes tens of thousands of early deaths in America and is a
    serious public health problem resulting in negative health impacts to
    millions every year. We are requesting your support to address this
    significant problem.
        Johnson County Department of Health and Environment (JCDHE) and
    other State and local clean air agencies across the country are charged
    with running the essential air quality programs that protect public
    health. Unfortunately, these programs have been underfunded for many
    years and need significant increases in resources. To meet current and
    expected obligations, we ask that Congress provide $500 million in
    Section 103 and 105 (Clean Air Act) Federal grants to State and local
    air agencies in FY 2025 to support current programs and new challenges
    and allow flexibility for State and local air agencies to use Federal
    grants for their highest priority needs. As much as possible, these
    grant increases should not require matching funds (e.g., providing
    funding under Section 103 authority, which does not call for a match).
        Federal grant funding under Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air
    Act, which support State and local clean air and climate agencies, has
    been essentially flatlined for nearly 20 years, despite many new
    regulations and requirements. These grants have not even kept pace with
    inflation, while our programs have become more costly and complex.
    Continued shortfalls in Federal funding will leave communities at risk
    and will result in cuts to existing programs, just as climate change
    and air pollution are exacerbated. For example, here in Kansas, the
    Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) and the two local
    programs have suffered through staffing issues that have impacted
    service to industry, particularly in permitting. Stagnant funding has
    resulted in personnel seeking better paying positions at Federal or
    private institutions with which KDHE can't compete. Management in turn,
    is burdened with continuously filling vacancies and training rather
    than focusing on program responsibilities and protecting public health.
        Additional funds would be used nationally for important efforts,
    such as advancing new programs and expanding existing clean air efforts
    that protect vulnerable communities; supporting pollution detection and
    visualization through air monitors and sensors; supporting small
    business programs; and addressing climate change with activities that
    include planning, monitoring, permitting, enforcement, adaptation and
    resilience. JCDHE would continue close collaboration with KDHE to
    overcome the multiple challenges non-attainment with the fine
    particulate matter standard is expected to bring to the Kansas City
    metropolitan area.
        We work hard to improve air quality, but sufficient Federal funding
    is critical. Please ensure that Federal grants to State and local air
    quality agencies under Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act are
    increased to $500 million in FY 2025. I would be glad to answer any
    questions you have or provide more information. Thank you for any
    assistance you can offer.

        [This statement was submitted by D. Charles Hunt, M.P.H. Director
    and Rollin Sachs, Environmental Specialist-Air Quality.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa
                                    Indians
        Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify on behalf of the
    Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians concerning the
    Tribe's FY 2025 funding needs primarily in the BIA, IHS, and EPA
    accounts. The Tribe is located in northern Wisconsin. Our 144 square
    mile reservation lies in Vilas, Iron, and Oneida Counties. The name of
    our Tribe means ``Lake of the Torches'' and derives from our ancestors'
    practice of harvesting fish at night by torchlight. Nearly half of our
    reservation is water with 260 lakes, 65 miles of streams, rivers, and
    lakes.
        Thank you for your bipartisan support of Tribes and for educating
    your colleagues on the needs of Tribal governments and the government-
    to-government relationship between the United States and Indian Tribes.
    The Chippewa bands to which we belong entered into many treaties with
    the United States. Our ancestors forever ceded territory to the Federal
    Government, but reserved the right to hunt, fish, and gather food in
    the ceded territory.
        Our Tribal citizens live close to the land, Waaswaagoning, our
    homeland. We harvest fish, operate a fish hatchery, cultivate wild
    rice, and hunt deer and other game. For that reason, protection of our
    waters, lands, air, wildlife, and vegetation are critical to the health
    of our citizens. These resources are at risk from pollution,
    contaminants such as PFAS ``forever'' chemicals, mercury, and chronic
    wasting disease that endanger our citizen's health.
        Our enrollment is over 4,400 members and as a rural, remote
    Wisconsin reservation, our Tribal government is the first responder for
    so many needs. We operate the ``Lake of the Torches Casino,'' provide
    jobs, and generate revenues from tourism and other Tribal enterprises.
    Despite being the largest employer in Vilas County, Wisconsin,
    according to the most recent HUD data (FY 2024), there are 725 Native
    families on our reservation whose family income ranges from less than
    30% Median Family Income to 80% of Median Family Income. The U.S.
    Census Bureau lists Median Family Income on our Reservation as $51,742
    (2022). That means that these Tribal families earn less than $15,222--
    $41,394 annually. This imposes great hardships on these families and
    the Tribe.
        Increase FY 2025 funding for BIA Law Enforcement and Pub. L. 280
    Court accounts--I will be blunt. Annual Federal appropriations to the
    BIA Public Safety & Justice account and Pub. L. 280 Tribal Court
    accounts are insufficient to address the immediate and urgent needs of
    rural, remote Tribal communities for public safety officers and Tribal
    Courts. In FY 2024, Congress appropriated $274 million for BIA Criminal
    Investigations and Police Services, and $21 million for the Pub. L. 280
    Tribal Court program, the same funding levels as FY 2023. As you
    consider the FY 2025 budget, I ask this subcommittee to consider the
    great unmet need we face for public safety services and Tribal Court
    needs and prioritize these accounts for increases.
        There are three significant community safety issues in our
    community: 1) a fentanyl epidemic and with it; 2) an increase in mental
    health crises; and 3) the emergence of human trafficking (MMIP). Our
    Police Department sees a direct correlation between the presence of
    fentanyl and offenses such as child abuse/neglect, elder abuse,
    domestic violence, sex trafficking and property crimes.
        We began to see heroin use in 2018 that has now transitioned to
    fentanyl alone or meth/fentanyl combined. Of the nine law enforcement
    agencies in the surrounding jurisdictions, Tribal law enforcement
    incidents and service calls are much higher than any other
    jurisdiction. From 2020 to 2023, the Tribe's Police Department averaged
    6,000 calls per year and the trend is increasing. From 2018 through
    2023, our Police Department made a total of 2,062 arrests; of those 706
    or one-third were for meth. While meth arrests are down, heroin/
    fentanyl drug arrests are increasing.
        Fentanyl overdoses are common and officers must use several Narcan/
    naloxone to revive users who have strong addictions. For non-Indian
    offenders, our officers must drive off-reservation to county detention
    facilities. Thus, the two patrol officers/12-hour shift are reduced
    because an officer is driving off-reservation.
        About 50% of Tribal Police arrests involve drugs, yet we only have
    7 Full-Time Patrol Officers, 2 Sergeants, 1 Chief of Police, and 1
    Detective, 1 part-time Detective Canine Officer, and 2 administrators.
    Our Tribal Police Department should be twice its size. Vilas County has
    a police force of 39 and Oneida Country has a police force of 36.
        We also see an increase in the number of welfare investigations
    (welfare checks) the Tribe performs. These checks are for well-being,
    suicide threats, missing persons, and voluntary and involuntary
    emergency commitments. These checks take time and we are shortstaffed.
        Please prioritize the BIA Criminal Investigations and Police
    Services and Tribal Pub. L. 280 Court accounts for meaningful
    increases. Public safety and judicial services are essential Tribal
    government functions. Our Tribe subsidizes law enforcement, Tribal
    Court, Wellness and Drug Court operations with some $3 million
    annually. We have MOUs with Wisconsin County police and sheriff
    offices. We apply for Department of Justice COPS grants and work with
    State and other Federal agencies to improve our law enforcement
    capabilities and training, such as the FBI, DEA, AFT, and Department of
    Homeland Security. But we need recurring BIA funding to sustain our
    Police Department and Tribal Court.
        We are proud of our Tribal Police and the incredible job they do
    with the few personnel and resources they have. But we are losing good
    officers due to non-competitive salaries and limited retirement
    benefits that do not vest until 10 years of service, twice the time a
    State-employed officer must wait for their pension to vest. Our
    situation is not sustainable. I respectfully request that Congress pass
    this session the bipartisan ``Parity for Tribal Law Enforcement Act,''
    H.R. 4524 and for this subcommittee to provide funds to support such
    legislation.
        Our officers serve 12-hour shifts and respond to 50% more calls
    than surrounding non-Indian jurisdictions that have two and three-times
    the number of officers. Our Tribal Court docket handles domestic abuse,
    drug and alcohol abuse, truancy, theft, with nearly half of our Tribal
    Police arrests involving meth, heroin, and fentanyl. At times, Tribal
    Police are also called to appear in court to provide security for cases
    involving heated custody disputes and child welfare matters. The
    Officers are also first responders for emergency management services
    including motor vehicle crashes, spills, fires, and weather incidents.
        Our officers are also challenged by the fact that many Tribal
    health and social service programs operate weekdays only and close on
    the weekend. Physical and mental health services for individuals
    detained by Tribal Police after hours and on weekends require Tribal
    Police to transport individuals off-reservation for such services and
    programs. This leaves us short-staffed on a recurring basis. Tribal
    communities need more resources to keep families safe.
        Tribal Court--For our Tribal Court, we employ one full-time Judge,
    two contracted Judges, three Clerks, a full-time Tribal Attorney/
    Prosecutor, and four judicial staff.
        Our court handled over 2,000 cases in FY 2023, including Civil Code
    violations, Juvenile Code violations, illegal drug possession,
    foreclosures, foreign judgments and garnishments, probate, adoption,
    child welfare petitions, family custody petitions, domestic abuse/
    harassment injunctions. The Tribe must subsidize the Tribal Court based
    on the inadequate funding we receive from the BIA under current
    appropriations. We need Federal assistance to cover the costs of
    additional court personnel, including two deputy clerk positions, an
    associate judge position, and a bailiff for Tribal Court hearings,
    elections and other public events.
        We also operate the ``Zaagiibagaa'' Healing to Wellness Court
    (Ojibwe word interpreted as budding shoot or sprig, new life, new
    beginning) funded through the State of Wisconsin and SAMHSA grants as
    an alternative to incarceration program. It is a four-phase program: 1)
    treatment; 2) skill building; 3) walking straight on mother earth; and
    4) transition: getting ready to leave the nest.
        Tribal members suffering from addiction do not receive the level of
    treatment required to break addictions when incarcerated in county
    jails. Medical data reveals that six-month and greater term treatment
    programs work better than limited term treatments. With increases in
    the BIA accounts supporting alternatives to incarceration, and an
    opportunity to compete for such funds, the Tribe would like to develop
    transition programming for Tribal inmates. Please prioritize for
    funding increases in FY 2025 those demonstrably successful programs
    that reduce addiction, recidivism, and improve the wellness of rural
    Tribal communities.
        Wisconsin is a Pub. L. 280 State. Tribal Police refer all criminal
    cases to the District Attorney in Vilas County Circuit Court. Criminal
    prosecutions for drug and alcohol are turned over to the Vilas County
    District Attorney. If the District Attorney's Office declines, the
    Tribal Attorney/Prosecutor may prosecute the case on a civil citation.
        Increase FY 2025 Funding for BIA Human Services accounts--In FY
    2024, Congress appropriated $164 million for BIA Human Services
    programs, about a 2% cut from the FY 2023 enacted level of $167
    million. We cannot understand these funding decisions. The BIA Social
    Services account was cut to $53 million in FY 2024, Welfare Assistance
    funding was flat at $78 million, and ICWA was cut $1 million to $17
    million for FY 2024.
        ICWA enables the Tribe to maintain and protect the sanctity of the
    Anishinaabe family unit. The ICWA is one significant legislative action
    that provides the opportunity to protect the preservation of the Tribal
    family unit and Tribal culture, values, and norms.
        The Tribal Court handled about 2,000 cases in 2023. There were 248
    petitions in FY 2023 involving children and families, an increase of 7
    % over the prior year. These petitions involve child welfare, child
    support, parental and custody issues, domestic relations or divorce,
    guardianship, paternity actions, truancy citations and domestic abuse
    and harassment restraining order petitions/notice of injunctions and
    injunction hearings. There were 52 petitions relating specifically to
    Child Welfare involving child abandonment or children left without
    proper care, custody or guardianship. Over half of these petitions were
    filed by the Child Welfare office under emergency conditions.
        We need more resources in the Social Services accounts, including
    funds for increased Tribal foster families and housing improvements. We
    seek to provide child advocacy services on the Reservation, rather than
    having to add further trauma to Native children by providing various
    exams and forensic interviews 250 miles away in Marchfield, Wisconsin
    and 165 miles away (round trip) in Wausau, Wisconsin. We need more
    resources on the Reservation to address the impacts of child abuse,
    child sex abuse, and trauma.
        Expand the Tiwahe Initiative Program--Congress, responding to the
    request by Tribes, is gradually expanding funding for the Tiwahe
    ``Family'' Initiative Program that assists Tribes by supplementing
    ICWA, BIA Social Services, HIP, and Job Training and Placement (JTP)
    programs with Federal funds and authority to Tribes to utilize these
    funds to help keep at-risk Tribal families together and to bring the
    parents and children of such families culturally appropriate services
    and programs to put them on a better path. We urge the subcommittee to
    increase funding for the Tiwahe Initiative so that more Tribes may
    benefit from this successful program.
        Increase FY 2025 Funding for BIA Rights Protection Implementation
    (RPI) account and EPA's GLRI account--In FY 2024, Congress appropriated
    $49.2 million for the BIA Rights Protection Implementation account
    (Trust-Natural Resources), the same level as FY 2023. As a member of
    the Great Lakes Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission (GLIFWC), the Tribe
    supports the Commission's request for no less than $8.125 million of a
    requested $50.6 million for Rights Protection Implementation. More
    broadly, the Tribe supports full funding for the RPI at no less than
    $66 million.
        Increase funding for BIA Natural Resources, Wildlife and Parks,
    TMDP, Fish Hatchery Operations and Maintenance Accounts--The Tribe
    operates a comprehensive Natural Resources Program, including the
    William J. Poupart, Sr. Fish Hatchery that produces and stocks Walleye,
    Fingerlings, Perch, Brown Trout, and White Sucker Fry. The hatchery is
    25-years old and requires significant renovations if we are to maintain
    our fish stocks and compete to stock Wisconsin lakes and waters.
    Growing fry to fingerlings to better ensure their survivability is
    costly. The hatchery supports Tribal subsistence and non-Tribal fishing
    stocking Reservation and ceded territory waters to provide sports
    fishing in northern Wisconsin. We appreciate the $290,000 U.S. F&WS
    award to replace worn pumps and make other emergency improvements, but
    we have only $1.3 million set aside from ARPA and State funds for a
    $6.5 million hatchery upgrade. Please take Tribal infrastructure
    replacement needs into account in the FY 2025 budget. Miigwech.

        [This statement was submitted by George Thompson, Vice President,
    Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians.]
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the League of American Orchestras
        The League of American Orchestras urges the Senate Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations subcommittee to
    provide at minimum $211 million for the National Endowment for the Arts
    in fiscal year 2025. We are grateful for consistent bipartisan support
    from Senate and House Appropriators that has enabled the cultural
    agencies to provide much-needed grants to arts organizations throughout
    the country so they can bring inspiration, creative opportunity, and
    connectedness to people of all ages.
        The National Endowment for the Arts has long held a unique Federal
    leadership role; its direct and indirect grantmaking, indispensable
    research, and inspiring convenings advance learning and provoke
    important action by arts organizations, practitioners, other Federal
    agencies, and the public to advance the myriad benefits of the arts and
    reach more Americans. A direct grant awarded by the NEA is a highly
    sought national designation because it demonstrates an organization has
    offered an artistic engagement that a rigorous panel review process
    deems worthy of Federal investment. Every orchestra-large and small-is
    a vital part of its local ecology, and those that receive an award from
    the National Endowment for the Arts highly value this support of their
    continual work to enhance the experience of live music for people of
    all ages. The following examples highlight recent orchestra-led
    projects supported by the NEA.
        The Boise Phil received an FY24 Challenge America grant to support
    free performances for more than 7,000 3rd-5th grade students. From
    Treasure Valley's largest public school district of West Ada to
    individual homeschool students in Emmett, students were able to engage
    with classical music at a performance centered around the educational
    state standards for music history. Collaborating with Boise
    Contemporary Theater brought to life composers, instruments, and
    musical concepts, which won overwhelmingly positive feedback from
    students. Teachers were also appreciative that the concerts were able,
    thanks to grant funding, to offer accommodations for students who face
    accessibility hurdles to experiencing live orchestra music in an
    inclusive environment.
        Another orchestra making intentional strides to engage underserved
    students is the Palm Beach Symphony, which is utilizing its Challenge
    America grant to partner with the Palm Beach County School District for
    a residency program that brings symphony musicians to Title I schools.
    The teaching artists help students with technique, tone, posture,
    proper instrument position, and the intricacies of reading and
    interpreting music in small group settings, working toward a
    culminating event of a large group ensemble rehearsal alongside
    symphony musicians. Schools are selected after consulting with teachers
    and the School District of Palm Beach County's K-12 Arts Education
    Program Planner in the Department of Teaching and Learning, who
    oversees all music activities in the public schools. The symphony is
    intentional about maintaining an enduring and continuous relationship
    with teachers, schools, and students, and it is especially impactful
    for the students when they attend Palm Beach Symphony concerts as
    guests and see their coaches perform on stage.
        Yet another Challenge America grantee that is focusing its efforts
    on young audiences and learners is the Kamuela Philharmonic, which
    hosted two Children's Concerts in Kamuela, HI attended by approximately
    650 students, accompanied by teachers and chaperones. The enthusiastic
    response from the students underscored the impact of the orchestral
    experience on their musical education and appreciation, with students
    coming from seven public schools from around the island and a strong
    turnout from the Waimea/Waikoloa areas. In addition to school groups,
    13 individuals, homeschoolers, and families attended the concerts. The
    concerts allowed musicians to creatively demonstrate their orchestral
    instruments and the experience was enhanced with verbal narrations,
    American Sign Language interpretation, and captivating illustrations on
    the screen, providing a multi-sensory journey through the musical
    narrative. In addition, students were inspired by the performance of
    12-year-old violinist Yunju Cho, one of this season's Youth Concerto
    Competition winners.
        While much orchestral education programming focuses on young
    learners in elementary and secondary school, older students and adults
    also benefit from programming specifically curated for them. The
    Chicago Sinfonietta's Grants for Arts Projects FY24 award helped
    support a sold-out, free to the public orchestral concert and series of
    educational opportunities at the historically Black Spelman College in
    Atlanta, GA--an extension of the community work done in Chicago. The
    concert featured a performance of music by Black, woman, and living
    composers, an integral part of Sinfonietta's mission and especially
    relevant to the student body. In fact, surrounding events within the
    Sinfonietta tour offered several connection and enrichment engagements
    that highlighted the importance of diversity in the symphonic world,
    including lecture/demonstrations and master classes with Sinfonietta
    musicians, and a special pre-concert panel discussion for Spelman
    students.
        Featuring the work of historically underrepresented voices is a
    growing focus for many American orchestras, and the Oregon Symphony's
    2023-24 season provides a platform for women and people of color
    appearing as guest soloists, conductors, or composers on nearly every
    program. An FY24 NEA grant is supporting two concerts highlighting
    composers of color. The first features two Black composers whose music
    directly explores themes of racism and resilience: Darker America by
    William Grant Still, which fuses classical, jazz, and spiritual
    elements to depict the struggle of Black Americans, and Remnants by
    contemporary composer James B. Wilson, which utilizes spoken word
    poetry to address the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. The second
    concert celebrates the rhythms and dances of Latin America, opening
    with a new commission by Portland-based Venezuelan composer Giancarlo
    Castro (b. 1980) and followed by an orchestral arrangement of Astor
    Piazzolla's Four Seasons of Buenos Aires. This concert will also
    welcome Artist-in-Residence Xavier Foley (b. 1994) on the double bass.
    Both programs will reach an in-person audience of more than 6,000
    people and will be broadcast globally on All Classical Radio,
    disrupting usual perceptions of classical music by utilizing orchestral
    music to illuminate the pressing issues of our time.
        The Louisiana Philharmonic Orchestra (LPO) serves as a culture
    bearer honoring monumental figures and telling stories of Louisiana
    through music. With an FY24 grant from the NEA, the LPO honored New
    Orleans icons Edgar ``Dooky'' Chase II and Leah Chase for their
    significant contributions to the city through their civic activism,
    musical influence, and culinary expertise. An ode to jazz in the art
    form's birthplace, the concert was a nostalgic celebration of the Dooky
    Chase Orchestra's 75th anniversary of their final performance ended
    with George Gershwin's 100-year-old timeless sensation, Rhapsody in
    Blue. Featured on the program were vocalist Chase Kamata--Mr. and Mrs.
    Chase's granddaughter--and the Marcus Roberts Trio. Audiences were
    immersed in the Chase family history with a pre-concert lecture
    featuring maestro Thomas Wilkins and a program book with their written
    legacy and archival photographs. The LPO values the various elements
    that thread New Orleans' cultural tapestry and aims to represent these
    elements in their programming and community initiatives throughout the
    season.
        Over the years, NEA support has empowered the Detroit Symphony
    Orchestra to make innovative programs come to life. In commissioning
    works by living composers, the orchestra especially seeks to showcase
    voices that may have been historically underrepresented. An FY24 Grants
    for Arts Projects award is supporting DSO's April performance of a new
    co-commissioned work for the pipa by composer Du Yun in a collaboration
    with the Philadelphia Orchestra and Carnegie Hall. Du Yun was an early
    recipient of the DSO's own Elaine Lebenbom Award for women composers
    and so the orchestra is thrilled to welcome the work of an honoree to
    the Orchestra Hall stage. One of the DSO's proudest achievements is the
    ability to share performances far beyond the in-person audience. This
    program will be broadcast live on Detroit radio station 90.9 FM WRCJ,
    and online in HD video through the DSO's free Live from Orchestra Hall
    program.
        Focusing on an enhanced local community experience is the
    Louisville Orchestra, which will utilize its NEA award to support the
    Creators Corps Program. The Creators Corps seeks artists that are
    passionate about forging relationships with community organizations to
    advance music's role in civic life, care deeply about education, and
    are interested in being ``artist-leaders'' for both the orchestra and
    the community more broadly. The unique experience of living in
    Louisville and working as part of the orchestra's staff for a year
    deeply informs and inspires the compositions the composers write,
    allowing for a level of specificity and customization for the orchestra
    and community. In addition, composers will work on projects that bring
    them into regular meetings or sessions with community members,
    students, and teachers. In becoming a Louisvillian, the investment in
    community and partnerships built over that time results in ties that
    are indispensable to the orchestra and community for years afterward.
        Finally, the Toledo Alliance for the Performing Arts received an
    FY24 grant which assisted in a commissioning and performance project
    featuring a new set of Symphonic movements by nine members of the
    composers' collective ADJbective New Music. The Toledo Symphony
    performed music inspired by the planets of the solar system in
    celebration of the anticipated total solar eclipse on April 8, 2024.
    This project was an opportunity to partner with the University of
    Toledo Department of Physics and Astronomy and KV265, a nonprofit
    organization dedicated to communicating science through
    multidisciplinary artistic projects. As a part of TAPA's ongoing
    partnership with Imagination Station, Dr. Salgado from KV265 and
    composers from ADJbective New Music appeared as part of the Total
    Eclipse Lecture Series at Imagination Station's KeyBank Discovery
    Theater in the weeks leading up to the Toledo Symphony's performances.
    The first of these free Community Conversations was a lecture on
    exoplanets with solar system ambassador Jim Ottaviani and the composers
    of Jupiter and Pluto. Dr. Salgado shared how his work with NASA
    inspired the creation of his extraordinary videos that accompany
    existing and new orchestral works.
        These orchestral projects are a small sampling of the thousands of
    thoughtful initiatives and ongoing programs orchestras undertake year-
    round in a variety of settings. Federal support is uniquely impactful
    and invaluable in leveraging additional forms of support. Just as the
    arts ecosystem in our country comprises countless partners all striving
    to meet people where they are, the funding ecosystem is similarly
    complex and relies on each element to provide as robust a level of
    support as possible. Thank you for this opportunity to share how the
    National Endowment for the Arts supports orchestras' engagement with
    their communities. These grants, and many others throughout the country
    disbursed via the agency's state and regional partnerships, make a
    tremendous difference by helping orchestras provide employment to
    musicians and staff while fulfilling their core purpose of educating
    and serving. We applaud the NEA's consistent leadership in promoting
    public engagement with all forms of art and for its responsiveness to
    both present and future concerns for the sector. With Congressional
    support for an annual appropriation of at least $211 million for the
    National Endowment for the Arts in FY2025, more communities throughout
    our Nation will be able to experience the life-changing and affirming
    benefits of the arts.
        The League of American Orchestras champions the vitality of music
    and the orchestral experience, supports the orchestra community, and
    leads change boldly. The only national organization dedicated to
    orchestras and their communities, the League supports the field through
    advocacy, research, convenings, leadership development, artistic
    programs, and grants. Founded in 1942 and chartered by Congress in
    1962, the League includes nearly 25,000 musicians, conductors,
    orchestra staff, board members, volunteers, and business partners
    working within our membership of 1600 world-renowned orchestras,
    community groups, summer festivals, student and youth ensembles,
    conservatories and libraries, businesses serving orchestras, and
    individuals who love symphonic music.

        [This statement was submitted by Simon Woods, President and CEO.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Medical Students for a Sustainable Future
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony to
    highlight the funding priorities of Medical Students for a Sustainable
    Future within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and/or
    Department of Interior for fiscal year 2025 (FY25). Medical Students
    for a Sustainable Future is a national organization comprised of
    medical students who are devoted to a greener, more sustainable planet
    for our future patients. We urge the Committee to support $12 billion
    in funding for the Environmental Protection Agency.
        While the Nation has made great progress in cleaning up air
    pollution thanks to the Clean Air Act, air pollution continues to
    threaten health across the country. Exposure to pollution like
    particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides can
    trigger asthma attacks, worsen lung conditions, lead to developmental
    and reproductive harm and even cause premature death. Climate change is
    also a health emergency. Communities across the country are
    experiencing adverse health and mental health impacts due to changing
    climate conditions. But climate change is also a health opportunity. We
    can avoid worsening of some of the catastrophic impacts we're seeing
    now while also delivering immediate health benefits. EPA's work to
    protect public health from pollution and climate change is imperative
    and deserves robust, dedicated funding.
        EPA is also responsible for administering funds to States,
    localities, Tribes and communities for improving air quality and
    building resilience. Funding in the Inflation Reduction Act is leading
    to improvements across the country and Medical Students for a
    Sustainable Future supports its continued implementation. But that
    funding does not replace the need for robust, predictable funding of
    the agency's core programmatic work. Medical Students for a Sustainable
    Future would like to highlight a few key areas that are need of strong
    appropriations:
        Provide $915.5 million for EPA's Clean Air program. Robust funding
    for EPA's clean air work is necessary to meet the agency's
    responsibility under the Clean Air Act to protect health from air
    pollution. This funding allows EPA to assist States, localities and
    Tribes with meeting Federal clean air standards by providing technical
    assistance, resources and expertise on how to clean up the sectors that
    contribute to air quality challenges. Please provide $694.6 million for
    Environmental Programs and Management and $220.9 million for Science
    and Technology.
        Provide $500 million for State and Local Air Quality Monitoring
    Grants and $57.4 million for Tribal Air Quality Monitoring Grants.
    State, local and Tribal air agencies receive grants from EPA to help
    maintain their air monitoring networks. Air agencies are operating
    under constrained budgets, impairing their ability to adequately
    maintain and improve air monitors. This funding is crucial to help
    inform the public about air quality risks to their health and in
    identifying areas that are most in need of pollution cleanup.
        Provide at least $369.1 million for environmental justice efforts.
    Far too many communities are still waiting on the promise of clean air.
    Targeted funding dedicated to cleaning the air in disadvantaged
    communities and to advance the protection of those overburdened by air
    pollution is necessary to provide clean air for all. As medical
    students, we see the effects of air pollution firsthand, and we request
    these changes in the name of our future patients.
        Provide $150 million for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act and
    Support the Clean School Bus Program. The Diesel Emissions Reduction
    (DERA) Grant program continues to be a cost-effective program that
    enjoys bipartisan support. According to EPA's 2022 report to Congress,
    the health benefits of diesel emissions reduction projects are cost-
    effective, with monetized health benefits estimated to exceed Federal
    funding by a factor of 10 to 1. But there are still millions of dirty
    diesel engines that are polluting communities--particularly low-income
    areas and communities of color. We also urge the Committee to support
    the popular Clean School Bus Program. The program has already led to
    the replacement of dirty diesel school buses with cleaner zero-emission
    versions and the Organization supports even greater adoption of zero-
    emission school buses.
        Please provide $100 million for the Office of Air and Radiation/
    Indoor Environments Division and $10 million to EPA's Office of
    Children's Health Protection. Exposure to indoor environmental
    pollution can decrease attendance, negatively impact test scores and
    worsen asthma symptoms or other health impacts. A 2020 GAO report found
    that 41% of school districts were in need of HVAC repairs in at least
    half of their schools. Educators and school personnel need education,
    training and resources to implement effective prevention measures.
    Additionally, the Office of Children's Health Protection plays a
    critical role in researching children's risks and exposures in school
    and childcare facilities.
        Please provide $15 million for wildfire smoke preparedness.
    Wildfire smoke is an urgent and increasing threat to public health, and
    it is not confined to western areas. In 2023, wildfires in Canada and
    the Northeast set off unprecedented air quality alerts down the East
    Coast, increasing emergency department visits for asthma-related
    conditions. EPA plays a vital role in forecasting and communicating the
    impacts of wildfire smoke.
        Oppose all policy riders. Lastly, Medical Students for a
    Sustainable Future strongly opposes the inclusion of policy riders that
    would weaken clean air protections, particularly those that would
    undermine the Clean Air Act. We urge the Committee to reject policy
    riders in appropriations bills.
        Investments in EPA programs are critical to protecting public
    health. On behalf of Medical Students for a Sustainable Future, I thank
    you for your consideration of these requests.

        [This statement was submitted by Aroub Yousuf, Advocacy Co-Chair,
    Medical Students for a Sustainable Future.]
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Metlakatla Indian Community
    Recommendations:

        1. Support increased overall funding for the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA), including Tribal Hatcheries, the U.S. Canada Pacific
    Salmon Treaty, Tribal Court Assistance, Tribal Climate Resilience,
    Native Language Resilience, and Dams.

        2. Provide full funding and advance appropriations for the Indian
    Health Service (IHS).

        3. Ensure mandatory funding for Contract Support Costs (CSC) and
    section 105(l) leases.

        4. Amend the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
    (ISDEAA) to clarify CSC provisions.

        5. Fund critical infrastructure investments for the IHS.

        6. Increase funding and extend self-governance to the Special
    Diabetes Program for Indians.

        7. Reduce dependence on competitive grants for Indian Country.

        Introduction. Thank you, Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member
    Murkowski, and Members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to share
    our FY 2025 funding priorities. The Metlakatla Indian Community is
    located on the Annette Islands Reserve in southeast Alaska, a land base
    of 87,000 acres which includes significant fish and forestry resources.
    At our Annette Island Service Unit, we provide primary health services
    through funding from the IHS as a co-signer to the Alaska Tribal Health
    Compact under the ISDEAA.
        We are grateful for the historic investments Congress has made in
    Indian Country in recent years via the CARES Act, American Rescue Plan
    Act, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and Inflation Reduction Act. The
    direct funding model and successful implementation of these laws prove
    that when Tribal sovereignty is honored, Tribal communities thrive. We
    would also like to thank this subcommittee for its bipartisan effort to
    protect Indian Country from cuts during the FY 2024 appropriations
    process. Furthermore, we urge you to remember that Congress' trust and
    treaty responsibilities to provide for the health and wellbeing of
    Tribal Nations exist irrespective of any self-imposed budgetary caps.
    It is imperative that this subcommittee appropriate the full amounts
    necessary to fulfill its obligations. To that end, we offer the
    following recommendations for your consideration for FY 2025
    appropriations for the IHS and BIA.
                            bureau of indian affairs
        Operation of Indian Programs. In FY 2025, we recommend a
    substantial increase for the Operation of Indian Programs at BIA. This
    base funding is critical in the functioning of our government and our
    survival as a Tribal Nation. They provide for social services, law
    enforcement, court services, child care services, public health and
    safety, and other essential government functions. We have repeatedly
    called on Congress to fulfill its trust and treaty obligations by
    adequately funding these accounts. Unfortunately, year after year, we
    experience large funding shortfalls across all BIA-funded programs,
    causing government services in our community to constantly depend on an
    inconsistent patchwork of Federal funding. For example, we have been
    forced to choose between meeting water quality standards or providing
    scholarships to our students.
        In some cases, these shortfalls force us to cut services
    altogether. Some programs that have been impacted are real estate,
    higher education, Tribal scholarships, social services, and
    firefighting. Despite significant supplemental appropriations, these
    programs remain critically underfunded. We support the Tribal/Interior
    Budget Council (TIBC)\1\ request to fund Tribal Priority Allocations
    and similar accounts at $455 million in FY 2025. We urge you to support
    this full funding amount as you craft your FY 2025 appropriations bill.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Read the full request here: https://archive.ncai.org/
    initiatives/tibc/TIBC-----FY_2025_Tribal_Budget_Submission-----
    5.1.23_FINAL.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, we request that BIA appropriations be funded on an
    advance appropriations cycle. As exemplified by the FY 2024
    appropriations process, it has sadly become the norm for Congress to
    rely on multiple continuing resolutions before final bills are enacted.
    This creates uncertainty that delays the distribution of our full
    yearly amount by several months or more. This makes it impossible for
    us to plan and manage our annual budgets-we are not able to plan our
    finances even weeks ahead due to the uncertainty. Indian Country should
    not be held hostage by unrelated political disputes in Washington, D.C.
    Full advance appropriations for the BIA would better honor Congress'
    trust and treaty responsibility to Tribes, stabilize Tribal
    governments, reduce dependence on uncertain grant funding, and improve
    overall practices.
        Tribal Hatcheries. We deeply appreciate the increase for the Fish,
    Wildlife, and Parks sub-activity within the BIA Trust-Natural Resources
    Management budget in FY 2023 and are asking the subcommittee to resume
    increases in funding levels for FY 2025. We support TIBC's proposal of
    $18 million for support for associated hatching, rearing, and stocking
    programs.
        U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty. The Pacific Salmon Treaty was
    negotiated between the U.S. and Canada in 1985 to prevent overfishing
    and provide optimal production and fair sharing of the salmon harvest.
    In the Department of Interior's budget, this funding is appropriated
    through the BIA Trust-Natural Resources Rights Protection
    Implementation sub-activity and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
    Pacific Marine Fisheries Commission. We thank you for the
    subcommittee's continued support for this program in FY 2024, and
    encourage further investments to in FY 2025. We are specifically in
    need of a tagging trailer ($1 million) to monitor and manage the salmon
    populations. The Biden Administration has requested $6.8 million for
    this activity in FY 2025.
        Tribal Court Assistance for Tribes Subject to PL 83-280. We deeply
    appreciate the much-needed support for Tribes who are affected by
    Public Law 83-280. We are grateful for the recent increases directed to
    the BIA Public Safety and Justice Law Enforcement-Tribal Justice
    Support program. We fully support the TIBC's ask of $45.7 million for
    this program and ask that the subcommittee continue to include PL 280-
    specific funding in FY 2025.
        Increased Funding to Address the Impacts of Climate Change. Like
    many Tribal communities, we continue to be impacted by the growing
    challenge of climate change. We thank the Committee for the $750,000
    increase for Tribal Climate Resilience in FY 2024 appropriations, but
    request significantly more investment in this account. We need funds to
    implement our Climate Resilience plans. We fully support the $4.8
    billion requested by the TIBC.
        Support Sustained Funding for Native Language Programs. Our
    community is currently engaged in an effort to revitalize and sustain
    our Tsimshian language. We've received a 1-year amount of $300,000 to
    support our programs, but this funding is not guaranteed year-after-
    year. While we are extremely grateful for your investment and support,
    it is unreasonable to expect Tribes to make meaningful progress towards
    revitalizing a language in just 1 year. We ask the subcommittee to
    initiate a direct, sustained funding model for Native languages.
        Increase Funding to Support Raising the Chester Lake Dam. Our sole
    source of municipal water for all our community needs is the Chester
    Lake Reservoir, maintained by a dam constructed in 1985. Our changing
    climate and environmental conditions have forced us to reevaluate our
    dam. It has been observed that significant rain events can cause the
    reservoir to overtop. This results in a loss of valuable water supply,
    especially in the drought conditions we are currently experiencing. We
    need to raise the damn an additional 10-20 feet to increase our
    resiliency and self-sufficiency. We have secured partial funding
    through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Hazard Mitigations
    Assistance and Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities
    grants; however, more is needed. We urge the subcommittee to allocate
    more funding to these programs and fully fund the BIA's Safety of Dams
    and Dam Maintenance accounts at $87.6 million.
                             indian health service
        Support for Full, Mandatory Funding for the IHS: The IHS and its
    Tribal partners under the ISDEAA strive to provide Tribal people with
    access to high quality and comprehensive medical services, in line with
    the Federal Government's trust and treaty obligations. However, chronic
    underfunding of the Indian health system has had detrimental impacts on
    our communities. Alaska Natives are disproportionately impacted by
    obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, substance-use disorder and
    other largely preventable conditions. We therefore urge the
    subcommittee to work towards full and mandatory funding for the IHS, in
    line with the IHS Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup. To further these
    goals, we support the Workgroup's calculated need of $54 billion for
    full funding in FY 2025.
        Reclassifying the IHS budget as mandatory spending not only
    reflects the nature of the trust and treaty obligations to Tribal
    Nations, but also will allow IHS to be funded at a level that is
    necessary for providing health care to American Indians and Alaska
    Natives. This proposal must be developed in partnership with Tribal
    Nations. We stand ready to work with you and IHS to enact mandatory
    appropriations in FY 2025 so the Indian health system is finally
    provided adequate funding.
        Continued Support for Advance Appropriations: If full, mandatory
    appropriations cannot be achieved for FY 2025, we continue to support
    IHS advance appropriations in the short term. This year's tumultuous
    appropriations cycle demonstrates why advance appropriations are
    critical-clinical services remained continuous throughout the volatile
    political process. We urge the subcommittee to extend advance
    appropriations to all IHS accounts, including Electronic Health
    Records, Health Care Facilities Construction, and Sanitation Facilities
    Construction, for FY 2026.
        Fully fund critical infrastructure investments: We were
    disappointed to see that this subcommittee approved cuts to Electronic
    Health Records Modernization, Health Care Facilities Construction, and
    Sanitation Facilities Construction in FY 2024. The Indian health
    system's infrastructure is among the oldest and most dilapidated in the
    country. Therefore, we request that this subcommittee restore and
    fully-fund these accounts. To implement interoperable Electronic Health
    Records, $801 million is needed for FY 2025. As you are aware, this
    investment is especially critical as the Veterans' Administration and
    Department of Defense move to modernize their systems. It is also
    critical that Congress make significant investments in Health Care
    Facilities Construction and Sanitation Facilities Construction. IHS and
    Tribal facilities are severely outdated and often unsafe. Therefore,
    consistent with the Workgroup's request, we recommend $5 billion total
    for IHS facilities accounts.
        Mandatory Funding for Contract Support Costs and 105(l) lease
    payments: If Congress is not able to enact full mandatory funding for
    IHS this year, we continue to support mandatory funding for Contract
    Support Costs (CSC) and 105(l) leases at both IHS and BIA. We
    appreciate the subcommittee's commitment to ensuring that CSC and
    105(l) lease costs are fully funded by including an indefinite
    discretionary appropriation in recent years for both of these accounts.
    However, changing these accounts to mandatory appropriations in FY 2025
    would bring the appropriations process into line with the clear legal
    requirements of the authorizing statute. CSC and 105(l) lease funds are
    already an entitlement under substantive law for the ISDEAA to function
    as intended by Congress. It is contradictory and problematic to
    appropriate funding for these accounts on a discretionary basis. A
    simple amendment to an appropriations statute could solve this
    challenge.
        Amend ISDEAA to Clarify CSC provisions: We also request that the
    committee consider amending the ISDEAA to clarify that when agency
    funding paid to a Tribe for program operations is insufficient for
    contract and compact administration, CSC will remain available to cover
    the difference. In the recent court decision Cook Inlet Tribal Council,
    Inc. v. Dotomain,\2\ a Federal appeals court held that costs for
    activities normally carried out by IHS are ineligible for payment as
    CSC-even if IHS transfers insufficient, or even no, funding for these
    activities in the Secretarial amount. Under this new ruling, if
    facility costs are higher for a Tribe than for IHS, the Tribe is forced
    to cover the difference by diverting scarce program dollars. Recently,
    this serious misinterpretation of the ISDEAA that has been applied to
    one Tribal organization resulting in a 90% reduction of CSC
    reimbursement threatens Tribal self-governance and self-determination.
    Therefore, we call upon Congress to provide a legislative fix to
    clarify the intent of Congress for this matter, and ensure consistency
    with precedent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Inc. v. Dotomain, 10 F.4th 892 (D.C.
    Cir. 2021).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Extend Self-Governance Funding Options to the Special Diabetes
    Program for Indians (SDPI) and increase funding to $250 million/year.
    SDPI's success rests in the flexibility of its program structure that
    allows for the incorporation of culture and local needs into its
    services. Congress should authorize SDPI participants the option of
    receiving their Federal funds through either a grant (as currently
    used) or self-governance funding mechanisms under ISDEAA. While we
    appreciate the increase provided in FY 2024 appropriations, SDPI
    funding has not increased according to its success level. We recommend
    permanent reauthorization for SDPI at a minimum of $250 million per
    year with annual adjustments for inflation.
                      reduce dependence on federal grants
        In addition to the critical funding needs that are outlined above,
    we also support moving away from competitive grants for Federal funding
    mechanisms. Grants unfairly pit Tribes against each other for resources
    we are all entitled to. The Federal trust responsibility does not
    require that we jump through a myriad of hoops and onerous applications
    to see that services are provided to our citizens. Too often, Tribes
    are under-resourced to apply for Federal grants and comply with their
    reporting requirements. Our staff must divert time to apply and report,
    thereby diluting the usefulness of the resources. Instead, we request
    wide-spread, formula-based funding across all programs. Tribes must
    also be granted the flexibility needed to respond to the specific needs
    of their own communities, not those prescribed by Federal grants. This
    also means appropriating enough resources so funds are provided in
    meaningful amounts across all Tribes. We join other Tribal leaders in
    calling for broad based funding for Indian Country.

        [This statement was submitted by Albert Smith, Mayor of the
    Metlakatla Indian Community.]
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
                                    Medicine
                                  introduction
        Members of the Senate Committee on Appropriations subcommittee on
    Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, my name is Abigail Echo-
    Hawk, and I am an enrolled citizen of the Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma,
    currently living in an urban Indian community in Seattle, Washington. I
    am the Executive Vice President of the Seattle Indian Health Board
    (SIHB) and Director of the Urban Indian Health Institute (UIHI), an
    Indian Health Service (IHS) designated Tribal Epidemiology Center
    (TEC), where I oversee our policy, research, data, and evaluation
    initiatives. I have a continuous record of accomplishment as a research
    and policy professional, specializing in Tribal government and urban
    Indian relations, and sit on multiple boards and advisory committees as
    the cultural and Tribal government expert and outreach specialist. I
    have also successfully led teams of Native and non-Native public health
    professionals to develop health and policy interventions with Tribal
    communities across the United States. I have also provided cultural
    expertise on working with rural and urban Native American communities
    for many agencies. I am pleased to submit my testimony today, including
    a request of $474.4 million for the Hospitals and Clinics: TEC line
    item to improve culturally attuned research, data, and evaluation
    services for the over 9 million American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/
    AN) people in our Nation.
           leverage congressional authority to increase health equity
        As a member of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
    Medicine (NASEM) Standing Committee on the Review of Federal Policies
    that Contribute to Racial and Ethnic Health Inequities, I urge you to
    adopt the recommendations in NASEM's Federal Policy to Advance Racial,
    Ethnic, and Tribal Health Equity, published in 2023. One of the
    recommendations outlined in the report is for the Federal Government to
    raise the prominence of agencies with jurisdiction over health equity
    for AI/AN communities. The report specifically calls for three key
    Congressional and Presidential actions: 1) Raise the level of the IHS
    Director to that of an Assistant Secretary, 2) Authorize mandatory
    funding for IHS, as proposed in the President's Fiscal Year (FY) 2025
    budget, and 3) Re-establish an Indian Affairs Committee in the House of
    Representatives.\1\ In addition to these structural reforms, I ask that
    you also leverage your appropriation authority to adequately resource
    IHS. In the recently enacted FY 2024 appropriations, IHS received $6.96
    billion, a 0.05% increase from FY 2023 enacted levels, while urban
    Indian organizations (UIO) and Tribal Epidemiology Centers (TECs)
    received the same level of funding as in FY 2023 at just $90.42 million
    and $24.4 million, respectively. Funding IHS at need would mean yearly
    appropriations of $53.8 billion for IHS, including $977.4 million for
    UIOs and $474.4 million for TECs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ National Academies for Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.
    (2023). Federal Policy to Advance Racial, Ethnic, and Tribal Health
    Equity. Retrieved from: https://nap.nationalacademies.org/catalog/
    26834/federal-policy-to-advance-racial-ethnic-and-tribal-health-equity
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The urgency of these requests come with the recent news the
    estimated life expectancy for AI/AN people has dropped from 71.8 years
    to 62.5 years during the peak of the COVID-19 pandemic.\2\ This near-
    decade loss in life expectancy means that AI/AN people now have the
    same life expectancy as the general U.S. population in 1944.\3\ It is
    imperative that Congress elevate AI/AN issues and priorities in the
    executive and legislative branches by addressing decades of chronic
    underfunding through investment in our public health and healthcare
    services offered by the Indian healthcare system.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Goldman N, Andrasfay T. Life Expectancy Loss among Native
    Americans During the COVID-19 Pandemic. (2022). Retrieved from: https:/
    /www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8936100/
        \3\ National Center for Health Statistics. (2022). Life Expectancy
    in the U.S. Dropped for the Second Year in a Row in 2021. Retrieved
    from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/
    20220831.htm
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    addressing violence against ai/an people
        UIHI continues to be a leader on the Missing and Murdered
    Indigenous Women and People (MMIWP) crisis through our groundbreaking
    MMIWP reports \4\ highlighting the depth of the crisis, identifying
    gaps in data collection methods and practices, and encouraging
    investment in cultural frameworks for gender-based violence programs.
    The collective efforts of community members, researchers, and
    legislative partners using our reports led to historic passage of Not
    Invisible Act (NIA) and Savanna's Act.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Urban Indian Health Institute. (November 14, 2018). Missing and
    Murdered Indigenous Women & Girls. https://www.uihi.org/resources/
    missing-and-murdered-indigenous-women-girls/; Urban Indian Health
    Institute. (September 2020). Sacred: Womxn of Resilience. www.uihi.org/
    download/supporting-the-sacred-womxn-of-resilience/
    ?wpdmdl=18261&refresh=6217b40a4ce3e1645720586; Urban Indian Health
    Institute. (February 17, 2022). Service as Ceremony: A Journey Toward
    Healing. www.uihi.org/download/service-as-ceremony-a-journey-toward-
    healing/?wpdmdl=19563&refresh=621d39d2458ae1646082514XX; Urban Indian
    Health Institute (February 17, 2022). Building the Sacred.
    www.uihi.org/download/building-the-sacred-an-indigenous-evaluation-
    framework-for-programs-serving-native-survivors-of-violence/
    ?wpdmdl=19565&refresh=6216aacc3cca61645652684
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        In November 2023, the Not One More: Findings and Recommendations of
    the Not Invisible Act \5\ was released again sparking the contention
    that Federal policies, programs, and services are underserving our
    community thus perpetuating the violence against AI/AN people. In March
    2024, the Department of Justice and Department of Interior released
    their response to the NIA report, citing existing resources and efforts
    to address concerns raised in the report. It is clear from this
    underwhelming response that the legislative intent of NIA and Savanna's
    Act has not been upheld, which was also illustrated in a 2023 GOA
    report, and we urge members on the subcommittee to champion
    revolutionary change within the IHS to combat the high rates of
    violence experienced by our community members. As an MMIWP advocate, I
    urge the investment in IHS to expand gender-based violence services and
    violence prevention programming, and investment in clinics to establish
    Sexual Assault Nure Examinations (SANE), and primary care and
    behavioral health resources support victims in the hand of trusted
    providers.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Not Invisible Act Commission. (November 2023). Not One More:
    Findings & Recommendations of the Not Invisible Act Commission.
    Retrieved from: https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-11/
    34%20NIAC%20Final%20Report_version%2011.1.23_FINAL.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        As co-chair of the Washington State MMMIWP taskforce, I co-authored
    legislation creating the Nation's first Missing Indigenous Person Alert
    (MIPA) system, referred to as the Red Alert, in Washington State. The
    following year, I provided consultation to individuals in California
    for the creation of the Feather Alert. After decades of education,
    research, and advocacy championed by Indian County, the Federal
    Communications Commission (FCC) announced the launch of an Emergency
    Management System (EMS) for Indigenous populations in March 2024.
    However, the FCC has not designated a specific code for AI/AN
    populations. In response, I submitted recommendations to the FCC urging
    them to designate a code that specifically identifies the system for
    AI/AN populations. Without an identifiable name, there will be a gap in
    the understanding and use of the system to support missing cases and
    intervene during human trafficking involving an AI/AN person. The FCC's
    proposal is evidence that Federal action can be monumental and IHS must
    follow this example through historic investments in MMIWP.
                    ongoing impacts of the covid-19 pandemic
        We are among the 12 TECs located nationwide who have worked
    diligently to fill the gaps left by inadequate IHS funding. However, we
    are the only TEC with a national purview to address the public health
    needs of the urban Indian population which comprises more that 70% of
    the overall AI/AN population. For example, in 2023 after the Federal
    Public Health Emergency expired, UIHI sent all 41 IHS-designated UIOs
    COVID-19 resources which included culturally specific pediatric
    vaccination schedules, hand washing campaign materials, COVID-19 fact
    sheets, RSV fact sheets, COVID-19 treatment maps, and educational
    posters. TECs, while chronically underfunded, are continuing to do our
    part to address public health needs in our communities.
        The Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 impacted COVID-19 funding
    that was sent to IHS, ultimately rescinding $419 million that were
    meant to support testing, treatment, and vaccinations as well as the
    purchase of supplies and the expansion and sustainment of the public
    health workforce. That is why it is painful to know that programs,
    vaccines, research, and public health workforce focused on COVID-19
    could have been significantly funded if there had been oversight by an
    Indian Affairs Committee to hold IHS accountable for obligating and
    distributing these funds appropriately.
                improve maternal and child health (mch) outcomes
        In 2022, the Secretary of Health and Human Services Advisory
    Committee on Infant and Maternal Mortality (ACIMM) released recommended
    actions to improve the health and safety of AI/AN mothers and
    infants.\6\ These recommendations included improvements to IHS
    including evaluation and funding to improve healthy perinatal outcomes,
    perinatal workforce expansion and diversification, and Federal
    strategies to address social determinants of health. Before these
    actions are implemented, it is necessary to improve the data reported
    by IHS to more accurately capture the MCH health crisis. It is critical
    for IHS to create a strategy for improving their measurements,
    evaluation and analysis, and reporting of maternal health collected.
    IHS will need to work in close partnership with the CDC who continues
    to inappropriately report on data on AI/AN maternal death. For example,
    in 2023 the National Center for Health Statistics, a unit of the CDC,
    published a report on 2021 maternal deaths nationwide but did not
    include data on AI/AN birthing people citing a lack of ``statistically
    significant data.'' \7\ As the director of a TEC, and a data scientist,
    I consider this to be inadequate and lazy epidemiology that results in
    the invisibility of the maternal death crisis in Native communities.
    The CDC should have used small populations methodologies to ensure AI/
    AN data was included. It is essential that IHS ensures that CDC is
    sharing appropriate data with them as most AI/AN babies are delivered
    in non-IHS facilities but often receive care in IHS systems of care
    after birth. IHS must begin to implement best practices for collecting
    data on AI/AN and improve their reporting system to capture trends more
    accurately on MCH.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Advisory Committee on Infant and Maternal Mortality. (2022).
    Making Amends: Recommended Strategies and Actions to Improve the Health
    and Safety of American Indian and Alaska Native Mothers and Infants.
    Retrieved from: https://www.hrsa.gov/sites/default/files/hrsa/advisory-
    committees/infant-mortality/birth-outcomes-AI-AN-mothers-infants.pdf
        \7\ Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for
    Health Statistics. (2023). Maternal Mortality Rates in the United
    States, 2021. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hestat/
    maternal-mortality/2021/maternal-mortality-rates-2021.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        ACIMM's recommendations are acutely important today given that the
    COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated issues of gender-based violence,
    behavioral health, and suicide among AI/AN communities.\8\ These are
    all issues that severely impact the quality of life for AI/AN women and
    inform perinatal health outcomes. Research has shown that AI/AN
    pregnant and post-partum people are the highest risk of drug related
    and suicide death.\9\ Nationwide, the COVID-19 pandemic intensified
    intimate partner violence.\10\ It is a critical time for this committee
    to strengthen investments in gender-based violence and behavioral
    health prevention and intervention services across IHS. Without
    additional funding and Federal collaborations with IHS, it will
    struggle to provide wrap around services for AI/AN pregnant and
    parenting people. We ask for your support to address the far-reaching
    consequences of the pandemic and its impacts on MCH outcomes through
    the modernization of IHS's data system.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ Ruiz A, Luebke J, Moore K, Vann AD, Gonzalez M Jr, Ochoa-
    Nordstrum B, Barbon R, Gondwe K, Mkandawire-Valhmu L. The impact of the
    COVID-19 pandemic on help-seeking behaviours of Indigenous and Black
    women experiencing intimate partner violence in the United States.
    (2022). J Adv Nurs. 2022 Dec 19 : 10.1111/jan.15528.Retrieved from:
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9878234/; Haskins C,
    Noonan C, MacLehose R, Buchwald D, Manson SM. COVID-19 pandemic effects
    on emotional health and substance use among urban American Indian and
    Alaska Native people. (2023). J Psychosom Res. 2023 Sep; 172: 111424.
    Retrieved from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10290739/;
    Panchal, N., Garfield, R., Cox, C., Artiga, S., Substance Use Issues
    Are Worsening Alongside Access to Care. (2021). Kaiser Family
    Foundation. Retrieved from: https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/substance-
    use-issues-are-worsening-alongside-access-to-care
        \9\ Margerison CE, Roberts MH, Gemmill A, Goldman-Mellor S. (2022).
    Pregnancy-Associated Deaths Due to Drugs, Suicide, and Homicide in the
    United States, 2010-2019. Obstet Gynecol. Retrieved from: https://
    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8849543/
        \10\ Sutton A, Beech H. (2023). The impact of stay-at-home orders
    on safety and stability for women: A topical review of intimate partner
    violence and intimate femicide in the United States during the initial
    phase of COVID-19. J Fam Violence. Retrieved from: https://
    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10041482/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      address ihs data practices for tecs
        In March of 2022, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO)
    released a report titled Tribal Epidemiology Centers: HHS Actions
    Needed to Enhance Data Access, which highlighted longstanding and
    pervasive issues experienced by Tribal public health authorities.\11\
    Two of the GAO recommendations were directed at IHS. Now 2 years later,
    IHS has not addressed these recommendations. I urge this subcommittee
    to hold IHS accountable and ensure the agency develops written guidance
    on how TECs can request IHS data, as well as agency procedures on
    reviewing TEC data requests.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ United States Government Accountability Office. (2022). Tribal
    Epidemiology Centers: HHS Actions Needed to Enhance Data Access. GAO-
    22-104698. Retrieved from: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-22-104698
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        TECs have a unique understanding of the gaps in data practices
    because of our close working relationships with UIOs and Tribal
    Nations. We can inform IHS efforts to improve data reporting and
    quality. UIHI, for example, is the only TEC overseen by a UIO, and has
    a proven track record in urban AI/AN data and research. In 2020, we
    published Best Practices for American Indian and Alaska Native Data
    Collection to address incomplete, inaccurate, and unreliable data
    collection practices which is currently being used as a guide in local,
    State and Federal efforts nationwide.\12\ In 2021 we published Data
    Genocide of American Indians and Alaska Natives in COVID-19 Data, a
    report card grading collection of racial data during COVID-19 and
    offering recommendations for collecting and reporting data on race and
    ethnicity.\13\ This report has be utilized by States, Tribes and UIO's
    to improve data that is then reported to HHS agencies. In 2023, we
    published Decolonizing Data, a guidebook intended to help understand
    the guiding principles of what it means to achieve data equity and
    uphold Indigenous Data Sovereignty.\14\ IHS can look to these resources
    and work with us to improve data reporting on UIOs and Tribal Nations.
    Together we can ensure that health surveillance data on AI/AN people is
    more accurately captured and utilized.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Urban Indian Health Institute. (2020). Best Practices for
    American Indian and Alaska Native Data Collection. Retrieved from:
    https://www.uihi.org/resources/best-practices-for-american-indian-and-
    alaska-native-data-collection/
        \13\ Urban Indian Health Institute. (2021). Data Genocide of
    American Indians and Alaska Natives in COVID-19 Data. Retrieved from:
    https://www.uihi.org/projects/data-genocide-of-american-indians-and-
    alaska-natives-in-covid-19-data/
        \14\ Urban Indian Health Institute. (2023). Decolonize Data:
    Accurate Data Tells Accurate Stories. Retrieved from: https://
    www.uihi.org/projects/decolonizing-data-toolkit/

        [This statement was submitted by Abigail Echo-Hawk, MA, Director,
    Urban Indian Health Institute.]
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of National Association of Abandoned Mine Land
                                    Programs
        My name is Dustin Morin and I serve as Director of the Mining and
    Reclamation Division within Alabama's Department of Labor. I provide
    this statement on behalf of the National Association of Abandoned Mine
    Land Programs (NAAMLP), for which I currently serve as President.
    NAAMLP represents 32 States and Tribes, all of which implement coal
    abandoned mine land reclamation (AML) programs under Title IV of the
    Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA) or state level
    hardrock AML programs or both. My address is 649 Monroe Street, Room
    2218, Montgomery, AL 36131. My phone number is (205) 582--5182. My
    email is Dustin.Morin@labor.alabama.gov.
                       summary of naamlp funding requests
      --$65m for hardrock AML grants to state and Tribes under the Energy
            Community Revitalization Program (ECRP), which can mostly come
            from excess claims maintenance fees

      --$135m for the Abandoned Mine Lands Economic Revitalization Program
            (AMLER)

      --$1.5m for the Watershed Cooperative Agreements Program under SMCRA
            Title IV

        State and Tribal Hardrock AML Grants--The majority of States and
    many Indian Tribes suffer ongoing impacts of abandoned hardrock and
    other noncoal mines (referred to as ``hardrock AML'' hereafter).
    Hardrock AML damages the safety, environment, and economic vitality of
    nearby communities throughout the Country--it is especially prevalent
    in the West but is a problem in every other region as well. Most States
    and Tribes have very limited, if any, ability to address hardrock AML
    problems due to lack of funding. The States with well-established
    hardrock AML programs struggle to make consistent progress in the
    absence of steady funding.
        The $3 billion funding authorization for hardrock AML grants ($1.5
    billion for States and Tribes) in Section 40704 of the Infrastructure
    Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) was a very exciting development.
    However, funding has not yet been appropriated on the scale authorized.
    $1.7m for States and $400k for Tribes has been appropriated in each of
    FY 2022, 2023, and 2024 through the ECRP. This is a welcome beginning
    but is not enough to make meaningful progress addressing hardrock AML
    hazards. The total cost to address the National hardrock AML problem is
    estimated to be in the tens of billions of dollars. We urge Congress to
    appropriate an amount of funding more commensurate to the need, at
    least $65m for FY25. We also suggest encouraging Federal agencies with
    responsibility for addressing hardrock AML to expand their partnerships
    with States and Tribes, allowing State and Tribal hardrock AML programs
    to conduct additional projects enabled by Federal agency funding.
        We suggest utilizing excess funding generated by claims maintenance
    fees from mining on public lands for this purpose. We understand that
    between $40-50 million or more is generated by claims maintenance fees
    in excess of what the Bureau of Land Management is provided from these
    funds each year. It would be sensible to put this excess, industry-
    generated funding, which otherwise goes to the general treasury, toward
    hardrock AML work. We understand this idea has the support of the
    National Mining Association and the Biden Administration.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Department of Interior, Interagency Working Group on Mining
    Laws, Regulations, and Permitting (2023). Recommendations to Improve
    Mining on Public Land.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While awaiting additional funding, the nascent IIJA-authorized
    hardrock AML State and Tribal grants program has been developing very
    well. NAAMLP and our sister organization the Interstate Mining Compact
    Commission (IMCC) have been working closely with DOI's Office of
    Environmental Policy and Compliance (OEPC) and have appreciated its
    willingness to incorporate State and Tribal input. We have convened a
    group of 40+ States and Tribes to provide continuing input to OEPC on
    how the program should work and how funding should be utilized. We are
    also working closely with USGS on development of a national hardrock
    AML inventory, which will eventually provide Congress a nationwide
    picture of the scope of the hardrock AML problem--but this effort will
    take a significant amount of time to complete.
        The new inventory will confirm what we already know--that the need
    to address hardrock AML issues is great. The hardrock AML grants
    program is ready to be fully funded. It is too important to wait for
    the inventory to be complete, or for hardrock mining law reform
    legislation to be agreed upon. The States and Tribes are aware of the
    most harmful sites, and their harm is immediate and ongoing. We are
    prepared to begin delivering the benefits of safe, restored landscapes
    and water resources to our citizens as soon as funding is provided.
        Adequate government funding is just one element of the action
    Congress needs to take. The Appropriations Committee should be aware
    that Good Samaritan legislation is an essential part of a solution to
    the hardrock AML problem. Current law holds States and Tribes liable
    for the full costs of cleaning up water pollution at an AML site they
    have remediated, even if their work made the site better and perfect
    site cleanup was impractical or impossible. Community and conservation
    groups, as well as industry, who are the States' potential ``Good
    Samaritan'' partners in hardrock AML remediation, are threatened by the
    same undeserved liability despite having no connection to the site in
    question. We strongly support The Good Samaritan Remediation of
    Abandoned Hardrock Mines Act of 2023 (S. 2781 & H.R. 7779), a carefully
    tailored ``pilot'' Good Samaritan program. With or without this kind of
    legislation, the hardrock AML program should be fully funded as soon as
    possible--but it should not be forgotten that the programs' great
    potential for restoration of water resources, especially in the West
    where water is so precious, is majorly constrained without common sense
    Good Samaritan liability protections.
        IIJA Coal AML Funding Implementation--The infusion of new coal AML
    funding in the IIJA ushered in a re-invigorated era for coal AML
    programs. We thank Congress for recognizing the critical role AML
    programs play in safety, environmental restoration, and the creation of
    jobs and economic growth. These benefits are felt throughout the
    Country, especially in places like Appalachia that are most affected by
    the energy transition. We also thank Congress for the STREAM Act, which
    ensures the gains enabled by the IIJA for AML water restoration will be
    long-lasting.
        Implementation of IIJA coal AML funding is well underway. States
    and Tribes have been busy designing and coordinating an expanded number
    of AML projects and beginning construction on IIJA-funded AML projects.
    We have also been working with the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
    and Enforcement (OSMRE) on implementation of the new program.
        The IIJA coal AML program is and will continue to be a great
    success, but OSMRE's handling of the IIJA coal AML program has made
    implementation more difficult than necessary. Congress directed that
    these funds be provided to States and Tribes ``as expeditiously as
    practicable''.\2\ OSMRE is treating the IIJA program as entirely
    separate from the long-standing, well-functioning AML fee-funded
    program, despite the new IIJA funding being for the same purposes as
    AML fee funding with only minor differences in how it can be utilized.
    The result has been slower than necessary roll out of funding, an
    unduly cumbersome and confusing process, and significant diversion of
    limited State and Tribal AML staff time away from the core mission of
    planning and executing AML projects.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ IIJA, Sec. 40701(b)(1).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We appreciate Congressional support encouraging OSMRE to improve
    collaboration with States and Tribes to improve implementation. As a
    result, there has been some recent progress, but there is much
    important work left to do. We request that Congress continue to
    encourage OSMRE to improve implementation of the IIJA coal AML program.
    In particular, OSMRE must be encouraged to do the following:
        Combine Grant Processes for IIJA and AML Fee Funding--OSMRE
    requires that State and Tribal IIJA-funded AML grants and AML fee-
    funded grants be applied for in entirely separate applications. This
    effectively doubles the amount of time States and Tribes must spend
    managing Federal grants. It would be much more efficient to have a
    single combined grant application. Tracking the respective use and
    impact of IIJA- and fee-based funding can be accomplished through
    normal accounting controls, as we have done for years
        Constrain New Requirements, Priorities, and Information Gathering--
    OSMRE continues to create new requirements for and request new types of
    information of the State and Tribal AML programs. Existing processes
    and available information are already more than adequate to effectively
    manage the AML program and inform OSMRE, Congress, and the Public what
    is being accomplished. This information is available through the
    National coal AML inventory (e-AMLIS), state/Tribe grant applications,
    authorization to proceed requests, annual reports, and websites
    maintained by individual AML programs, NAAMLP, and IMCC. Without
    restraint regarding new requirements and information requests, the
    burden of these administrative activities will outweigh their benefit,
    ultimately detracting from the programs' effectiveness.
        Increase Training Resources--Historically, OSMRE's training program
    has provided state, Tribal, and OSMRE personnel foundational education
    in how AML programs work and the design and management of AML projects.
    Current OSMRE planning for the training program is inadequate to
    accommodate the increase in state, Tribal, and OSMRE personnel as a
    result of expanded IIJA coal AML funding. The IIJA provided OSMRE with
    $339 million to implement the IIJA. To our knowledge, it has no plans
    to spend any of this money on the training program, where it is acutely
    needed. We recommend that Congress increase funding for the NTTP and
    TIPS training programs and encourage OSMRE to do the following: 1)
    increase the number of training courses offered, 2) offer regionally-
    focused sections of courses to address regional climatic and ecological
    differences where appropriate, 3) offer compensation to instructors
    where appropriate, rather than continue to rely solely on volunteer
    instructors.
        SMCRA Title IV Coal AML--We encourage Congress to maintain OSMRE
    funding for the agency's role of supporting State and Tribal AML
    programs, for example, technical assistance and applied science. We
    also recommend funding for Watershed Cooperative Agreements be
    maintained. This funding serves an important role in facilitating State
    and local partnerships, helping to leverage outside sources of funding
    and allowing reclamation funding to go further.
        Abandoned Mine Lands Economic Revitalization Program--The States
    and Tribes are proud of what has been accomplished through the
    Abandoned Mine Land Economic Revitalization (AMLER) program (formerly
    known as the ``pilot program''), which looks for creative ways to turn
    AML sites into opportunities for economic development. We request that
    funding for AMLER in the amount of $135 million continue.
        While AMLER has been successful, it has experienced significant
    implementation difficulties. OSMRE's ``vetting'' process has done more
    to hurt than to help. It requires every AMLER project to be reviewed
    and pre-approved sequentially by three levels of OSMRE offices before
    project plans are fully developed. Vetting often amounts to OSMRE
    asserting its own opinions in place of the States and Tribes' more
    locally-informed expertise on economic and community development.
    Substandard communication and opaque evaluation criteria have caused
    delays, uncertainty and devotion of a disproportionate amount of AML
    program staff time to this program. Local businesses and community
    groups that would be AMLER project partners find it difficult to
    navigate the process and are increasingly less interested in
    participating.
        We thank Congress for its efforts to address these implementation
    difficulties. The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024 directed
    OSMRE to distribute AMLER funding directly to eligible States and
    Tribes within 90 days. This should alleviate many of the problems
    described above and allow the program to operate as originally
    envisioned: State and Tribal AML programs working cooperatively with
    economic development agencies and local stakeholders to facilitate
    economic development on or near AML sites informed by their first-hand
    knowledge and expertise. We recommend that the direct payments
    requirement be continued in FY25.
        Conclusion--In closing, the States and Tribes represented by NAAMLP
    again express our gratitude to Congress for the recognition of the
    value of the AML programs, both coal and hardrock, and the investment
    in their future represented by the IIJA. We look forward to beginning
    this new chapter for coal AML and are thrilled to be moving toward a
    national-scale hardrock AML grants program. With Congress' continuing
    support and attentiveness to AML implementation issues, we feel
    confident that continued success of the State and Tribal AML programs
    is assured.

        [This statement was submitted by Dustin Morin, Director, Mining and
    Reclamation Division.]
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies
        On behalf of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies
    (NACAA), thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on the FY
    2025 budget for the United States Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA), particularly grants to State and local air pollution control
    agencies under Sections 103 and 105 of the Clean Air Act (CAA), which
    are part of the State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) program. NACAA
    has four recommendations with respect to FY 2025 appropriations. The
    association urges Congress to 1) provide $500 million in grants to
    State and local air agencies, which is an increase of $264 million over
    the FY 2024 appropriation of $236 million; 2) provide flexibility to
    State and local air quality agencies to use Federal grants to address
    the highest priority programs in their areas; 3) retain grants for
    monitoring fine particulate matter (PM2.5) under the authority of
    Section 103 of the Clean Air Act, rather than shifting it to Section
    105; and 4) provide grant increases under authorities of the CAA that
    do not require matching funds (e.g., Section 103) as much as possible
    to allow agencies that do not have sufficient matching funds to still
    obtain the additional grants.
        NACAA is the National, nonpartisan, non-profit association of 157
    air pollution control agencies in 40 States, including 117 local air
    agencies, the District of Columbia and four territories. NACAA exists
    to advance the equitable protection of clean air and public health for
    all, and to improve the capability and effectiveness of State and local
    air agencies. These agencies have the ``primary responsibility'' under
    the CAA for implementing our Nation's clean air programs. As such, they
    conduct an array of critical activities intended to improve and
    maintain air quality and protect public health.
                   the clean air act has been very successful
        Since the adoption of the CAA in 1970, federal, State and local air
    quality agencies have made tremendous strides in reducing air pollution
    and thereby protecting public health. According to EPA, total emissions
    of the six criteria air pollutants (for which the National health-based
    standards are set) have decreased by 73 percent between 1980 and 2022
    and, between 1990 and 2017, emissions of the toxic air pollutants
    identified in the CAA have declined by 74 percent.\1\ Since State and
    local air agencies have the primary responsibility for implementing the
    Federal clean air program, their contributions to the success of the
    program have been essential.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-national-
    summary#emissions-trends
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        While these impressive air quality improvements took place, our
    country has continued to experience strong economic growth.\2\ During
    the same period identified above (1980--2022), during which pollution
    was reduced markedly, gross domestic product increased 196 percent,
    vehicle miles traveled went up 108 percent, energy consumption
    increased 29 percent and the country's population grew by 47
    percent.\3\ Improvements to air quality and a strong economy have gone
    hand in hand.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-national-summary
        \3\ https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-national-
    summary#emissions-trends
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
             air pollution remains a serious public health problem
        Despite the gains federal, State and local programs have made in
    the pursuit of healthful air quality, air pollution remains a serious
    public health concern. In fact, very few problems this subcommittee
    addresses pose greater threats to public health than air pollution and
    climate change. Air pollution continues to threaten public health and
    welfare, especially in overburdened environmental justice communities
    that disproportionately suffer adverse human health and environmental
    impacts.
        Each year in America, air pollution causes tens of thousands of
    premature deaths and exposes millions to unhealthful levels of air
    contaminants, resulting in cancer, damage to respiratory,
    cardiovascular, neurological and reproductive systems and other health
    problems.\4\ In 2022, about 85 million people in the U.S. lived in
    areas that exceeded one or more Federal health-based air pollution
    standards.\5\ Additionally, EPA's hazardous air pollution data show
    that ``millions of people live in areas where air toxics pose potential
    health concerns.'' \6\ Environmental justice communities are
    particularly at risk.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/air-pollution-
    current-and-future-challenges and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
    articles/PMC3670349/
        \5\ https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-national-
    summary#emissions-trends
        \6\ https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2023-02/
    AirToxScreen_2018%20TSD.pdf (page 113)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        When it comes to climate change, there is still much to be done to
    address increasing greenhouse gas emissions that result in more and
    worse wildfires, longer ozone seasons and upward-trending global
    temperatures. State and local governments have instituted some of the
    country's strongest climate change programs, making meaningful progress
    towards reducing greenhouse gases.
     significant challenges remain for state and local air quality agencies
        As stated earlier, under the CAA, State and local agencies have the
    primary responsibility for implementing the Federal clean air program.
    This massive undertaking calls for monitoring, issuing permits,
    planning, developing emission-reduction strategies, enforcing rules,
    educating the public, hiring and training staff and conducting many
    other complex activities. Increasingly, these agencies are tasked with
    new and high-priority responsibilities to reduce air pollution, address
    the disproportionate harm facing overburdened communities and tackle
    climate change. Unfortunately, this simply cannot be accomplished with
    current levels of funding.
        Federal, State and local air quality programs have come a long way
    in cleaning up the air, but there is still far to go. Unfortunately,
    there are no longer any ``easy fixes'' or low-hanging fruit to be had.
    What remain are extremely difficult challenges toward making
    incremental, but essential, improvements. These include addressing
    dispersed sources (e.g., mobile sources and smaller area sources),
    climate change, cumulative impacts and other very complex issues.
    Confronting these problems requires investments in increasingly high-
    tech solutions that come with a cost, including monitoring, modeling
    and data analysis, among others, not to mention investing in and
    retaining staff who are sufficiently trained in these increasingly
    complicated subject areas.
        Just one example of a problem that is placing greater demands on
    State and local air agencies is wildfires. These fires in many places
    across the country cause smoke and pollution that can pose significant
    public health challenges and they have been rising in number, frequency
    and size. Increased resources are needed for such complex activities as
    monitoring smoke, analyzing data, notifying and communicating with the
    public and promoting preparedness activities, all of which are
    essential to address public concerns and protect public health.
     air agencies need significant resources to succeed and help grow the
                                    economy
        State and local air agencies have been underfunded for many years.
    Federal grants to State and local air quality agencies (under Sections
    103 and 105 of the CAA) were not much higher in FY 2024 than 20 years
    ago, representing a substantial decrease in purchasing power when
    factoring in inflation. During this time, air quality issues have
    become more complicated and costly. Moreover, while Federal grants were
    originally intended to cover 60 percent of the cost of implementing the
    CAA, they cover less than a quarter of that today, with the remainder
    coming largely from State and local programs themselves.
        The increase in funds we are recommending is not necessarily
    sufficient for the many responsibilities facing State and local
    agencies, but it would be very helpful as a foundation of support to
    meet the modern-day demands of our programs. Not only would this
    further our quest for healthful air quality, but adequate funding for
    clean air programs would be good for the economy as well, ultimately
    helping in the creation of new jobs. For example, well-funded State and
    local programs could reduce delays in construction and operating
    permitting, increase needed compliance assistance for businesses,
    provide monitoring that would help tailor strategies to the hardest-hit
    areas and develop rules and plans to implement those strategies.
        Increased grants would be used for many of the basic ongoing and
    essential responsibilities facing State and local air quality agencies.
    Additionally, new funding would support:

      --strengthening pollution detection and visualization through
            monitors, sensors and airborne- and mobile-detection equipment;

      --supporting small business programs and emission reductions from
            smaller sources, including inspections, compliance assistance
            and technical support;

      --addressing climate change through planning, monitoring, permitting
            and enforcement; energy-transition assistance for communities
            dependent on fossil fuels; and adaptation and resilience for
            communities that face extreme weather and climate impacts;

      --ensuring State and local agencies can meet necessary long-term
            planning requirements and take on the additional air quality
            responsibilities in new Federal clean energy and clean
            transportation programs;

      --tackling the ever-increasing threats posed by wildfires, including
            mitigating adverse health impacts and communicating with the
            public; and

      --expanding and adding new programs that protect all Americans,
            especially vulnerable communities that continue to bear the
            greatest pollution burdens.
     funds from permit fees and recent legislation do not solve the problem
        The permit fee program under Title V of the Clean Air Act, while
    extremely valuable, does not solve State and local air agencies'
    funding problems. Title V fees only support the operating permit
    program and must not be used for other activities (i.e., Federal grants
    and permit fees must not be mingled) and they apply only to major
    sources and do not cover the significant costs for non-major sources
    (e.g., permits, monitoring, enforcement, compliance assistance).
    Additionally, current fees already are substantial and there would be
    significant resistance to any increases. Finally, fee revenue has
    decreased drastically due to reductions in emissions on which they are
    based (i.e., success in controlling emissions results in diminished fee
    revenue).
        The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA)\7\ includes essential and welcome
    funding for State and local air agencies to address climate change in
    particular. However, those funds are not a substitute for the increases
    we seek, which are intended to make up for the historical deficits in
    State and local grant funding and bring the appropriations to the level
    they should be for these agencies to carry out the ongoing
    responsibilities that existed prior to the IRA and will continue into
    the future. Additionally, successfully implementing the IRA will likely
    increase the responsibilities of State and local air agencies' core
    programs, for which the measure did not allocate specific additional
    funding.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/5376/
    text
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   conclusion
        Federal grants to State and local air quality agencies are a
    relatively small piece of the National budget. Yet the return on
    investment is among the highest when considering the benefits of
    protecting public health and the environment against the serious
    threats posed by air pollution and climate change.
        State and local air quality agencies' efforts to protect and
    improve air quality are critically important both for public health and
    a sound economy. NACAA recommends that Congress 1) provide $500 million
    in grants to State and local air agencies, which is an increase of $264
    million over the FY 2024 appropriation of $236 million; 2) provide
    flexibility to State and local air quality agencies to use Federal
    grants to address the highest priority programs in their areas; 3)
    retain grants for monitoring PM2.5 under the authority of Section 103
    of the Clean Air Act, rather than shifting it to Section 105; and 4)
    provide grant increases under authorities of the CAA that do not
    require matching funds (e.g., Section 103) as much as possible to allow
    agencies that do not have sufficient matching funds to still obtain the
    additional grants.
        Thank you very much for this opportunity to provide testimony. If
    you require additional information, please contact Miles Keogh
    (mkeogh@4cleanair.org) or Mary Sullivan Douglas
    (mdouglas@4cleanair.org) of NACAA.
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of National Association of Clean Water Agencies
        The National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) represents
    over 350 public wastewater and stormwater utility members nationwide,
    providing essential clean water services to more than 150 million
    Americans daily. These utilities serve communities large and small,
    urban and rural, in nearly every State and work around the clock to
    protect public health and the environment and support economic growth.
        Providing these essential clean water services come with a great
    deal of complex challenges, including reinvesting in aging
    infrastructure, managing the escalating operation and maintenance costs
    and supply chain disruptions, attracting and retaining a skilled
    workforce, addressing water quality impairments and regulations, such
    as for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), emerging
    contaminants and nutrients, and investing in climate resilience and
    system security.
        Public clean water utilities are working each day to overcome these
    challenges and provide the highest level of service to the communities
    they serve while ensuring rates remain affordable for families and
    local businesses.
        NACWA greatly appreciates Congress's direct appropriations for
    clean water under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA).
    Other programs were authorized but not directly or fully funded through
    the IIJA. It is important that Congress fully appropriate the clean
    water programs authorized and reauthorized under the IIJA to ensure
    local communities have the resources they need to provide essential
    public wastewater and stormwater services.
        NACWA's FY25 requests are below. As always, we appreciate the
    subcommittee's engagement with the Association and our members and
    consideration of these clean water priorities.
                    clean water state revolving fund (cwsrf)
        The CWSRF is the primary Federal clean water financing tool that
    communities and public clean water utilities utilize to help meet their
    Clean Water Act (CWA) obligations and infrastructure needs. The CWSRF
    has been instrumental to communities' successes in advancing water
    quality and public health protection for over 40 years. Yet as EPA's
    newly-updated Clean Watersheds Needs Survey shows, the cost of
    maintaining wastewater and stormwater infrastructure is growing
    substantially, with an estimated 20-year need of over $630 billion--a
    73 percent increase since a decade ago. The CWSRF must remain a vital
    tool to support communities in making these investments.
        While the IIJA provided a direct 5-year infusion of additional
    funds into the CWSRF, NACWA appreciates that it was the intent of
    Congress for these funds to supplement--not supplant--continued robust
    annual CWSRF appropriations. NACWA strongly urges annual CWSRF
    appropriations be provided at the full IIJA authorized level of $3.25
    billion for FY25.
        We note that NACWA members who have received Congressionally
    Directed Spending in recent Fiscal Years greatly appreciate those
    funds, and we support their continued provision. However, as the
    Committee considers Congressionally Directed Spending moving forward,
    NACWA urges that funding for these projects is not taken from the
    CWSRF's appropriation total, but rather be additive, to ensure that
    State programs do not see their ability to finance water projects
    severely curtailed and to avoid reducing access to the CWSRF by all
    eligible communities in a State.
        Lastly, NACWA wishes to emphasize that innovative technology will
    play an increasingly vital role in public clean water service
    provision. NACWA appreciates the subcommittee's work in the first FY24
    omnibus appropriations package to enhance the use of clean water
    technology. For FY25, NACWA requests that the Committee include
    language prioritizing eligibilities for technological innovation
    through the CWSRF by allowing States the ability to use up to five
    percent of the funds provided to them for projects that utilize proven
    or emerging clean water technology for publicly owned treatment works
    optimization and to meet or enhance local public health and
    environmental objectives. This will help underscore the ability of the
    CWSRF to finance innovative project approaches and new clean water
    technologies.
              sewer overflow and stormwater reuse municipal grants
        Reducing sewer overflows has been a key driver of financial strain
    on hundreds of communities and their ratepayers. This is especially
    clear in communities under Federal consent decrees, as well as those
    addressing aging infrastructure and/or adjusting to population and
    economic shifts, all while dealing with the growing impacts of climate
    change and extreme weather events.
        The Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal Grants program
    provides Federal grant dollars to assist municipal clean water
    utilities and communities in more affordably managing combined sewer
    overflows, sanitary sewer overflows, and stormwater flows for water
    reuse. NACWA strongly supports the growth of this program, which
    provides communities with direct grant dollars (as opposed to loans) to
    make these critical investments and fully supports funding at the
    reauthorized level of $280 million in FY25.
                          low-income water assistance
        For over a decade, NACWA has pushed for the creation of a Federal
    low-income water assistance program to help households maintain access
    to affordable and reliable public clean and drinking water services.
    Similar Federal programs exist to help low-income families with food
    and energy costs, and the time has come for water to be equally
    recognized as a costly but vital public health need. A robust and
    permanent Federal water assistance program is critical to ensuring
    communities and public utilities can provide service to all customers
    and set the rates necessary to maintain safe, reliable water and
    wastewater systems.
        NACWA is grateful for the steps Congress has taken to advance this
    vital need by providing funding for a temporary emergency Low Income
    Household Water Assistance Program administered by the U.S. Department
    of Health and Human Services (HHS) and authorizing the establishment of
    an EPA low-income water customer assistance pilot program in the IIJA.
        However, HHS' LIHWAP funding expired at the end of 2023, leaving
    many struggling families unable to afford their essential water
    services. Additional resources are needed to bridge this gap and ensure
    the long-term viability of a permanent program, and NACWA requests the
    subcommittee provide $225 million in FY24 for the EPA to implement its
    pilot program.
                              integrated planning
        Integrated Planning (IP), codified into the CWA by Congress in
    2018, can assist large and small communities in managing costs and
    sequencing and prioritizing their clean water investments-empowering
    communities to maximize environmental benefits and prioritize their
    most critical environmental outcomes. The IP approach requires a shift
    from business as usual, requiring significant work upfront by
    communities, States, and EPA to achieve improved outcomes.
        NACWA greatly appreciates the $2 million provided by the Committee
    in the first FY24 omnibus appropriations package to provide EPA with
    dedicated resources to help communities develop IP frameworks. The
    Agency is currently working with state regulators to incorporate IP
    approaches into permitting and enforcement, a critical step. NACWA
    requests an additional $2 million in FY25 appropriations to continue
    these efforts.
                 water workforce infrastructure grants program
        The public clean water sector can provide stable career paths
    across skill levels where workers take pride in serving their
    community. However, the water utility workforce is retiring rapidly and
    public utilities are struggling to compete with other sectors to
    attract and retain workers.
        NACWA strongly supports EPA's Water Workforce Infrastructure
    Development Grant Program and requests that the subcommittee provide at
    least $6 million in FY25, which is higher than the FY24 allocation but
    equal to the FY23 allocation. This funding will support innovative
    efforts to develop tomorrow's utility workforce and ensure long-term
    stability in the sector.
        water infrastructure finance and innovation act (wifia) program
        The WIFIA program complements the SRFs, accelerating significant
    water infrastructure investments and leveraging limited Federal
    resources. NACWA supports at least $75.6 million in FY25 for WIFIA,
    which is equal to the FY23 appropriated amount and a slight increase
    from FY24 appropriations. NACWA also supports an additional $5 million
    for the SWIFIA program, which allows state financing authorities that
    administer the SRFs to apply for WIFIA loans directly through the EPA.
    This ability of a State to bundle multiple projects on its approved
    intended use plan can increase participation in smaller, rural, and
    lesser-resourced communities.
        clean water infrastructure resilience and sustainability program
        NACWA strongly supports this program, which was established under
    the IIJA to help clean water utilities that are on the front lines of
    mitigating the impacts of climate change and extreme weather.
    Communities vary in how climate change impacts their infrastructure and
    are trying to implement locally appropriate solutions that ensure
    resilience for critical water services. For FY25, NACWA requests the
    fully authorized amount of $25 million to jumpstart this program.
       connection to publicly owned treatment works (potws) grant program
        NACWA continues its support for this program, established under the
    IIJA, which allows the EPA to provide grants to POTWs or nonprofit
    organizations to cover the costs incurred from connecting a household
    to a municipal or private wastewater system. Connecting Americans
    currently served by a decentralized water system can help provide clean
    water and sanitation services to underserved communities while also
    better-protecting water quality in impaired bodies of water across the
    country. NACWA requests the total authorized amount of $40 million in
    FY25 to establish this critical program.
     establish the small publicly owned treatment works (potws) efficiency
                                     grants
        NACWA requests that the subcommittee establish the Small POTWs
    Efficiency Grant Program at EPA. This program, authorized under the
    IIJA, allows the EPA to assist small POTWs that serve fewer than 10,000
    people or a disadvantaged community by replacing or repairing equipment
    to increase water or energy efficiency. At least 15 percent of
    appropriated funds made available under this program will be used for
    grants to POTWs that serve fewer than 3,300 people. Because the rate
    basis of these small communities is so small, it can be very difficult
    for the POTWs serving these communities to upgrade their plants to
    operate more efficiently.
       grants for construction and refurbishing of individual household
     decentralized wastewater systems for individuals with low or moderate
                                     income
        NACWA requests that the subcommittee provide $50 million for grants
    from the EPA to allow nonprofit organizations to receive funds to
    construct, repair, or replace decentralized wastewater systems for low-
    or moderate-income households or groups of such families. This program,
    which was authorized under the IIJA, would significantly protect water
    quality throughout communities that do not have access to sewer
    sanitary disposal systems and where a connection to a publicly owned
    treatment works (POTWs) might not be feasible or is cost-efficient.
                                      pfas
        Clean water utilities are very concerned about emerging
    contaminants in their influent, the impact of these chemicals on
    treated effluent and biosolids, and potential costs that may accrue to
    public ratepayers. NACWA urges strong funding for EPA to advance
    scientific understanding of PFAS in the environment--particularly
    exposure pathways, toxicity levels, and treatment technologies--key
    factors that guide the development of appropriate, scientific, risk-
    based standards to protect public health and the environment. This work
    can also help advance source control and the transition from PFAS in
    products and supply chains to alternative materials.
        As a crucial part of this, NACWA urges Congress to provide
    dedicated funding to bolster EPA's Biosolids Program, which regulates
    the beneficial reuse of wastewater treatment residuals. EPA's ongoing
    work on the problem formulation for biosolids is critical to providing
    certainty regarding continued safe residual management.
                            additional key programs
        NACWA also supports strong funding for the EPA's Geographic
    Programs, which support critical watershed-based investments; Section
    319 Nonpoint Source grants, which support watershed solutions to
    pollution driven by nonpoint sources, which remain the largest
    outstanding driver of water quality impairments; and the EPA's National
    Priorities Water Research grant program, which supports work on timely
    national water research initiatives.

        [This statement was submitted by Matthew McKenna, NACWA Director,
    Government Affairs.]
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Departments of
                                  Agriculture
        The National Association of State Departments of Agriculture
    (NASDA) commends the subcommittee for its work in support of farmers,
    ranchers, and rural communities. NASDA represents the Commissioners,
    Secretaries, and Directors of agriculture in all 50 States and 4
    territories. NASDA members are co-regulators with the Federal
    Government and strong advocates for American agriculture.
        As you begin the fiscal year (FY) 2025 appropriations process,
    NASDA asks you to prioritize the following programs that enhance
    farmers, ranchers, and rural communities and ensure a safe, affordable,
    and abundant food supply.
                   state and tribal assistance grants (stag)
        State and Tribal Assistance Grants provide States with funding to
    implement the co-regulatory framework of the Federal Insecticide,
    Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act. Increased funds will allow States to
    meet their increasing workload regarding drift complaints and
    implementation of new Federal regulations.
    FIFRA STAG--Pesticide Enforcement Program: $25.58 million
        The Pesticide Enforcement Program is critical to allow state
    enforcement agencies to continue their activities, particularly given
    substantial new compliance and enforcement obligations.
    FIFRA STAG--Pesticides Program Implementation Program: $14.027 million
        The Pesticides Program Implementation Program allows States and
    Tribes to translate often complex pesticide regulatory decisions for
    end-users. This includes the Agricultural Worker Protection Standard
    and Certification and Training Program, the Endangered Species
    Protection Program, Integrated Pest Management, and more.
                       office of pesticide programs (opp)
        NASDA supports increased funding for EPA's Office of Pesticide
    Programs (OPP) at $166 million to ensure timely registration reviews
    and regulatory workload management. Increased funding would provide OPP
    with the resources needed to meet the decision timelines under the law
    and ensure that OPP has adequate funding for all of its activities.
    Since the enactment of the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act
    (PRIA), Congress has intended for industry fees to supplement annual
    appropriations. PRIA requires the termination of the fee program if a
    minimum level of appropriations is not provided.
                     u.s. fish and wildlife service (usfws)
        NASDA supports increased funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service (USFWS) to meet their pesticide consultation obligations and to
    manage their Endangered Species Act (ESA) workloads promptly. The USFWS
    and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) have the primary
    authority to protect threatened and endangered species. The ESA also
    requires other Federal agencies to consult USFWS and NMFS when any
    action the agency carries out, funds, or authorizes may affect a
    species listed as threatened or endangered under the act or any
    critical habitat designated for it. Courts have ruled that the process
    EPA has utilized to meet the consultation requirement is inadequate.
    This has resulted in the revocation of product registrations and uses.
    This additional funding would allow for additional full-time employees
    to be used for pesticide consultations.
                      epa and u.s. army corps of engineers
        NASDA recommends that the Committee limit the EPA (Environmental
    Protection Agency) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) from
    funding the enforcement of the 2023 revised definition of ``Waters of
    the United States'' (WOTUS), until the agencies provide to Congress
    guidance documents that have been used by agency staff to implement the
    Sackett v. EPA decision.
        Almost a year has passed since the landmark Sackett decision, and
    it has been over 6 months since the conforming rule was published, and
    the Agencies still have not effectively engaged the public or addressed
    inquiries from the regulated community on implementation. The agencies
    have revised regulations attempting to implement the Sackett decision
    but have not provided the clarity needed for state departments of
    agriculture, farmers, and landowners across the country. NASDA
    respectfully requests that you limit EPA and USACE from funding until
    they provide implementation materials and guidance for the 2023 revised
    definition of WOTUS.
        NASDA thanks you for your careful consideration of these requests
    as you work to fund the programs that enhance farmers and ranchers and
    ensure a safe, affordable, and abundant food supply. If you have any
    questions, please contact RJ Karney, Senior Director Public Policy,
    RJ.Karney@nasda.org.

        [This statement was submitted by Ted McKinney, CEO National
    Association of State Departments of Agriculture.]
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of National Association of State Energy Officials
        Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
    subcommittee, I am David Terry, President of the National Association
    of State Energy Officials (NASEO), which represents the 56 State and
    Territory Energy Directors and their Offices. NASEO submits this
    testimony in support of funding for the ENERGY STAR program (within the
    Climate Protection Partnership Division of the Office of Air and
    Radiation) at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). NASEO
    supports funding of at least $50 million in FY'25, including specific
    report language directing that the funds be utilized only for the
    ENERGY STAR program. The program received $54 million a decade ago and
    is now down to approximately $35 million. The ENERGY STAR program is
    successful, voluntary, and cost-effective. The program has a proven
    track record--it makes sense, it saves energy and money, and Americans
    embrace it. ENERGY STAR helps consumers and businesses control
    expenditures over the long term. The program is strongly supported by
    product manufacturers, utilities, and homebuilders, and ENERGY STAR
    leverages the States' voluntary efficiency actions. Voluntary ENERGY
    STAR activities are occurring in public buildings, such as schools, in
    conjunction with State Energy Offices, in virtually every State,
    including Oregon and Alaska. The States and the public utilize ENERGY
    STAR because it is seen as unbiased and delivers cost-saving benefits
    to businesses, consumers and State and local governments.
        The ENERGY STAR program is focused on voluntary efforts that reduce
    energy waste, promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy, and
    works with States, local governments, communities and business to
    achieve these goals in a cooperative, public-private manner.
        Most State Energy Offices and NASEO work closely with the ENERGY
    STAR program. With very limited funding, EPA's ENERGY STAR program
    coordinates with the State Energy Offices to give consumers and
    businesses the opportunity and technical assistance tools to make
    better energy decisions and catalyzes product efficiency improvements
    by manufacturers without regulation or mandates. The program is
    voluntary.
        ENERGY STAR focuses on energy-efficient products as well as
    buildings (e.g., residential, commercial, and industrial). Over 300
    million ENERGY STAR qualified products were sold in 2019 alone, not
    including another 300 million ENERGY STAR certified light bulbs. The
    ENERGY STAR label is recognized across the United States. Approximately
    90 percent of households recognize the ENERGY STAR label and a majority
    of surveyed U.S. households reported having purchased an ENERGY STAR
    product. The manufacturing, installation, design, wholesale
    distribution, and provision of installation services related to ENERGY
    STAR products employed approximately 750,000 American workers (not
    including retail employment) according to a 2023 DOE Report. It makes
    the work of the State Energy Offices much easier, by providing
    consumers an easily-recognized product and services option. In order to
    obtain the ENERGY STAR label, a product has to meet established
    guidelines. ENERGY STAR's voluntary partnership programs include ENERGY
    STAR Buildings, ENERGY STAR Homes, ENERGY STAR Small Business, and
    ENERGY STAR Labeled Products. We are also encouraged by the ENERGY STAR
    Home Upgrades Program.
        State Energy Offices are working with EPA to promote ENERGY STAR
    products, ENERGY STAR for new construction, ENERGY STAR for public
    housing, etc. Another ENERGY STAR success is in the manufactured
    housing sector. Some States and utilities offer modest rebates for
    ENERGY STAR manufactured homes in order to deliver both energy cost
    savings to homeowners and lower overall electric grid operation costs
    for all customers.
        In 2023, millions of consumers and thousands of voluntary partners,
    including manufacturers, builders, businesses, communities, and
    utilities, tapped the value of ENERGY STAR and achieved impressive
    financial and environmental results.
        More than 840 utilities, State, and local governments and non-
    profits utilize ENERGY STAR in their energy efficiency programs, as do
    approximately 1,700 manufacturers.
        The State Energy Offices are very encouraged by progress made at
    EPA, in partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy, and in our
    States to promote programs to make schools more energy-efficient while
    improving indoor air quality and comfort. In fact, there are over 150
    ENERGY STAR-rated schools in States from Arizona to Maine. In addition,
    many States' private sector partners voluntarily utilize ENERGY STAR to
    promote energy efficiency and lower operating costs.
        EPA provides technical assistance to the State Energy Offices in
    such areas as ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager (how to rate the
    performance of buildings), setting an energy target, and financing
    options for building improvements and building upgrade strategies.
    ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager is used extensively by State Energy
    Offices to benchmark performance of State and municipal buildings,
    saving taxpayer dollars. Portfolio Manager is the industry-leading
    benchmarking tool which has been used voluntarily in approximately 50%
    of the commercial buildings in the United States. Portfolio Manager is
    used to measure, track, assess, and report energy and water
    consumption. Portfolio Manager has been updated and is now more
    helpful. Portfolio Manager is utilized by 7 States and 48 local
    governments.
        Additionally, the industrial sector embraces ENERGY STAR at job-
    creating companies such as GM, Eastman Chemical, Nissan, Raytheon, and
    Boeing. At the close of 2022, more than 750 U.S. industrial sites had
    committed to the ENERGY STAR Challenge for Industry
        The State Energy Offices are working cooperatively with our peers
    in the state environmental agencies and state public utilities
    commissions to ensure that programs, regulations, projects and policies
    are developed recognizing both energy and environmental concerns. We
    have worked closely with this program at EPA to address these issues.
    We encourage these continued efforts.
        For example, in Oregon, the State is focused on decarbonization
    efforts, and ENERGY STAR is a useful tool to promote sustained
    investments in energy efficiency. In Alaska, the State has worked with
    partners to promote the Village Energy Efficiency Program, and ENERGY
    STAR has been critical.
        Moreover, Oregon and Alaska have significant ENERGY STAR activities
    underway:

      --Oregon is home to more than 1,111 businesses and organizations
            participating in U.S. EPA's ENERGY STAR program: 9
            manufacturers of ENERGY STAR certified products; 10 companies
            supporting independent certification of ENERGY STAR products
            and homes; and 49 companies building ENERGY STAR certified
            homes. ENERGY STAR Partner Activity in Oregon includes 1.9
            million customers served by ENERGY STAR utility partners in
            2020; 3,607 buildings (255 million square feet) benchmarked
            using EPA's ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager; 26,522 homes earned
            the ENERGY STAR; 437 buildings earned the ENERGY STAR,
            including 107 schools, 3 hotels, 6 hospitals, 142 office
            buildings and 5 industrial plants.

      --Alaska is home to more than 52 businesses and organizations
            participating in U.S. EPA's ENERGY STAR program; has 153,000
            customers being served by ENERGY STAR utility partners; 437
            buildings that have been benchmarked using EPA's ENERGY STAR
            Portfolio Manager; 11,891 homes have earned the ENERGY STAR
            label; and 31 schools and 4 hospitals.
                                   conclusion
        The ENERGY STAR program saves consumers billions of dollars every
    year. The payback and job creation benefits are enormous. NASEO
    supports robust program funding of at least $50 million in FY'25.
    Funding for the ENERGY STAR program is justified. It is a solid public-
    private relationship that leverages resources, time and talent to
    produce tangible results by saving energy and money and, in light of
    Administrator Michael Regan's commitment to environmental justice, can
    provide immense benefits to high-need and underserved communities.
    NASEO endorses these activities as well as the constructive
    partnerships that the State Energy Offices have with EPA to
    cooperatively implement a variety of critical national programs without
    mandates.

        [This statement was submitted by David Terry, President, National
    Association of State Energy Officials.]
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Association of State Foresters
        The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) appreciates the
    opportunity to submit written public testimony to the House Committee
    on Appropriations, subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies regarding our fiscal year (FY) 2025 appropriations
    recommendations. Our priorities focus primarily on appropriations for
    the USDA Forest Service (Forest Service) State, Private, and Tribal
    Forestry (SP&TF) programs, as well as the Research and Development
    (R&D) Forest Inventory and Analysis Program.
        State foresters deliver technical and financial assistance, along
    with forest health, water, and wildfire protection for more than two-
    thirds of the Nation's 751 million acres of forests. The Forest Service
    SP&TF mission area provides vital support to deliver these services,
    which contribute to the socioeconomic and environmental health of rural
    and urban areas. The comprehensive process for delivering these
    services is articulated in each State's Forest Resource Assessment and
    Strategy (Forest Action Plan), authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill and
    continued in the 2018 Farm Bill. State Forest Action Plans-completed in
    2010, updated in 2015, and comprehensively revised in 2020 by all 59
    States, U.S. territories, freely associated States, and the District of
    Columbia-offer practical and comprehensive roadmaps for investing
    federal, State, local, and private resources where they can be most
    effective in achieving national conservation goals. SP&TF programs
    provide a significant return on Federal investment by leveraging the
    boots-on-the-ground and financial resources of State agencies to
    deliver assistance to forest landowners, Tribes, and communities. As
    Federal and State governments continue to face financial challenges,
    state foresters, in partnership with the SP&TF mission area of the
    Forest Service, are best positioned to maximize the effectiveness of
    available resources by focusing work on priority forest issues where
    resources are needed most.
        The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA/BIL) has provided
    game changing support in the form of flexible funding for State Forest
    Action Plan implementation-allowing States to address the highest
    priority forest management activities within their state, as identified
    and developed collaboratively with partners and stakeholders.
    Additionally, the IIJA/BIL provided critical support for the State Fire
    Assistance and Volunteer Fire Assistance Programs. We look forward to
    working with you to develop pathways for these historic investments to
    continue beyond FY2026.
        Your support of the following programs is critical to helping
    States address the many and varied challenges outlined in Forest Action
    Plans.
         assisting landowners and maintaining healthy forests--forest
                 stewardship program and forest legacy program
        Actively managed healthy forest landscapes are a vital part of
    rural America, providing an estimated 900,000 jobs, clean water, wood
    products, and other essential services to millions of Americans. Over
    50% of U.S. forestland is privately owned and supports an average of
    eight jobs per 1,000 acres.\1\ However, the Forest Service estimates
    that 57 million acres of private forests in the U.S. are at risk of
    conversion to urban development over the next two decades. Programs
    like the Forest Stewardship Program (FSP) and the Forest Legacy Program
    (FLP) are key tools identified in the Forest Action Plans for keeping
    working forests intact and providing a full suite of benefits to
    society. With the Great American Outdoors Act (GAOA) signed into law,
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) now receives permanent
    annual funding at the full authorized level of $900 million, nearly
    doubling historical appropriations for the LWCF. FLP should receive
    significantly increased funding levels commensurate with the increased
    funding provided to the LWCF by the GAOA.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Forest2Market. The Economic Impact of Privately-Owned Forests.
    2009.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Currently, there are over 20 million acres nationwide managed under
    the Forest Stewardship Program. FSP is the most extensive family
    forest-owner assistance program in the country and is delivered in
    partnership with state forestry agencies, cooperative extension
    services, certified foresters, conservation districts, and other
    partners. In 2023, the program initiated over 12,000 new management
    plans providing assistance and educational opportunities to over
    585,000 landowners and covering over 1.32 million acres. FSP equips
    private forest landowners with the unbiased, science-based information
    they need to sustainably manage their forests now and into the future,
    helping to keep forests as forests. In addition to delivering technical
    assistance directly to forestland owners, the Forest Stewardship
    Program often serves as a gateway to other landowner cost-share
    assistance programming, like the USDA Environmental Quality Incentives
    Program, State programs, and partner programs, that can help landowners
    keep their forests working and intact. Forest landowners with
    management plans are almost three times more likely to meet their
    management objectives compared to those without management plans. The
    FSP leads landowners to reach their management objectives while tying
    them to the State's Forest Action Plan.
        The Forest Stewardship Program is facing an uncertain future. Not
    only does current enrollment represent only a fraction of the
    landowners and acres that could benefit from the program with
    additional funding, but--assuming continued level funding--the Forest
    Stewardship Program will see close to 7 million acres leave the program
    over the next 3 years due to expiring plans. The result is families and
    individuals without the additional resources needed to meet their
    forest management goals and a strain on other agencies' programs and
    resources to support landowners who previously received assistance
    through the Forest Stewardship Program. Although effective and in
    demand, the Forest Stewardship Program has seen a troubling 50 percent
    decline in Federal funding over the last decade. The program simply
    cannot meet or maintain its current enrollment without sustained
    increases in funding.
        Following congressional direction, NASF has worked closely with the
    Forest Service to modernize the funding allocation formula to State
    agencies for FSP, focused on improving program delivery with greater
    emphasis on performance-based outcomes. Under the new allocation
    formula, priority areas and priority resource concerns have been
    designated in each State and greater emphasis has been placed on
    providing technical assistance and implementing land management plans
    in those priority areas. NASF supports funding for the Forest
    Stewardship Program at $22 million, a $10 million increase from the FY
    2024 enacted level and the Forest Legacy Program at $128 million, a $40
    million increase from the FY 2024 enacted level, in FY 2025.
        state fire assistance (sfa) and volunteer fire assistance (vfa)
        More people living in fire-prone landscapes, high fuel loads,
    drought, and deteriorating forest health have led most state foresters
    to identify wildland fire as a priority issue in their Forest Action
    Plans. We now grapple with increasingly expensive and complex wildland
    fires--fires that frequently threaten human life and property. Prior to
    2003, our forests and communities experienced an average of 2.8 million
    acres burning annually. Since 2004, however, annual wildfires have
    burned over 7.1 million acres on average, with historic highs in the
    numbers of acres burned in 2015, 2017, and 2020.\2\ As of last month,
    we have already seen nearly 1.8 million acres burned in 2024 with the
    summer and fall fire season yet ahead of us. State and local agencies
    respond to the majority of wildfires across the country; in 2023 State
    and local agencies were responsible for responding to 46,176 (82%) of
    the 56,580 reported wildfires across all jurisdictions.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Wildfires and acres. National Interagency Fire Center. (n.d.).
    Last accessed on April 30, 2024 at https://www.nifc.gov/fire-
    information/statistics/wildfires
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        SFA and VFA are the fundamental Federal mechanisms for assisting
    States and local fire departments in responding to wildland fires and
    conducting management activities that mitigate fire risk on non-federal
    lands. SFA also helps train and equip local first responders who are
    often the first to arrive at a wildland fire incident and who play a
    crucial role in keeping fires and their costs as minimal as possible.
    Attacking fires when they are small is the key to reducing fatalities,
    injuries, loss of homes, and cutting Federal fire-fighting costs. The
    need for increased funding for fire suppression on Federal lands has
    broad support. The need to increase fire suppression funding for state
    and private lands, where roughly 80 percent of wildfires occur and
    where many Federal fires begin, is just as urgent. NASF supports
    funding the State Fire Assistance Program at $85 million, a $9 million
    increase from the FY 2024 enacted level, and Volunteer Fire Assistance
    Program at $25 million, a $4 million increase from the FY 2024 enacted
    level, in FY 2025.
                        forest pests and invasive plants
        Among the greatest threats identified in the Forest Action Plans
    are native and non-native pests and diseases which have the potential
    to displace native trees, shrubs, and other vegetation types in
    forests; the Forest Service estimates that hundreds of native and non-
    native insects and diseases damage the Nation's forests each year. The
    growing number of damaging pests and diseases are often introduced and
    spread by way of wooden shipping materials, movement of firewood, and
    through various types of recreation. An estimated 81 million acres are
    at risk of attack by insects and disease.\3\ These extensive areas of
    high insect or disease mortality can set the stage for large-scale,
    catastrophic wildfire.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Tkacz, Bory, et al. 2014. NIDRM 2012 Report Files: Executive
    Summary. 2013-2027 National Insect and Disease Forest Risk Assessment.
    Last accessed on March, 5, 2019 at: http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/
    technology/pdfs/2012_RiskMap_Exec_summary.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Cooperative Forest Health Management program supports
    activities related to prevention, monitoring, suppression, and
    eradication of insects, diseases, and plants through provision of
    technical and financial assistance to States and territories to
    maintain healthy, productive forest ecosystems on non-federal forest
    lands. The Cooperative Forest Health Management program plays a
    critical part in protecting communities already facing outbreaks and in
    preventing exposure of more forests and trees to the devastating and
    costly effects of damaging pests and pathogens. NASF supports funding
    the Forest Health-Cooperative Lands Program at $39.43 million in FY
    2025, a $7.4 million increase from the FY 2024 enacted level.
                urban and community forest management challenges
        Urban forests are essential for achieving energy savings, improved
    air quality, neighborhood stability, aesthetic value, reduced noise,
    and improved quality of life in municipalities and communities around
    the country. Urban trees and forests provide a wide array of social,
    economic, and environmental benefits to people living in urban areas;
    today, more than 83 percent of the Nation's population lives in urban
    areas. Yet, urban and community forests face serious threats, such as
    development and urbanization, invasive pests and diseases, and fire in
    the wildland urban interface (WUI).
        The program is delivered in close partnership with state foresters
    and leverages existing local efforts that have helped thousands of
    communities and towns manage, maintain, and improve their tree cover
    and green spaces. In FY 2023, the U&CF program delivered technical,
    financial, educational, and research assistance to 7,542 communities
    across all 50 States, U.S. territories, three nations in compacts of
    free association with the U.S., and the District of Columbia. NASF
    supports funding the Urban and Community Forestry Program at $42
    million in FY 2025, a $6 million increase from the FY 2024 enacted
    level.
        importance of forest inventory data in monitoring forest issues
        The Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program, managed by Forest
    Service, Forest and Rangeland Research, is the only comprehensive
    inventory system in the United States for assessing the health and
    sustainability of the Nation's forests across all ownerships. FIA
    provides essential data related to forest species composition, forest
    growth rates, and forest health data, and it delivers baseline
    inventory estimates used in Forest Action Plans. Further, this data is
    used by academics, researchers, industry, and others to understand
    forest trends and support investments in forest products facilities
    that provide jobs and products to society. The program provides
    unbiased information used in monitoring of wildlife habitat, wildfire
    risk, insect and disease threats, invasive species spread, and response
    to priorities identified in the Forest Action Plans.
        As the key partner in FIA program delivery via State contribution
    of matching funds, state foresters look forward to continued work with
    the Forest Service to improve efficiency in delivery of the program to
    meet the needs of the diverse user groups for FIA data. This will
    ensure that, at a minimum, the historical level of base program
    delivery is accomplished, which should include funding the collection
    of data on a 7-year cycle in the east and 10-year cycle in the west.
    NASF appreciates Congress supporting this program with a significant
    increase in FY 2023 and encourages ongoing support of the Forest
    Inventory and Analysis Program at $32.4 million in FY 2025, a $930,000
    increase from the FY 2024 enacted level. Furthermore, we continue our
    request that you work with the Forest Service to establish a budget
    line item for FIA for salaries and expenses.
                       landscape scale restoration (lsr)
        The Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR) program is an important way
    that States address critical forest priorities across the landscape, in
    collaboration with the Forest Service and other partners. LSR projects
    focus on the most critical priorities identified in each State's Forest
    Action Plan and on achieving resource objectives outlined in the 2018
    Farm Bill. The program prioritizes funding projects that reduce the
    risk of uncharacteristic wildfires, improve fish and wildlife habitats,
    maintain or improve water quality and watershed function, mitigate
    invasive species, insect infestation and disease, improve important
    forest ecosystems, and measure ecological and economic benefits
    including air and soil quality and productivity. As a result, LSR
    contributes to achieving results across the landscape and to making
    meaningful local, regional, and national impacts. NASF supports funding
    the Landscape Scale Restoration Program at $20 million in FY 2025, a $6
    million increase from the FY 2024 enacted level.
        NASF appreciates the opportunity to share our FY 2025
    appropriations recommendations for the Forest Service with the
    subcommittee.

        [This statement was submitted by Scott Phillips, South Carolina
    State Forester, and President, NASF.]
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Association of Tribal Historic
                             Preservation Officers
        Chair Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of the
    subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to provide the National
    Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers' (NATHPO)'s
    recommendations for Fiscal Year 2025 appropriations. My name is Valerie
    Grussing and I am the Executive Director.
        We greatly appreciated the Committee's decision to include $23
    million in the Tribal line item of the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF)
    in the Fiscal Year 2024 Interior Appropriations bill. The Committee's
    support was instrumental in the Tribal line item, which supports Tribal
    Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), being funded at $23 million in
    FY24.
        Despite the Committee's strong support, Tribal Nations still lack
    the funding they need to fulfill their federally delegated
    responsibility to protect and preserve cultural resources and sacred
    places. The $23 million for the Tribal line item for FY24 is the same
    amount as was allocated for the line item in FY23. This is problematic
    for two key reasons: THPOs have experienced a significant increase in
    the number of projects on which they are required to consult, related
    to efforts under the Inflation Reduction Act, the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Law, renewable energy development, and improving
    broadband buildout. THPOs have not received a commensurate increase in
    funding for staffing to handle these increased reviews. The growing
    workload on THPOs is exacerbated by the significant annual increase in
    the number of THPOs. While the funding for the Tribal line item stayed
    at $23 million from FY23 to FY24, the number of THPOs increased from
    211 to 222. These combined challenges have resulted in the average
    amount of funding that each THPO receives declining from $108,000 in
    2023 to $104,000 in 2024.
        What is at stake? The work that THPOs do is about much more than
    restoring culturally important land or rivers or preserving species
    that are central to Tribal Nations' stories. At its core, THPOs' work
    is about addressing epidemics in Indian Country that are the symptoms
    of historical trauma--of people systematically cut off from their
    families, languages, practices, and lands. Reconnecting Native peoples
    to their cultural heritage, traditions, and places has the power to
    help heal deep generational wounds. Treating the cause: that is the
    work THPOs do. To continue this work in Indian Country, it is essential
    that THPO programs receive increased funding to meet the significant
    need. We urge the Committee to also support the following funding
    levels:

        1. National Park Service, Historic Preservation Fund, Tribal line
    item ($34 million)

        2. National Park Service, National NAGPRA Program:

        a. Exclusively for NAGPRA Grants ($12.4 million)

        b. Program administration ($1 million for Program Use)

        3. Bureau of Indian Affairs--Create line items and support the
    following divisions:

        a.Cultural Resource compliance at the 12 Regional BIA Offices ($8
    million);

        b.Central Office cultural resource efforts throughout the bureau
    ($800,000);

        c.NAGPRA compliance work ($1.5 million);

        d.To fight ARPA crimes on Indian reservations ($850,000);

        e.Museum property and curation ($400,000).

        4. Smithsonian Institution: For repatriation activities, including
    Review Committee and repatriation office ($3 million)

        5. Bureau of Land Management: Tribal Liaison Program, NAGPRA
    compliance ($3 million)

        6. Department of Justice, Environmental Crime Section: STOP Act,
    NAGPRA, ARPA enforcement ($1 million)

        What are Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs)? THPOs are
    an exercise of Tribal sovereignty, appointed by federally recognized
    Tribal governments that have an agreement with the Department of the
    Interior to assume the Federal compliance role of the State Historic
    Preservation Officers (SHPO), per the National Historic Preservation
    Act (NHPA). Tribal historic preservation plans are grounded in self-
    determination, traditional knowledge, and cultural values, and may
    involve projects to improve Indian schools, roads, health clinics, and
    housing. THPOs are the first responders when a sacred site is
    threatened or when Native ancestors are disturbed by development. THPOs
    are often responsible for their Tribe's oral history programs,
    operating museums and cultural centers, leading revitalization of
    Native traditions and languages, and many more related functions.
        What is NATHPO? NATHPO is a national nonprofit association of THPOs
    protecting culturally important places that perpetuate Native identity,
    resilience, and cultural endurance.
    1. Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), administered by NPS--Tribal line
            item ($34 million)
        As of March 1, 2024, there were 222 National Park Service (NPS)-
    recognized THPOs. Each THPO represents an affirmative step by an Indian
    Tribe to assume the responsibilities of the SHPO for their respective
    Tribal lands, as authorized by Congress in the 1992 amendments to the
    National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Collectively, they exercise
    responsibilities over a land base exceeding 50 million acres in 30
    States. The HPF is the sole source of Federal funding for THPOs. We
    recommend $34 million to carry out the requirements of the NHPA. This
    would provide the 222 federally recognized THPOs an average of $153,153
    each to run their programs. Funding THPOs and staff creates jobs,
    generates economic development, and spurs community revitalization. It
    also facilitates required environmental and historic review processes,
    including for energy and infrastructure permitting. Tribes don't want
    to stop this development--they need it more than anyone. But they also
    need to reap the benefits rather than just continue to incur the costs.
    Providing $34 million for THPOs for FY25 would strengthen the
    permitting process, while at the same time making sure Tribal Nations'
    cultural resources and sacred places are protected and preserved.

    Additional HPF programs administered by the National Park Service:

        NATHPO appreciates the strong HPF funding levels the Committee has
    provided in recent years. We support an overall FY25 HPF request of
    $225 million. Within that funding we recommend:

      --$70 million for State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs);

      --$34 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs);

      --$28 million for competitive grants related to African American
            Civil Rights;

      --$7 million for the History of Equal Rights Grants program;

      --$13 million for grants to Historically Black Colleges and
            Universities;

      --$40 million for Save America's Treasures grants;

      --$17 million for Paul Bruhn Historic Revitalization grants;

      --$5 million for grants related to communities underrepresented on
            the National Register of Historic Places and National Historic
            Landmarks;

      --$5 million for grants related to communities underrepresented on
            the National Register of Historic Places and National Historic
            Landmarks;

      --$11 million for the Semiquincentennial grant program to preserve
            historical sites commemorating the 250th Anniversary of the
            United States of America.
    2. National Park Service, National NAGPRA Program
        The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)
    provides for the disposition of Native American cultural items \1\
    removed from Federal or Tribal lands, or in the repatriation of
    cultural items in possession or control of museums or Federal agencies
    to lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations.
    NAGPRA also prohibits trafficking of cultural items.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Cultural items include human remains, funerary objects, sacred
    objects, and objects of cultural patrimony.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        NAGPRA Grants Program: The National Park Service recently revised
    the regulations implementing NAGPRA. These revisions dramatically
    increased the burden on Indian Tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations,
    and museums. We request that the NAGPRA grants program be funded at
    $12.4 million. We also request that you direct the Government
    Accountability Office to evaluate the effectiveness of this grant
    program and the cost estimates prepared by the Department of the
    Interior for the regulations.
        Administration of National NAGPRA Program: $1 million,
    additionally, for NAGPRA program administration, including the
    publication of Federal Register notices, grant administration, civil
    penalty investigations, and Review Committee costs. We also request
    that you direct the Government Accountability Office to evaluate the
    effectiveness of the National NAGPRA Program's implementation of civil
    penalty investigations.
    3. Bureau of Indian Affairs--Create line items and support the
            following divisions
        The BIA has federally mandated responsibilities to work with Indian
    Tribes and comply with the NHPA, the National Environmental Policy Act
    (NEPA), NAGPRA, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA).
    Currently the BIA does not have any budget line items devoted to
    complying with these Federal laws. Funds are not only needed for the
    BIA to comply with their internal development efforts, such as roads
    and forestry, but also to conduct project reviews of outside
    development projects, such as oil and gas development. ARPA crime on
    Indian reservations continues to be a major problem, as looters and
    traffickers continue to steal valuable cultural resources from Tribal
    and Federal lands. Until recently, the BIA did not have any special
    agents or law enforcement forces to combat this uniquely destructive
    crime in Indian Country. There are now four agents nationwide and we
    urge the Committee to enable two additional agents nationwide plus two
    in Alaska. The new NAGPRA regulations place significant compliance
    requirements on the Tribes regarding grave protection, discoveries, and
    excavations on Tribal lands, including non-trust lands within the
    exterior boundaries of Indian reservations.

        NATHPO recommends the BIA create line items and support the
    following divisions:

        a. Cultural Resource compliance at the 12 Regional BIA Offices ($8
    million);

        b. Central Office cultural resource efforts throughout the bureau
    ($800,000);

        c. NAGPRA compliance work ($1.5 million);

        d. To fight ARPA crimes on Indian reservations ($850,000);

        e. Museum property and curation ($400,000);

        f. Assistance to Tribes to carry out responsibilities for grave
    protection, discoveries, and excavations on Tribal lands ($40 million).

        4. Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of the American Indian
    and the National Museum of Natural History Repatriation Programs

        NATHPO requests that the Smithsonian Institution receive $3 million
    specifically directed to expediting its repatriation activities.

        5. Bureau of Land Management: Tribal Liaisons and Cultural
    Resources Management

        The BLM oversees the largest, most diverse and scientifically
    important collection of historic and cultural resources on our Nation's
    public lands, as well as the museum collections and data associated
    with them. We appreciate the Committee's commitment to ongoing
    oversight of the Department's reorganization. NATHPO and many other
    organizations are profoundly concerned with the impact of the
    reorganization and loss of staff within the Cultural Resources
    Division. The cultural resources program also supports NHPA Section 106
    review of land-use proposals, Section 110 inventory and protection of
    cultural resources, compliance with NAGPRA, and consultation with
    Tribes and Alaska Native Governments. We are very appreciative of the
    Committee's continuing support for the agency to enhance its National
    Cultural Resources Information Management System (NCRIMS).
        Additionally, responsive to recommendations in the 2010 GAO report
    on NAGPRA, BLM stated at that time that nine new positions and $22
    million were needed to improve compliance. Neither of these has
    happened, and now the new NAGPRA regulations present further demands
    that BLM (and other agencies as well as Tribes) are not equipped to
    meet. It is incumbent upon this Committee to provide commensurate
    resources to assist with the critical and overdue task of bringing
    ancestors home. We recommend providing specific funding of $3 million
    above enacted, specifically to continue building the vital Tribal
    Liaison Program, including the Headquarters agency lead and 12 State
    Office positions, and staffing related to NAGPRA compliance.
    6. Department of Justice, Environmental Crime Section
        Add $1 million to the budget of the Environmental Crime Section
    specifically to enforce the Safeguard Tribal Objects of Patrimony Act,
    Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, and
    Archaeological Resources Protection Act

        [This statement was submitted by Valerie J. Grussing, PhD,
    Executive Director.]
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of National Conference of State Historic
                             Preservation Officers
    Fiscal Year 2025 Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) Appropriations
    Request: $225 million

      --$70 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs)

      --$40 million for the Save America's Treasures grant program

      --$34 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs)

      --$28 million for the African American Civil Rights grant program

      --$17 million for the Paul Bruhn Historic Revitalization grant
            program

      --$13 million Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs)
            grant program

      --$11 million for the Semiquincentennial grant program

      --$7 million for the History of Equal Rights grant program

      --$5 million for the Underrepresented Community grant program
    funded through withdrawals from the historic preservation fund (16 usc
         470h), u.s. department of the interior's national park service
                unique and successful federal-state partnership
        Recognizing the importance of our National heritage, in 1966
    Congress passed the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA, Title 54
    U.S.C. 300101 et seq), which established historic preservation as a
    priority of the Federal Government. Recognizing that State officials
    have local expertise, the act's authors directed Federal entities
    charged with its implementation--the Department of the Interior and the
    Advisory Council on Historic Preservation--to partner with the States.
    Duties delegated to the SHPOs include: 1) locating and recording
    historic resources; 2) nominating significant historic resources to the
    National Register of Historic Places; 3) cultivating historic
    preservation programs at the local government level; 4) providing funds
    for preservation activities; 5) commenting on Federal rehabilitation
    tax credit projects; 6) review of all Federal projects for their impact
    on historic properties; and 7) providing technical assistance to
    Federal agencies, State and local governments and the private sector.
        Ten years later in 1976, Congress established the Historic
    Preservation Fund (HPF) to assist the States in accomplishing this
    federally delegated work. The HPF is funded from outer-continental
    shelf lease revenues (rather than tax dollars), so that the depletion
    of one non-renewal resource can be used to help preserve another non-
    renewable resource--our heritage. The States also contribute to this
    effort, matching at least 40 percent of the HPF funding they receive.
                           saving america's heritage
        The first step in preserving and protecting America's heritage is
    identifying it--which requires the survey, documentation, stewardship
    and sharing of historic place data. These places represent the many
    people and events that shape our collective national identity. Adequate
    funding is essential for SHPOs to meet these goals. For example,
    current shortfalls in funding mean that many States must continue to
    rely upon outdated paper records for a variety of program purposes.
    Having accurate, up-to-date, and digitally accessible information about
    our Nation's historic resources would dramatically increase the
    efficiency of and foster a balanced approach for all local, State, and
    Federal projects. From decisions on the design of local infill
    development, to state transportation planning projects, to Federal
    large-scale energy projects and disaster recovery efforts--every single
    project that could impact historic places, and by extension, the
    American people, benefit from enhanced and accessible historic resource
    databases.
        Directing $70 million for FY 2025 to SHPO offices will provide much
    needed operational funding to aid in increased capacity and
    efficiency--goals embraced by Congress and the Administration. With the
    recent $500 billion in new infrastructure spending nationally, SHPOs
    are in dire need of resources to operate programs as they continue to
    fulfill responsibilities to review and comment on increasing numbers of
    Federal undertakings under NHPA to fulfill their obligations towards
    protection and preservation of their States' irreplaceable historic
    places. In FY 2022, HPF funding also enabled SHPOs to review 177, 4003
    Federal undertakings--a 42.7% increase over the prior year. Likewise,
    Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs) assume many of the
    responsibilities of the SHPO on their respective Tribal lands. The
    number of THPOs continues to increase annually, requiring funding to
    keep pace with expanding needs. With over 222 THPOs currently, funding
    of $34 million for THPO offices is necessary to prevent a decrease in
    the average THPO grant.
        Once identified and documented, America's historic resources are
    primarily recognized at the local, State, and national levels by
    listing on both the National Register as well as State and local
    historic registers with varying degrees of protection, consideration,
    and recognition. State Historic Preservation Officers, through the
    authority of the National Historic Preservation Act, assist, support
    and encourage communities with their preservation efforts and are the
    gateway to listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
    National Register recognition by the Secretary of the Interior confirms
    citizens' belief in the significance of their communities' historic
    places and enhances support for their preservation.
        Allow me to underscore that the National Historic Preservation
    program is primarily one of assistance, not acquisition. The Federal
    Government does not own, manage, or maintain responsibility for the
    vast majority of the historic assets aided by the National Historic
    Preservation program. Rather, the program, through the SHPOs, provides
    individual Americans and communities, together with local, State, and
    Federal Governments with the tools they need to identify, preserve, and
    utilize the historic assets of importance to them. SHPOs are
    constituent-oriented and constituent-focused, and working closely and
    cooperatively with individual Americans to preserve historic places
    across the Nation is a fundamental role.
        HPF funds also support competitive grant programs aimed at
    protecting and promoting the Nation's historic and cultural resources,
    while furthering efforts to tell the full scope of America's history
    through recognition and preservation of irreplaceable historic places.
    As such, NCSHPO supports HPF funding of $40 million for the Save
    America's Treasures grant program; $28 million for the African American
    Civil Rights grant program; $17 million for the Paul Bruhn Historic
    Revitalization grant program to support historic preservation in rural
    communities; $13 million to assist in the preservation and
    rehabilitation of buildings on the campuses of Historically Black
    Colleges and Universities (HBCUs); $11 million to support the
    Semiquincentennial grant program to commemorate the Nation's 250th
    anniversary; $7 million for the History of Equal Rights grant program;
    and $5 million for competitive grants to identify, recognize and
    preserve the sites and stories related to Underrepresented Communities.
        The FY24 omnibus spending level for the HPF in the amount of
    $188.666 million, reflects a decrease of over $15 million from FY23, to
    the detriment of our historic and cultural assets.
             jobs, economic development & community revitalization
        Historic preservation has stimulated economic growth, promoted
    community education and pride, and rescued and rehabilitated
    significant historic resources throughout the country. By positively
    combatting the effects of blight and vacancy through respectful
    repurposing of existing historic building stock, historic preservation
    is frequently a catalyst for positive community change--resulting in
    dynamic destinations for visitors and residents alike. Further,
    preservation incentives and programs foster affordable housing and
    solutions to the challenge of environmental change.
        The Federal Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC) program, administered
    by the State Historic Preservation Offices in cooperation with the
    National Park Service, is an important driver for economic development.
    Since 1976, the HTC has driven completion of nearly 49,000 individual
    projects, created more than 3.2 million jobs, leveraged over $131.71
    billion in private investment nationwide, and created 199,138 low and
    moderate income housing units.\1\ On average, the HTC leverages $5
    dollars in private investment for every $1 dollar in Federal funding,
    cultivating highly effective public-private partnerships and community
    focused re-investment. 39 States currently offer a historic tax credit
    program \2\, including my own state of North Carolina. State tax credit
    programs complement the Federal HTC program incentives and provide
    additional opportunities for community revitalization and saving
    historic places for the use and enjoyment of future generations of
    Americans.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ 2024. National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior,
    Technical Preservation Services. Federal Tax Incentives for
    Rehabilitating Historic Buildings Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2023.
        \2\ 2022. National Trust for Historic Preservation. Preservation &
    State Historic Tax Credits.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Historic preservation also stimulates economic development through
    heritage tourism. SHPOs are essential local partners in identifying and
    interpreting the historic places that attract and inspire visitors. A
    modest increase in SHPO funding would allow SHPOs to expand their
    public outreach and assistance efforts, enabling communities to take
    greater advantage of heritage tourism opportunities which lead to job
    creation, new business development and enhanced community pride.
              state historic preservation offices' accomplishments
        The HPF has facilitated nearly 100,000 listings to the National
    Register, with over 1.9 million contributing resources, and the survey
    of millions of acres for cultural resources.\3\ The HPF has also
    provided SHPOs with the administrative capacity for constituent access
    to the Federal Historic Preservation Tax Credit program, which has
    generated more than $50.3 billion in Federal tax revenue from historic
    rehabilitation projects from inception through FY 2022.\4\ Further,
    SHPO federally mandated responsibilities of project review are on the
    rise, and remain key to conscientious public consideration of how to
    balance two fundamental needs--public investments for the future and
    preservation of America's historic places.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ 2024. National Park Service. Historic Preservation Fund Annual
    Report FY23.
        \4\ 2024. Rutgers & National Park Service. Annual Report on the
    Economic Impact of the Federal Historic Tax Credits for Fiscal Year
    2022.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Many SHPOs have made extensive use of HPF grant programs to ensure
    preservation of sites associated with the Civil Rights Movement. In
    North Carolina, in recent years, we have applied for and received
    grants under several of these grant programs. A 2015 Underrepresented
    Communities grant yielded National Register nominations and listings
    for eight Rosenwald School nominations, two historic African American
    cemeteries, and the College Heights Historic District, which is
    associated with the HBCU North Carolina Central University; a 2022
    Underrepresented Communities grant will focus on survey and
    identification and National Register nominations of surviving Green
    Books properties--telling the story of individual resilience during the
    Segregation era as ``oasis places'' for African American travelers. A
    2020 Civil Rights Phase I grant was finalized, and gathered invaluable
    oral histories and background research, and identified conclusively
    places associated with the Civil Right Movement in northeastern North
    Carolina; while Phase II will foster National Register nominations of
    these places. A 2022 Semiquincentennial grant provided $500,000 to the
    Brunswick Town State Historic Site, a key Colonial town and prime
    Revolutionary War site of pro-Patriot activity near Wilmington, North
    Carolina, and will be used to identify unmarked graves of colonial
    residents, preserve known graves, repoint the masonry of St. Philip's
    Anglican Church, and preserve the foundational ruins of private
    residences, a tavern and a courthouse.
                                   conclusion
        Historic preservation recognizes that what was common and ordinary
    in the past is often rare and precious today, and what is common and
    ordinary today may be extraordinary, whether it is fifty, one hundred
    or five hundred years from now. But moreover, historic preservation
    elevates and promotes the value of the lives and stories of individual
    Americans through the places where they lived and worked, fulfilling
    one of the fundamental purposes of the National Historic Preservation
    Act: ``that the historical and cultural foundations of the Nation
    should be preserved as a living part of our community life and
    development in order to give a sense of orientation to the American
    people.''
        The national network of State Historic Preservation Offices helps
    to ensure that the places associated with the history of all Americans
    are recognized and preserved. To that end, I would like to thank the
    committee sincerely for its commitment to historic preservation. The
    Federal Government plays an invaluable role in preserving our Nation's
    history and our collective sense of place. Through our partnership,
    SHPOs remain committed to working together to identify, protect, and
    maintain our Nation's heritage.
        On behalf of all 59 SHPOs, I'd like to thank you, Chairman Merkley,
    Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the U.S. Senate Committee on
    Appropriations, subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies for the opportunity to submit testimony.

        [This statement was submitted by Ramona Bartos, President.]
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of National Council of Urban Indian Health
        My name is Francys Crevier, I am an enrolled member of Algonquin
    and the Chief Executive Officer of the National Council of Urban Indian
    Health (NCUIH). On behalf of NCUIH, a national representative of the 41
    UIOs contracting with the Indian Health Service under the Indian Health
    Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) and the American Indians and Alaska Native
    patients they serve. On behalf of NCUIH and the UIOs we serve, I would
    like to thank Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members
    of the subcommittee for your leadership to improve health outcomes for
    urban Indians and for the opportunity to testify today. We respectfully
    request the following:

      --$53.85 billion for the Indian Health Service (IHS) and $965.3
            million for Urban Indian Health for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 (as
            requested by the Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup)

      --Maintain Advance Appropriations for the Indian Health Service,
            until mandatory funding is authorized and protect IHS from
            sequestration.

      --Reclassify Contract Support Costs and 105 (l) Tribal Lease Payments
            as Mandatory Appropriations
                       ncuih supports tribal sovereignty
        First, I would like to emphasize that NCUIH respects and supports
    Tribal sovereignty and the unique government-to-government relationship
    between our Tribal Nations and the United States. NCUIH works to
    support those Federal laws, policies, and procedures that respect and
    uplift Tribal sovereignty and the government-to-government
    relationship. NCUIH does not support any Federal law, policy, or
    procedure that infringes upon, or in any way diminishes, Tribal
    sovereignty or the government-to-government relationship.
      urban indian organizations play a critical role in providing health
               care for american indian and alaska native people
        UIOs were created by urban American Indian and Alaska Native
    people, with the support of Tribal leaders, starting in the 1950s in
    response to severe problems with health, education, employment, and
    housing caused by the Federal Government's forced relocation
    policies.\1\ Congress formally incorporated UIOs into the Indian Health
    System in 1976 with the passage of IHCIA. Today, over 70% of American
    Indian and Alaska Native people live in urban areas. UIOs are an
    integral part of the Indian health system, comprised of the Indian
    Health Service, Tribes, and UIOs (collectively I/T/U), and provide
    essential healthcare services, including primary care, behavioral
    health, and social and community services, to patients from over 500
    Tribes \2\ in 38 urban areas across the United States. There are four
    different UIO facility types, including full ambulatory, limited
    ambulatory, outreach and referral, and outpatient and residential
    alcohol and substance abuse treatment, that offer a wide range of
    healthcare services.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Relocation, National Council for Urban Indian Health, 2018.
    2018_0519_Relocation.pdf(Shared)- Adobe cloud storage
        \2\ Indian Health Service, IHS National Budget Formulation Data
    Reports for Urban Indian Organizations (2023), https://www.ihs.gov/
    sites/urban/themes/responsive2017/display_objects/documents/
    IHS_National_Budget_Formulation_Reports_Calendar_Year_2021.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        UIOs are on the front lines in providing for the health and well-
    being of American Indian and Alaska Native people living in urban
    areas, many of whom lack access to care that would otherwise be
    provided through IHS and Tribal facilities. American Indians and Alaska
    Native people experience major health disparities compared to the
    general U.S. populations, including, lower life expectancy,\3\ higher
    rates of infant and maternal mortality,\4\ and psychological or
    behavioral health issues.\5\ A lack of sufficient Federal funding plays
    a significant role in these continuing devastating health
    disparities,\6\ and Congress must do more to fully fund the Indian
    health system to improve health outcomes for all American Indian and
    Alaska Native people.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Elizabeth Arias, et. al., Provisional life expectancy estimates
    for 2021, Vital Statistics Rapid Release; no 23, National Center for
    Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National
    Vital Statistics System (Aug. 2022), available at DOI: https://
    dx.doi.org/10.15620/cdc:118999.
        \4\ David C. Radley et al., The Commonwealth Fund 2023 Scorecard on
    State Health System Performance: Americans' Health Declines and Access
    to Reproductive Care Shrinks, But States Have Options, Commonwealth
    Fund (June 22, 2023), https://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/
    scorecard/2023/jun/2023-scorecardstate-health-system-performance;
    Jennifer L. Heck et al., Maternal Mortality Among American Indian/
    Alaska Native Women: A Scoping Review, 30 J. of Women's Health 220, 225
    (2021), https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/epdf/10.1089/jwh.2020.8890.
        \5\ Letter from National Council of Urban Indian Health, National
    Indian Health Board, Self-Governance Communication and Education Tribal
    Consortium, & United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection
    Fund, to Shalanda Young, Director, Office of Management and Budget
    (Feb. 17, 2023), https://www.usetinc.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/
    Joint-Tribal-Organization-Letter-to-OMB-re-Native-Behavioral-Health-
    Resources-Program-FINAL2_17_23.pdf.
        \6\ U.S. Comm'n on Civil Rights, Broken Promises: Continuing
    Federal Funding Shortfall for Native Americans (Dec. 2018), available
    at: https://www.usccr.gov/files/pubs/2018/12-20-Broken-Promises.pdf;
    The National Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup, Advancing Health
    Equity Through the Federal Trust Responsibility: Full Mandatory Funding
    for the Indian Health Service and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation
    Relationships, The National Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup's
    Recommendations on the Indian Health Service Fiscal Year 2024 Budget 17
    (May 2022), available at: https://www.nihb.org/docs/09072022/
    FY%202024%20Tribal%20Budget%20Formulation%20Workgroup%20Recommendations.
    pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       update: urban indian organization infrastructure study report to
                                    congress
        Congress appropriated funds in the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
    2021 (Pub. L. No. 116-260), for IHS to conduct an infrastructure study
    report on UIO facilities. The report, sent to Congress on February 22,
    2024, highlights key metrics that will need to be met in order to
    appropriately meet the needs of UIOs and their patients. The report
    found that to meet the 2032 vision of services for American Indian and
    Alaska Native people living in urban areas, UIOs will need to grow
    their staff from 3,420 full-time equivalents (FTEs) to 6,275 FTEs, a 78
    percent increase and operating budgets will need to increase to $1.37
    billion.\7\ We thank the Committee for funding this critical report,
    and we look forward to working with you in addressing the needs
    highlighted by the report.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \7\ IHS, Urban Indian Organization Infrastructure Study Report.
    Retrieved from: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CMR-HE20_300-
    00186499/pdf/CMR-HE20_300-00186499.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      request: fully fund the indian health service at $53.85 billion and
                 urban indian health at $965.3 million for fy25
        The United States has a trust responsibility to provide ``federal
    health services to maintain and improve the health'' of American Indian
    and Alaska Native people.\8\ This responsibility is codified in IHCIA.
    Additionally, it is the policy of the United States ``to ensure the
    highest possible health status for Indians and urban Indians and to
    provide all resources necessary to effect that policy.'' \9\ To finally
    fulfill its trust responsibility, we request that Congress fully fund
    Indian Health at $53.85 billion for the Indian Health Service and
    $965.3 million for Urban Indian Health. These amounts reflect the
    recommendations made by the Tribal Budget Formulation Work Group
    (TBFWG), a workgroup comprised of Tribal leaders representing all 12
    IHS service areas and serving all 574 federally recognized Tribes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \8\ 25 US.C. Sec. 1601(1).
        \9\ 25 U.S.C Sec. 1602.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        According to the TBFWG, fulfillment of this responsibility
    ``remain[s] illusory due to chronically underfunded and woefully
    inadequate annual spending by Congress.\10\ Congress must prioritize
    increasing funding, as the current FY24 allocation of $6.96 billion for
    IHS and $90.49 million for Urban Indian Health represents only 12.9%
    and 9.4% respectively of the total FY24 funding requested by Tribes and
    UIOs to adequately address current needs.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \10\ The National Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup, Honor Trust
    and Treaty Obligations: A Tribal Budget Request to Address the Tribal
    Health Inequity Crisis, The National Tribal Budget Formulation
    Workgroup's Recommendations on the Indian Health Service Fiscal Year
    2025 Budget (April 2023), available at: https://www.nihb.org/resources/
    FY2025%20IHS%20
    National%20Tribal%20Budget%20Formulation%20Workgroup%20Requests.pdf.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        UIOs are primarily funded through a single line item in the IHS
    budget, the Urban Indian Health line item, and without a significant
    increase to this line item, UIOs will continue to be forced to operate
    on limited and inflexible budgets, that limit their ability to fully
    address the needs of their patients. As one UIO leader highlighted,
    ``funding to the Urban Indian line item is critical in ensuring that
    our funding better meets the needs of Urban Tribal citizens who come to
    us seeking medical, dental, and behavioral health care. Increased
    funding means that we can worry less about having to deny or delay care
    because of budget constraints.'' For example, current funding levels
    pose challenges for UIOs in offering competitive salaries to hire and
    retain qualified staff who are essential for UIOs to continue to
    deliver quality care to their patients. Additionally, UIOs need
    resources to expand their services and programs to address the needs of
    their communities, including addressing pressing issues such as food
    insecurity, behavioral health challenges, and rising facilities costs.
    One UIO reported, ``increased funding will allow our UIO to sustain our
    program capacity, maintain our workforce, address infrastructure needs,
    and expand health services that are greatly needed within our
    community.'' Increased investments in Urban Indian Health will continue
    to result in the expansion of health care services, increased jobs, and
    improvement of the overall health in urban American Indian and Alaska
    Native communities.
    request: retain advance appropriations for ihs until mandatory funding
                is authorized and protect ihs from sequestration
        We applaud Chair Merkley and this Committee for your work on the
    historic inclusion of advance appropriations in the FY23 Omnibus, and
    its continued inclusion in the FY24 minibus. This is a crucial step
    towards ensuring long-term, stable funding for IHS. Advance
    appropriations allowed the I/T/U system to operate normally and without
    fear of funding lapses during the entire FY24 budget negotiation
    process. Among other benefits, when IHS distributes their funding on
    time, our UIOs can pay their doctors and providers without disruption,
    ensuring continuity of care for UIO patients. Additionally, advance
    appropriations allow our UIOs to ensure they can stay open and provide
    patients with critically needed care, even in the event of a government
    shut down. We emphasize that advance appropriations are a crucial step
    towards ensuring long-term, stable funding for the I/T/U system and,
    therefore, it is imperative that you include advance appropriations for
    IHS FY26 in the final FY25 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    Appropriations Act.
        While advance appropriations are a step in the right direction to
    avoid disruptions during government shutdowns and continuing
    resolutions, mandatory funding is the only way to assure fairness in
    funding and fulfillment of the trust responsibility. As the President's
    FY25 budget notes, ``Mandatory funding is the most appropriate, long-
    term solution for adequate, stable, and predictable funding for the
    Indian health system.'' \11\ We request your support for mandatory
    funding, and until authorizers act to move IHS to mandatory funding, we
    request you continue to provide advance appropriations to the Indian
    health system to improve certainty and stability.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ IHS FY25Congressional Justification, https://www.ihs.gov/
    sites/budgetformulation/themes/responsive2017/display_objects/
    documents/FY-2025-IHS-CJ030824.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        We also request that this Committee protect IHS from sequestration
    through an amendment to Section 255 of the Balanced Budget and
    Emergency Deficit Control Act12. Sequestration forces Indian Health
    Care Providers to make difficult decisions about the scope of
    healthcare services they can offer to American Indian and Alaska Native
    patients. For example, the sequestration of $220 million in IHS' budget
    authority for FY13 resulted in an estimated reduction of 3,000
    inpatient admissions and 804,000 outpatient visits for American Indian
    and Alaska Native patients12.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \12\ Public Law 118-31
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Sequestering funds reduces UIOs' ability to provide essential
    services to their patients and communities, delaying care and reducing
    UIO capacity to take on additional patients. One UIO leader emphasized
    that loss of funding ``translates into Tribal citizens lacking access
    to care that is guaranteed to them through the trust and treaty
    obligations held by the United States. Cuts mean UIOs can't provide
    things like insulin for diabetics, counseling services for survivors of
    domestic violence, and oral surgery for our relatives.''
      request: reclassify contract support costs and 105 (l) tribal lease
                      payments as mandatory appropriations
        We are also in strong support of the TBFWG's proposal to reclassify
    Contract Support Costs (CSC) and Section 105(l) Tribal Lease Payments
    as mandatory appropriations. These accounts are already mandatory in
    nature, and their inclusion in the discretionary budget makes it
    difficult for other programs to expand under discretionary funding
    caps. In 2014, the Appropriations Committees highlighted the
    challenging nature of these payments, stating, ``Typically obligations
    of this name are addressed through mandatory spending, but in this case
    since they fall under discretionary spending, they have the potential
    to impact all other programs funded under the Interior and Environment
    Appropriations bill, including other equally important Tribal
    programs.'' \13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \13\ Contract Support Costs and Sequestration: Fiscal Crisis in
    Indian Country: Hearings before the Senate Committee on Indian
    Affairs.(2013) (Testimony of The Honorable Yvette Roubideaux)
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This proposal will make sure that other IHS programs are not
    impacted by these costs and can receive true increases to their line
    items. Reclassifying as mandatory appropriations will have no direct
    impact on the Federal budget and does not conflict with restrictions
    set forth by the Fiscal Responsibility Act. On July 12, 2023, NCUIH
    joined the National Indian Health Board and 21 Tribal Nations and
    Native Partner Organizations in sending a letter to House and Senate
    leadership in support of this proposal.\14\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ Explanatory statement, Division G- Department of the Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2014. https://
    docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20140113/113-HR3547-JSOM-G-I.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   conclusion
        The Federal Government must continue to work to fulfill its trust
    obligation to maintain and improve the health of American Indians and
    Alaska Natives. We urge Congress to take this obligation seriously and
    provide the I/T/U system with the resources necessary to protect the
    lives of the entirety of the American Indian and Alaska Native
    population, regardless of where they live. The requests outlined herein
    are an important step towards fulfilling this obligation, and we
    respectfully request your consideration of each request.

        [This statement was submitted by Francys Crevier, Chief Executive
    Officer of the National Council of Urban Indian Health.]
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of National Conservation Lands
        My name is David Feinman, and I am Government Affairs Director for
    Conservation Lands Foundation, which is the only organization in the
    country solely dedicated to safeguarding the National Conservation
    Lands, the most ecologically rich and culturally significant of lands
    managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
        This provides us with perhaps the most clear-eyed view available on
    the cumulative impacts resulting from Congress's continued underfunding
    of BLM, and I offer this testimony with respectful frustration,
    urgency, and hope that it may give the committee greater clarity on how
    the lack of appropriate funding is suffocating the agency and harming
    the public's quality of life and access to their public lands. It is
    with this perspective in mind that I urge the subcommittee to include
    at least $1.395 billion for BLM for Management of Lands and Resources,
    at least $78 million for the BLM National Conservation Lands, and at
    least $25 million for BLM's cultural resources account.
        Conservation Lands Foundation and our Friends Grassroots Network--
    that we have grown to now more than 80 volunteer-powered
    organizations--are at the forefront of stewarding the National
    Conservation Lands. These community-based non-profits provide essential
    partnerships to BLM throughout the West to ensure the National
    Conservation Lands, and all lands managed by the agency, have a
    dedicated team of local volunteers to welcome and educate visitors,
    provide on-the-ground monitoring, assist both financially and via
    volunteer hours to complete recreation improvements as well as
    stewardship and restoration projects.
        Conservation Lands Foundation, our Friends Network and local
    volunteers and supporters understand public lands have multiple uses
    and respect the work of BLM staff and the incredibly complex task they
    have to fulfill the Bureau's conservation mandate and multiple-use,
    sustained yield mission under the Federal Land Policy Management Act
    (FLPMA).
        What we don't understand is how Congress can continue to demand
    more of the Bureau and criticize it for its inability to fulfill its
    Congressionally-mandated work while continually refusing to allocate
    the resources necessary to do just that.
        BLM is responsible for the largest portfolio of public lands in the
    United States, managing more than 245 million acres of land (along with
    nearly 700 million subsurface acres) while being the lowest funded
    Federal land management agency. The unique mission of the Bureau and
    the sheer size of the estate it manages make the historic deficit in
    funding from Congress even more challenging and baffling.
        We can quantitatively measure the deficit the BLM faces in two
    clear statistics: dollars per acre, and dollars per visitor.

                      DOLLARS PER ACRE: FISCAL YEAR 2023\1\

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                DOLLAR PER
                     AGENCY                    ACRES MANAGED  ACRE ALLOCATED
                                                                BY CONGRESS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    U.S. Forest Service.....................            193M          $52.20
    National Park Service...................             84M          $41.37
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service..........             89M          $19.89
    Bureau of Land Management...............            248M           $6.10
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Source: Bureau of Land Management

               DOLLARS PER VISITOR: TEN-YEAR AVERAGE 2012-2021\2\

    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                DOLLAR PER
                     AGENCY                    ACRES MANAGED  ACRE ALLOCATED
                                                                BY CONGRESS
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    National Park Service...................             84M           $5.20
    U.S. Forest Service.....................            193M           $1.70
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service..........             89M           $1.32
    Bureau of Land Management...............            248M           $0.79
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Source: Bureau of Land Management

               public access and quality experiences are at risk
        Virtually every National Conservation Land location is negatively
    impacted by Congress's lack of funding and there are countless
    qualitative measures and examples of what this deficit has meant for
    the health of the land and water sources and for the people who have a
    right to access and have quality experiences on BLM lands.
        One result of this chronic underfunding is delays and poor customer
    service for outdoor recreation visitors and guides at a time when the
    outdoor recreation economy is booming. Visitors to BLM lands continue
    to increase year over year with more than 80 million visitors in 2023
    (a 10 percent increase from previous years), and according to the U.S.
    Department of Commerce, the outdoor recreation economy increased 4.8
    percent in 2022, compared with a 1.9 percent increase for the overall
    U.S. economy.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ ``Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis Reports Outdoor
    Recreation Economy Tops $1 Trillion in 2022'', U.S. Department of
    Commerce, December 15, 2023
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Public Safety and Land and Water Degradation is a Growing Problem
        Ensuring that people are safe while on BLM lands cannot be
    overlooked as a Congressional responsibility to fund. Between 2016-2023
    there were 4,346 search and rescues on BLM lands, an average of 543 per
    year. These are straining local law enforcement budgets and increased
    BLM staff and resources on the ground will increase visitor safety and
    save lives.
        Another result of the failure by Congress to invest in the agency
    is the degradation and abuse of the public lands it manages. Across the
    system of National Conservation Lands managed by the BLM, we've seen an
    increase in vandalism and defacement of sacred sites and petroglyphs,
    illegal dumping, theft of personal and government property, poaching of
    wildlife, illegal off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, and unlawful shooting.
        The Caja del Rio Plateau in New Mexico is one of many examples.
    Located just a few miles outside of Santa Fe, the Caja del Rio Plateau
    holds deep historical value and remains vitally important to the Pueblo
    people of the middle Rio Grande. It's the most ecologically rich and
    culturally significant landscapes in the Southwest, known for
    petroglyphs dating back 8,000 years, wildlife and special status
    species, geologic features, and scenic values. The La Cieneguilla
    Petroglyph Site within it continues to be vandalized, off-highway
    vehicles are going off-trail and unchecked tearing up riverbeds, and
    graffiti on the canyon walls and trash is happening with abandon. Last
    month alone, 120 volunteers showed up to help clean-up the Caja for
    Earth Day and picked up 13,500 lbs of trash and toxic materials.
        Due to the rise in social media, these once remote and ``secret
    escapes'' no longer benefit from anonymity, and require much more
    active management from BLM, which cannot be provided without additional
    resources for rangers, outdoor recreation planners and other staff.
        Congress Holds the Power to Meet the Public's Needs
        Whether it's supporting ranchers with grazing leases, ensuring
    responsible mining operations, advancing energy production, providing
    the public with safe and accessible outdoor recreation opportunities,
    protecting cultural and paleontological resources, or managing lands
    for conservation, the Bureau of Land Management needs more funding to
    do all of this work it's been mandated by Congress to do on behalf of
    the American people.
        The American people expect the BLM to fulfill its mission and they
    expect Congress to fulfill its responsibility to provide the Bureau
    with the staffing and resources necessary to achieve it.
        It's time for Congress to invest in the Bureau of Land Management
    and do right by the American people, the public lands they cherish, and
    the public servants charged with managing them.
        Conservation Land Foundation urges Congress to take responsibility
    for the priorities and promises you have laid out to the American
    people by adequately investing in the health of and safe and quality
    access to America's public lands under BLM, and the many benefits they
    provide to communities across this great country.
        Thank you for your consideration of my testimony. Please contact me
    at davidf@conservationlands.org with any questions.

        [This statement was submitted by David Feinman, Government Affairs
    Director Conservation Lands Foundation.]
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of National Cooperators' Coalition
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to your FY2025
    Appropriations process. Our coalition is requesting at least $36
    million be appropriated to the U.S. Geological Survey's Cooperative
    Fish and Wildlife Research Unit program.
        The National Cooperators' Coalition is an alliance of nonfederal
    cooperators, supporters, and beneficiaries of the USGS Cooperative
    Research Unit (CRU) program. Our members include state fish and
    wildlife agencies, universities, and other organizations dedicated to
    wildlife conservation and research.
        The CRU program plays a significant role in advancing scientific
    understanding and conservation efforts for fish and wildlife across the
    United States. Cooperative Research Units are dynamic hubs for
    collaborative research that cuts across disciplines, and play a central
    role in training the next generation of conservation scientists
        The program's value is clear, as evidenced by its continuous growth
    since its inception in 1935. In FY 2023, CRUs generated $48 million in
    external funds and $22 million provided by universities. However, the
    lack of adequate Federal funding continues to limit the capacity of
    CRUs to produce actionable science and establish new units where
    they've been requested.
        The CRU program is supported by the USGS Ecosystems Mission Area.
    To empower the program to deliver on its full potential, we, the
    National Cooperators' Coalition, urge the appropriation of at least $36
    million. By investing in the CRU program, you are investing in the
    future of wildlife conservation in the United States.
        We look forward to working with you and answering any questions you
    may have about this $36 million request. Please reach out to
    ncc@wildlife.org if you have any questions.

        Sincerely,

               usgs cooperative fish and wildlife research units
        Spanning 41 States and strategically housed at 44 universities, the
    USGS Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units (CRUs) form a
    powerful network. These units function as collaborative hubs where
    researchers, students, and stakeholders from diverse backgrounds come
    together to tackle critical challenges facing fish and wildlife
    populations.
        CRU research programs address a wide range of issues related to
    fish and wildlife conservation and management, and broader ecosystem
    health:

      --Habitat loss and fragmentation

      --Climate change impacts on fish and wildlife populations

      --Sustainable management of fisheries and wildlife resources

      --Invasive species

      --Diseases affecting fish and wildlife

      --Restoration of degraded ecosystems
    Learn more about CRUs in the 2023 Annual Report: pubs.usgs.gov/
    publication/fs20243006

    USGS map of all 50 States showing Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
    Research Unit
    (CRU) locations. Newest CRUs are indicated by a star: Nevada (Western
    Region)
     CRU, established in 2021; Michigan (Eastern Region) CRU, established
    in 2022;
    and Indiana (Eastern Region) CRU, established in 2023.

        Quotes from new cooperators of the CRU program during the time of
    their establishment: ``We look forward to the tremendous opportunity
    that collaboration with the Indiana CRU will bring to our state and
    Purdue University,'' said Karen Plaut, executive vice president of
    research at Purdue University. ``It will have a direct impact on
    graduate education as well as research productivity and innovation.''
        ``For more than 30 years, the DNR has wanted to establish a USGS
    Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit at Michigan State
    University,'' said then-Michigan DNR Director Dan Eichinger. ``I'm
    excited that this goal has been achieved and look forward to scientists
    in the unit working with MSU faculty and DNR experts to help better
    inform our science-based management of Michigan's natural resources.''
        ``Nevada's creation of a Cooperative Research Unit Program is a
    monumental success for the scientific research and conservation efforts
    for the State's wildlife and habitat,'' said then-Nevada Department of
    Wildlife Director Tony Wasley. ``This partnership brings the State's
    top wildlife and research agencies together at the table and allows us
    to collaboratively address conservation and message our efforts
    consistently.''
                  fy2025 appropriations request justification
        The National Cooperators' Coalition is requesting $36 million in
    FY2025 for the USGS Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
    program. This request is a step towards ensuring the program has more
    of the funding it needs to robustly implement its mission in support of
    partners and their fish and wildlife science needs. Our coalition has
    identified more than $41 million as the current funding need for the
    program, and encourages appropriations as close to this level as
    possible. Future coalition requests will step-up to this level.
        The USGS Cooperative Research Unit program facilitates action-
    oriented cooperation between the USGS, state fish and wildlife
    agencies, a host university, and the Wildlife Management Institute to
    advance fish and wildlife research, graduate education, and technical
    assistance to natural resource agencies. The National Cooperators'
    Coalition is an alliance of nonfederal cooperators, supporters, and
    beneficiaries of the USGS Cooperative Research Unit program.

    Funding needed for the USGS Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit
    program:

    Scientist Staffing:      $36 million

        The core of the CRU program are the staff scientists. Each unit
    typically has 3 scientists, and there are >120 scientist positions
    across the program. Funds are needed to account for growth in existing
    staff salaries, fill existing and anticipated vacancies, and fill
    positions at newly established units to fulfil Federal commitments to
    cooperators.

    New Administrative Support:      +$300,000

        Units are supported by regional administrators. With the addition
    of 3 new units in the past 3 years, more administrative support is
    needed to guide the establishment of new units and enhance the
    partnerships established with each unit. Additionally, a new regional
    administrator in the Midwest will help align the Units with the
    regional associations of state fish and wildlife agencies, helping
    ensure greater levels of coordination and engagement with this key
    cooperator.

    Vehicles and Equipment:      $2 million

        The program currently maintains a fleet of approximately 300
    vehicles plus other equipment (e.g., boats, ATVs, etc.) to support its
    research and operations. A substantial proportion of the fleet is more
    than 15 years old and needs to be replaced. The coalition recommends
    funding that supports replacing vehicles and other key equipment at
    least once every 10 years in order to minimize maintenance costs and
    reduce safety concerns for CRU students and staff.

    Operating Expenses:      $1.5 million

        As part of the Department of the Interior, the CRU program has
    associated operating expenses to support the larger department. This
    includes costs for facilities, IT support, internal peer reviews, and
    other general programmatic costs.

    Program Expansion:      +$1.2 million each

        Several States and territories have expressed an interest in
    establishing a new Unit in their borders to meet their own fish and
    wildlife science needs. This desire is indicative of the program's
    value to cooperators and partners. It takes $1.2 million to establish a
    new unit during its first fiscal year; future costs amount to approx.
    $700,000 per year to maintain that unit.

    Total FY2025 Need:      >$41 million

    FY2024 Enacted Level:      $28.206 million

    FY2025 Request:      $36 million

        [This statement was submitted by Paul Johansen, Chair, National
    Cooperators' Coalition.]
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of National Endowment for the Arts
        As the only trade association in Washington representing all music
    creators--songwriters, performers, and studio professionals-the
    Recording Academy is pleased to offer testimony to the U.S. Senate
    Committee on Appropriations subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and
    Related Agencies in support of a continued increased funding for the
    National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) in Fiscal Year 2025 of no less
    than the $211 million. The Recording Academy is proud to support the
    NEA and its initiatives to enrich American music and culture.
        The NEA brings music and the arts to communities across the
    country, and its mission has never been more important. The agency is
    an indispensable part of the Nation's $1.1 trillion creative economy
    and is well-positioned to invest in local arts sectors in all 50
    States. As such, the Recording Academy supports increasing funding of
    the NEA for the coming fiscal year.
        Through supporting music and the arts, the NEA empowers local
    communities, improves student development, and advances cultural
    achievements. Considering that NEA grants yield more than $500 million
    in matching support-leveraging outside funds at a ratio of 9:1-it is
    financially one of the smartest investments the government can commit
    to. In the music industry, the NEA supports more than $50 million in
    music related direct grants each year-bringing music, and matching
    investments, to your back yards. From Young Audiences of Oregon, Inc.
    for arts education ($40,000, 2024) and Alaska Arts Education Consortium
    Inc. ($50,000, 2024); to the Boise Hive in Idaho (approx. $10,000, in
    2021), the Music & Ideas Festival ($10,000, 2021) and the 317 Main St
    Community Music Center in Yarmouth, Maine ($10,000 in 2022); and from
    the Van Cliburn International Piano Competition ($10,000, 2023) in Fort
    Worth to the New Haven Symphony Orchestra in Connecticut ($15,000,
    2023), the NEA has proven to support and foster local music communities
    and opportunities.
        The Recording Academy appreciates Congress's continued support of
    the NEA during recent fiscal years, but the Agency needs additional
    funding to fulfill its mission of expanding access to and participation
    in the arts. Robust funding for the NEA will ensure the agency can
    provide grants across all 50 States, while promoting more equitable
    access and reaching more diverse audiences.
        As you finalize appropriations for FY25, please make a strong
    commitment to the arts and music with robust funding for the NEA.

        [This statement was submitted by Todd Dupler, Chief Advocacy
    Officer, Recording Academy.]
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the National Endowment for the Arts
        Thank you for providing the opportunity to submit outside witness
    testimony as you consider investments in vital Federal agencies,
    including the National Endowment for the Arts (Arts Endowment). The
    Western States Arts Federation (WESTAF), a regional partner of the Arts
    Endowment, writes to affirm the integral impact the Endowment plays in
    communities throughout the West. Through innovative programming,
    advocacy, research, technology, and grantmaking, WESTAF encourages the
    creative advancement and preservation of the arts in the West, serving
    the States and jurisdictions of Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona,
    California, Colorado, Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands,
    Guam, Hawai'i, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah,
    Washington, and Wyoming. We express gratitude for Congressional support
    in funding the National Endowment for the Arts and the National
    Endowment for the Humanities in the FY 2024 Interior Appropriations
    bill at $207 million to broaden opportunities for Americans to realize
    the cultural, educational, and economic benefits of the arts and
    creativity in communities across the United States. We write to urge
    you to increase the Arts Endowment's FY 2025 budget to at least $211
    million and for Congress to maintain parity funding between the
    National Endowment for the Arts and its sister agency the National
    Endowment for the Humanities.
          supporting arts and creativity is supporting the us economy
        We know that arts and creativity strengthen our Nation. They make
    us stronger-as individuals, families, communities, States, and as a
    country. Arts, culture, and creative industries are a backbone of
    innovation, prosperity, and thriving people and places. They are also a
    major portion of the US economy. According to the BEA, in 2022 Arts and
    cultural economic activity accounted for $1.1 trillion of the US
    economy (4.3% of GDP) and over 5 million jobs. In addition, a 2024
    study commissioned by the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies
    provides strong evidence that there is a causal link between growth in
    the creative economy and overall economic growth in the US.\1\ However,
    the study also shows that growth in the overall economy does not
    necessarily lead to growth in the arts economy, which is why public
    investment in arts is vital. Choosing to invest in the arts is choosing
    to invest in US economic growth.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Noonan, D. (2024). Arts and Creativity Drive Economies and
    Build Resilience: 2024 Key Findings. NASAA. https://nasaa-arts.org/
    nasaa_research/arts-and-creativity-drive-economies-and-build-
    resilience/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Because of the leadership of Congress, an increase will mean
    expanded investment in arts and culture across the US driven by
    decisions made at the community level. The structure of the Arts
    Endowment is focused on a local control model. By mandate, 40% of the
    agency's grantmaking budget is awarded to state and regional arts
    agencies. We further request you to support the sector by allowing the
    Arts Endowment to continue to provide more types of flexible funding,
    such as general operating support, within the scope of its grantmaking.
        We deeply understand the importance of the Arts Endowment's
    leadership in the West and would like to point out the following:

    1. The Arts Endowment is a significant funder and a positive force for
        arts development in the West, a fast growing and exceptionally
        diverse region that is home to nearly a quarter of the U.S.
        population.

    2. Arts Endowment investment reaches every congressional district in
        the West and throughout the United States. Public support is a
        critical component in ensuring that arts funding reaches every
        community in the U.S.

    3. Investment is particularly critical to the most rural States and
        jurisdictions. Rural communities make up a significant portion of
        the WESTAF region and are home to nearly 20% of the people in the
        US. Yet, rural communities receive only 7% of US private foundation
        funding.\2\ Public support of arts and culture in these areas is
        critical and an important strategy of community and economic
        development.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Ford Family Foundation. (2021). Investing in Rural Prosperity:
    The Role of Philanthropy in Rural Community Development. Federal
    Reserve Bank of St. Louis. https://www.stlouisfed.org/community-
    development/publications/invest-in-rural

    4. Federal-state partnership is vital to the WESTAF region. Four
        States, American Samoa, Guam, and CNMI receive over a third of
        their agency funds from the National Endowment for the Arts. State
        and jurisdictional arts agencies are crucial in ensuring that
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        public funds are distributed to local and rural communities.

    5. Every dollar of Federal funding invested in the National Endowment
        for the Arts leverages $9 of additional funding nationally.
        Investment into state arts agencies in our region alone provides a
        nearly 7:1 return on investment based on 2024 data (see table
        below). In addition to leveraging significant State and local
        government dollars, Arts Endowment funding allows some
        organizations to access additional investment from private
        foundations.

                      Arts Endowment Contribution to State Arts Agency Revenue in the West in FY24

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Arts         % of Total
                                  State                                Total Agency      Endowment     Funding from
                                                                        Revenue ($)      funds ($)    Arts Endowment
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Alaska..........................................................      $4,147,702        $874,002           21.1%
    American Samoa..................................................        $540,695        $373,695           69.1%
    Arizona.........................................................      $7,572,787      $1,136,787           15.0%
    California......................................................     $40,923,900      $1,579,900            3.9%
    Colorado........................................................      $3,121,031        $943,331           30.2%
    Guam............................................................        $964,854        $378,700           39.2%
    Hawai'i.........................................................     $11,238,035        $907,500            8.1%
    Idaho...........................................................      $1,999,490      $1,002,155           50.1%
    Montana.........................................................      $2,341,337      $1,074,400           45.9%
    Nevada..........................................................      $3,262,440        $934,200           28.6%
    New Mexico......................................................      $2,636,700        $918,600           34.8%
    Northern Marianas...............................................        $631,054        $350,800           55.6%
    Oregon..........................................................      $7,773,127      $1,016,100           13.1%
    Utah............................................................     $10,635,339        $964,500            9.1%
    Washington......................................................     $11,164,822      $1,110,200            9.9%
    Wyoming.........................................................      $2,047,728        $899,978           44.0%
    WESTAF region...................................................    $111,001,041     $14,464,848          29.86%
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Source: National Assembly of State Arts Agencies, 2024

        The Arts Endowment invests in projects that represent communities
    in the West and its support has been particularly important to engaging
    rural communities, indigenous communities, young people, and the full
    range of communities and cultures that make up the West in terms of
    race and ethnicity. The Endowment's long-standing focus on the
    underserved, prompted in part by Congressional leadership, inspires the
    work of state arts agencies across the West and WESTAF.
     supporting the endowment as supporting the creative economy ecosystem
        Arts and creativity are an engine for the US economy. In the West,
    jobs in creative occupations, creative industries earnings, and
    cultural nonprofit revenues have been on a growth trajectory for a
    decade. The National Endowment for the Arts acts as the flag bearer for
    this powerful national industry which in the West alone grew by 85%
    between 2011 and 2020.\3\ When looking at the value added across the US
    economy in 2022, arts and culture is ranked second among comparison
    sectors.\4\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ WESTAF. Creative Vitality Suite. (2022).
        \4\ Noonan, D. (2024).

        Arts, culture, and creative industries provide people with the
    foundation for creative thinking, generate new ideas in every field,
    and keep our Nation globally competitive. Arts and creativity
    strengthen economic health by creating jobs in multiple industries,
    driving tourism, and providing workforce development opportunities for
    young people. Unlike conventional industries, the arts tend to grow
    independently from other sectors, which provides a diversification
    strength-something that may be especially important for States whose
    economic fortunes hinge on just a few industries. States with varied
    arts ecosystems (including nonprofit, commercial, and community-based
    arts) posted bigger economic gains after the Great Recession than their
    less-diversified neighbors. In addition, growth is not restricted to
    States with large populations and high concentrations of creative
    businesses, smaller States also experience notable growth on a per
    capita basis.\5\ Creativity stimulates economic development while
    bolstering civic engagement, making the arts a powerful catalyst for
    building community and economic strength.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Noonan, D. (2024).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Public funding for arts and creativity improves the lives of all
    Americans, equips an innovative workforce, and enriches communities.
    Public support in the arts is important because it fuels innovative
    public-private partnerships, leverages considerable additional public
    and private investment far surpassing the required Federal match of
    1:1, and puts tax dollars and decision-making authority into State and
    local hands. We encourage the House Interior Appropriations
    subcommittee to work with other Congressional leaders to increase the
    Arts Endowment's FY 2025 budget to at least $211 million and build a
    specific path to fund the Arts Endowment at $1 per capita. Currently
    funding is at about $0.62 cents per capita. A more robust NEA budget
    would ensure that the arts continue to contribute to the strength,
    pride, cohesion and economic success of every community in the United
    States.

    Sincerely,
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Teniqua Broughton            Christian Gaines        David Holland
        Chair                         Executive Director       Deputy
    Director

    Endorsed by:
    Regional Organization
    Western Arts Advocacy Network
    Co-Chairs: Andrew Schneider (Wyoming), Jessi Wasson (Washington)

    State-Wide Organizations
    Arizona Citizens for the Arts
    CA Arts Advocates
    Creative New Mexico
    Hawai'i Arts Alliance
    Inspire Washington
    Montana Arts Council
    Utah Cultural Alliance
    Wyoming Arts Alliance

        [This statement was submitted by David Holland, Deputy Director,
    Western States Arts Federation in support of the National Endowment for
    the Arts.]
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of National Endowment for the Arts and National
                          Endowment for the Humanities
        Chair Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
    subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to submit this written
    testimony in support of Federal funding for both the National Endowment
    for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH)
    at no less than $211 million each for Fiscal Year 2025. This represents
    only 0.006 % of last year's Federal budget. We also encourage the
    subcommittee to build a specific path to index funding for each of
    these two cultural agencies at $1 per capita. Each agency is currently
    funded at about .62 cents per capita.
        The arts are a national asset, and these agencies are vital to a
    thriving arts and culture sector which in turn positively affects the
    American economy as a whole. It has been a tough budget environment,
    but the arts community is thankful for this subcommittee's leadership
    as well as the entire Senate for its continued support.
        The arts and culture help drive our creative economy which is a
    primer to our country's economic activity. Last March, the U.S. Bureau
    of Economic Analysis reported that arts and cultural economic activity
    accounted for 4.3 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), or $1.10
    trillion with over 5.2 million jobs. Additionally, America's arts and
    culture exports increased the trade surplus from $15.5 billion to $21
    billion. This data represents a new high-water mark that represents a
    larger percentage of GDP than the transportation, construction, and
    agriculture sectors.
        Furthermore, the nonprofit arts sector generated $151.7 billion in
    direct spending by organizations and attendees and $29.1 billion in tax
    revenue in 2022. The nonprofit arts sector also supported 2.6 million
    jobs and provided $101 billion in personal income to workers in
    communities across America, clearly demonstrating that the arts are an
    asset to the economy.
        The resilience of an artist is evident by these statistics, and the
    NEA and NEH have helped provide resources to support their creativity
    and work ethic. Every NEA grant dollar leverages at least $9 in private
    and other public funds, generating more than $500 million in matching
    support. This leveraging power far surpasses the required non-federal
    match of at least 1:1 and illustrates why Federal support for the arts
    is uniquely valuable. The Federal investment in the arts helps power
    the creative economy across the country.
        42% of NEA-supported activities take place in high-poverty
    neighborhoods, and 35% of NEA grants went to organizations that reach
    underserved populations such as people with disabilities and
    individuals in institutions. The NEA also funds school- and community-
    based programs that have helped children and youth navigate a mental
    health crisis exacerbated by the pandemic.
        The NEA's funding to Local Arts Agencies (LAAs) is extremely vital
    to their ability to serve their communities. LAAs collectively are
    responsible for approximately $912 million annually in public and
    private grantmaking. They are also the largest grantmaker to individual
    artists. LAAs work directly for and with mayors, city managers, county
    supervisors, and township managers as well as corporate CEOs, real
    estate developers, and social service providers in every size community
    across the country. Additionally, LAAs have taken the lead in equity-
    centered grantmaking in their cities, counties, and rural and suburban
    areas. They have been entrusted with federal, State, and local funds,
    including Community Development Block grants, CARES Act and American
    Rescue Plan Act State and local block grant funds, and other government
    sources to support emergency relief grants to arts small businesses,
    nonprofits, individual gig artists, and entrepreneurs.
        Both agencies offer healing programs for those who serve in our
    Armed Services as well as veterans reintegrating into civilian life.
    The NEH's Dialogues on the Experience of War programs bring together
    veterans and civilians to reflect on powerful literature and art.
    Across nine programs assessed from 2018-2020 by the National Humanities
    Alliance, ninety-six percent of respondents indicated that humanities
    materials helped them better understand their experiences. Seventy-nine
    percent of veteran respondents indicated that their program made them
    more likely to seek help if they needed it.
        The NEA's Creative Forces program supports military families, a
    collaboration with the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs, to
    serve the unique and special needs of military patients and Veterans
    diagnosed with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and psychological health
    conditions such as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In clinical
    settings, creative arts therapists provide art, music, and dance/
    movement therapies, as well as therapeutic writing instruction, for
    military patients and veterans. The NEA also provides community
    engagement services by partnering with nonprofit organizations to
    provide arts-based programming for military communities.
        Understanding our country's current environment that requires a
    focus on wellness and mental health, the NEA continues to provide sound
    leadership on arts and healing throughout our Federal agencies and our
    society. In January, the NEA and the White House hosted a first-ever
    summit that recognized the profound impact that arts and culture play
    in shaping our lives, communities, and nation. At this event, NEA Chair
    Maria Rosario Jackson moderated a conversation with the U.S. Surgeon
    General, Vice Admiral Vivek Murthy, about the importance of broadening
    the concept of healing to include our need for joy, social connection
    and hope. Murthy highlighted how arts and culture are critical ways in
    which we connect and essential tools for rebuilding the social
    infrastructure to address the Nation's epidemic of isolation and
    loneliness and the mental health crisis that young people are facing.
    With the NEA's leadership, more work is necessary through interagency
    partnerships to help solve this epidemic.
        The arts and humanities touch Americans in so many different ways,
    and its two cultural agencies provide the leadership necessary to help
    sustain livable communities for us and our children. Thank you for your
    consideration of Federal funding for both the National Endowment for
    the Arts (NEA) and National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) at no
    less than $211 million each for FY 2025. We also encourage the
    subcommittee to build a specific path to index funding for each of
    these two cultural agencies at $1 per capita.
        Americans for the Arts is the leading nonprofit organization for
    advancing the arts and arts education in America. We have more than 60
    years of service and are dedicated to representing and serving the more
    than 4,500 local arts agencies in every State. Together we work to
    ensure that every American has access to the transformative power of
    the arts.

        [This statement was submitted by General Nolen Bivens (U.S. Army
    Ret.), President and CEO.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
        Thank you for your longstanding support of the National Fish and
    Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). Created by Congress in 1984, NFWF works to
    sustain, restore, and enhance the Nation's fish, wildlife, plants and
    habitats for current and future generations. Many NFWF conservation
    outcomes also enhance nature-based infrastructure that protects
    communities from the impacts of flooding, sea level rise, drought,
    wildfire, and other natural threats. We appreciate Congress's continued
    bipartisan support for the Foundation and its many programs across the
    country.
        Congress provides Federal funding to NFWF that NFWF leverages with
    non-federal funds to increase conservation benefits across the country.
    NFWF applies 100% of the appropriated funding towards on-the-ground
    conservation projects and does not cover any administrative costs with
    these funds. These funds support many NFWF conservation programs,
    including the Monarch Butterly and Pollinators Conservation Fund that
    supports work that advances the conservation of the monarch butterfly
    and other at-risk native insect pollinators, and the Alaska Fish and
    Wildlife Fund that furthers conservation of species and habitat while
    supporting communities responding to challenges presented by changing
    climate and land use in Alaska.
        The Foundation appreciates the subcommittee's past support and
    respectfully requests that the subcommittee recommend the following
    funding levels for Fiscal Year 2025:

      --$3.0 million provided through the Bureau of Land Management's
            Management of Lands and Resources appropriation. We also ask
            that the subcommittee restore the bill text appropriating BLM
            funds to NFWF to administer in support of BLM's wildlife
            conservation efforts\1\;
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Prior to the FY18 spending bill, the appropriations language
    required BLM to provide NFWF the full amount of appropriated funds. The
    FY18 appropriation bill changed the law by making the provision of
    funds to NFWF the discretion of the Director of the BLM and removed the
    language from the bill which has hindered the two organizations'
    ability to partner in the most effective manner. We request that the
    FY17 bill language be restored in the FY25 bill.

      --$7.032 million provided through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
            Service's Resource Management appropriation which would be a
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
            return to FY23 level and;

      --$3.0 million provided through the Forest Service's National Forest
            System appropriation (same funding level as FY 2024).
                           bureau of land management
        The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has partnered with NFWF for
    more than two decades to further conservation efforts on BLM lands
    throughout the United States. The benefits this partnership provides
    have decreased over the last 5 years, however, as the amount of funding
    provided for species conservation efforts on BLM lands has decreased.
    For FY2023, NFWF received $2,200,000 from BLM which was a decrease from
    the FY2022 allocation of $3 million. For FY2021, NFWF received
    $800,000. This fluctuating amount of funding creates a lack of
    certainty for how NFWF can direct Federal funds consistently to
    conservation programs and is the primary reason we are requesting a
    return to the FY 2017 language that would provide $3 million on an
    annual basis.
        NFWF continues to administer programs that benefit BLM lands
    despite inconsistent amounts of funding. NFWF is focusing the BLM
    funding within just a few programs where it can have the greatest
    impact and conservation value. The primary program is the Western Big
    Game Seasonal Habitat and Migration Corridors Fund which was created by
    Secretarial Order 3362 that conserves habitat and migration corridors
    to maintain healthy populations of migratory animals. NFWF works with
    private landowners, state game and fish agencies and other entities to
    utilize a voluntary approach that will have the greatest project
    efficiency and return on investment. Last year NFWF awarded nearly $1.6
    million of BLM funds to projects through this program. To date, the
    program has awarded $18.6 million across 76 projects, leveraging $81.1
    million in matching contributions to generate a total conservation
    impact of more than $99.7 million. With the Federal funding NFWF
    receives we generate significant private match funding to further the
    impact of Federal funds. The Foundation urges the subcommittee to
    consider restoring earlier funding levels to enable the Foundation to
    continue its conservation work.

        Requested restoration of FY17 BLM Bill Language for FY 2025:

            ``; of which $3,000,000 shall be available in fiscal year 2025
            subject to a match by at least an equal amount by the National
            Fish and Wildlife Foundation for cost shared projects
            supporting conservation of Bureau lands; and such funds shall
            be advanced to the Foundation as a lump-sum without regard to
            when expenses are incurred.''
                    united states fish and wildlife service
        The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has been a
    trusted partner since NFWF was created by Congress in 1984. Since FY
    2020, NFWF has allocated over $21 million in FWS appropriated funds
    across 213 projects leveraging an additional $80 million in additional
    funding, for a total conservation impact of $101 million. The funds
    appropriated to NFWF enable the Foundation to attract private sector
    funds and enable the Foundation to strengthen public-private
    partnerships critical to restoring fish, wildlife, eco-system
    restoration, improving aquatic passage, addressing climate change, and
    increasing natural processes for immediate carbon sequestration.
        The annual appropriation of $7,032,000 which was reduced to
    $5,500,000 in FY24 provides critically important funding that NFWF uses
    to fully support some conservation programs and to fill important
    funding gaps in other conservation programs. The approximately $1.5
    million reduction in funding in FY24 will lessen NFWF's ability to
    support various conservation programs across the country, including
    some programs solely reliant upon this appropriations funding. For
    example, the Alaska Fish and Wildlife Fund (Alaska Fund) is fully
    dependent on FWS appropriated funds and United States Forest Service
    (USFS) appropriated funds. For FY23, NFWF directed $300,000 of
    appropriated FWS funds to the Alaska Fund but to continue this funding
    level for the Alaska Fund will require NFWF to decrease funding for
    other conservation programs that rely in part on these appropriated
    dollars. The FWS appropriated funds also provide NFWF with flexible
    funding that is used to support a myriad of programs such as Klamath
    Basin Restoration, efforts to combat white-nosed syndrome in bats,
    conservation of Monarch butterfly habitat, and fish passage.
        The Foundation appreciates the subcommittee's past support and
    respectfully requests that the subcommittee recommend the following
    funding level for the FY2025 bill:

        Requested FWS Bill Language for FY 2025:

            ``; of which $7,032,000 shall be available in fiscal year 2025
            subject to a match by at least an equal amount by the National
            Fish and Wildlife Foundation for cost-shared projects
            supporting conservation of wildlife and other natural
            resources; and such funds shall be advanced to the Foundation
            as a lump-sum grant without regard to when expenses are
            incurred.''
                          united states forest service
        Congress has appropriated approximately $3 million in annual
    funding to NFWF for partnerships with the United States Forest Service
    (USFS) since FY 1998. Since FY2020, NFWF has leveraged $15.0M in USFS
    appropriated funds across 150 projects into a total of $68.5 million in
    on-the-ground conservation impact. We respectfully request that the
    Committee continue supporting this cost-effective partnership. These
    USFS funds also support programs such as the Western Big Game Seasonal
    Habitat and Migration Corridors Program, the Northeast Forests and
    Rivers Fund, the Southwest Rivers Headwaters Fund which focuses on
    restoring, protecting, and enhancing aquatic and riparian species and
    their habitats in the headwaters of the Rio Grande and Colorado River
    watersheds, and the Alaska Fish and Wildlife Fund for habitat
    restoration benefitting salmon in southeast Alaska.

        Retain US Forest Service Language for FY 25 as with previous years:

            ``Pursuant to section 2(b)(2) of Public Law 98-244, up to
            $3,000,000 of the funds available to the Forest Service may be
            advanced to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in a lump
            sum to aid cost-share conservation projects, without regard to
            when expenses are incurred, on or benefitting National Forest
            System lands or related to Forest Service programs: Provided,
            That such funds shall be matched on at least a one-for-one
            basis by the Foundation or its sub-recipients: Provided
            further, That the Foundation may transfer Federal funds to a
            Federal or non-Federal recipient for a project at the same rate
            that the recipient has obtained the non-Federal matching
            funds.''
                        environmental protection agency
        NFWF has partnered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    since FY 1997 to make grants to States and other grantees within the
    Geographic Programs appropriation. Therefore, we respectfully support
    the highest possible funding levels for the Great Lakes Restoration
    Initiative, Chesapeake Bay, Gulf of Mexico, and Long Island Sound
    within the EPA Geographic Programs. We also respectfully ask that the
    long-standing report language that delineates the amount of funding for
    nutrient and sediment removal grants and small watershed grants within
    the Chesapeake Bay program be continued (U.S. Senate approved FY 2024
    report language is below). Last year NFWF, through its Innovative
    Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Fund and Small Watershed Grant Fund
    which together award most of the funding for NFWF's Chesapeake Bay
    Stewardship Fund, collectively awarded $43.7m across 92 projects that
    leveraged $44.1m of matching funds to create nearly $87.9m for on the
    ground conservation impact.

        The Foundation appreciates the subcommittee's past support and
    respectfully requests that the subcommittee recommend the following
    report language in the FY2025 bill:

            Chesapeake Bay.--The Committee recommends $93,000,000 for the
            Chesapeake Bay program. From the total amount provided, at
            least $10,000,000 is for nutrient and sediment removal grants,
            at least $10,000,000 is for small watershed grants to control
            polluted runoff from urban, suburban and agricultural lands,
            and at least $8,000,000 is for State-based implementation in
            the most effective basins.
                                nfwf background
        NFWF was established by Congress in 1984 to catalyze private
    investments to conserve fish, wildlife and their habitats. NFWF raises
    private funds not only to leverage appropriated dollars, but also to
    support the associated management costs of implementing the
    appropriated funds. Since its creation by Congress in 1984, NFWF and
    its partners have funded more than 22,100 grants and supported more
    than 6,800 grantee organizations. The Foundation's investments since
    its founding have leveraged matching contributions from grantees and
    other partners to generate a total conservation impact of $10 billion.
        NFWF remains fully transparent and is required by law to notify
    Congress 30 days in advance of every grant that exceeds $10,000 in
    Federal funds. Details of all projects awarded during FY 2023 can be
    found in NFWF's annual investment guide and all NFWF's grants can be
    found on our website: https://www.nfwf.org/grants/grants-library
        In FY 2023, NFWF was audited by an independent accounting firm and
    issued an unqualified report with no material weaknesses identified and
    no deficiencies identified. This is the FIFTEENTH consecutive year of
    unqualified audits. In addition, NFWF has continually qualified as a
    low-risk auditee under OMB guidelines.
        Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
    subcommittee, we greatly appreciate your continued support and stand
    ready to answer any questions you or your staff might have.

        [This statement was submitted by Will Heaton, Director, External
    Relations.]
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the National Humanities Alliance
                                    overview
        For FY 2025, we respectfully urge the subcommittee to consider no
    less than $211 million for the National Endowment for the Humanities.
        While we recognize the difficult choices that are before this
    subcommittee, we believe that expanding the capacity of the NEH is
    essential at this moment in the Nation's history, when the humanities
    are so needed to 1) build strong communities and foster civic dialogue;
    2) preserve cultural heritage, including Indigenous languages; 3)
    cultivate knowledge of world histories and cultures; and 4) shore up
    local tourism economies and community institutions.
        The NEH has a clear track record of supporting programs that work
    towards these ends, and additional capacity is needed to ensure that
    these crucial goals are met around the country. The NEH does not have
    the capacity to fund many of the highly rated proposals it receives-in
    FY 2023, 784 applications with high ratings were not funded, amounting
    to a total of $67,082,488.
            building strong communities and fostering civic dialogue
        NEH funding builds strong, civically-engaged communities through
    its support of cultural organizations. The agency's grantmaking helps
    establish and sustain robust community institutions, providing
    opportunities for learning, empathy, and understanding. The
    International Storytelling Center in Jonesborough, Tennessee, regularly
    hosts programs that promote discussion and dialogue. Ninety-three
    percent of respondents to an NHA survey indicated that they were
    ``motivated to listen to the stories of people whose background was
    different from their own'' after participating in a program featuring
    the stories of Black Appalachians. Meanwhile, Dialogues on the
    Experiences of War grants strengthen communities by offering veterans
    the chance to reflect upon their experiences while building bonds with
    each other and with civilians. Ninety-nine percent of respondents
    across eight programs reported a desire to ``keep in touch with some of
    the people [they] met during the program.'' Programs have been held
    throughout the U.S. and are tailored to local audiences. In California,
    San Francisco's Chinese Historical Society of America is hosting a
    program on Chinese American Veteran experiences, while Cal Poly
    Pomona's program featured California voices more broadly. In Maryland,
    Bowie State University's program brings together ROTC cadets, student
    Veterans, and Veterans from the broader community, while a 2017 program
    hosted by the University of Maryland was designed for women Veterans.
        NEH funding has an especially outsized role in small and rural
    communities, where it can build and support the infrastructure and
    programs that are vital to strong communities. Foundational support
    from the NEH has enabled Bend, Oregon's High Desert Museum to create
    engaging exhibitions and programs that showcase the region's diverse
    history. Recently, NEH funding has helped the museum strengthen
    relationships with and support for local Indigenous populations. In
    Matewan, West Virginia, NEH funding has proven transformative for the
    grassroots Mine Wars Museum, enabling it to hire staff, engage with
    partners and stakeholders, and create events for the local community
    that explore the region's significance to U.S labor history and the
    struggle to unionize the southern coalfields. And in Red Cloud,
    Nebraska, NEH funding helped the Willa Cather Foundation expand its
    facilities and programming, having a robust impact on the rural town of
    1,000 as both an employer and as an educational and cultural center
    that hosts theatrical adaptations on Cather's work, children's film
    screenings, and an annual conference.
          preserving cultural heritage, including indigenous languages
        Our cultural heritage lives in many forms, from presidential
    letters and great works of art to community archives and endangered
    languages. It is also vulnerable and requires protection from natural
    and man-made disasters as well as decay over time. NEH funding is
    indispensable to ensuring that our cultural heritage is both accessible
    now and preserved for future generations. The NEH funds documentary
    editions that make the papers of significant Americans accessible-from
    The Papers of John Adams and Civil War Governors of Kentucky to New
    Mexico's Amador Family Correspondence, 1856-1949. In a partnership with
    the Library of Congress, the agency's Chronicling America program is
    digitizing the historic newspapers of every State. And the NEH helps
    small and mid-size institutions invest in their own preservation needs.
    Institutions such as Dothan, Alabama's Wiregrass Museum of Art and the
    Stillwater Public Library in Oklahoma have used NEH funds to help
    ensure their collections are protected for the future.
        Funding for documenting traditional cultures and endangered
    languages supports Indigenous people throughout the United States.
    Through the Dynamic Language Infrastructure-Documenting Endangered
    Languages (DEL) program, a partnership with the National Science
    Foundation, NEH funding has preserved and made accessible languages
    spoken by Indigenous communities, having a profound impact on their way
    of life. In North Dakota, DEL grants have supported Sitting Bull
    College's Standing Rock Lakota/Dakota Language Project, including funds
    for a Master-Apprentice Language Learning Program and to expand an
    accessible digital language archive. NEH support for the Coeur d'Alene
    Online Language Resource Center helped create a single, searchable
    repository for a wide range of language resources, from dictionaries to
    archival recordings of personal narratives and coyote stories. The NEH
    additionally supports the documentation and revitalization of
    Indigenous American languages through its regular grant programs.
              cultivating knowledge of world history and cultures
        Established in the midst of the Cold War, the NEH has always
    provided funding to support research and programs that help Americans
    understand and engage with timely world issues. From scholarly
    exchanges with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and language
    institutes in the 1970s to international research support for American
    scholars and professional development for schoolteachers today, NEH
    funding supports efforts to understand other nations' languages,
    cultures, and geopolitical contexts. NEH funding has supported the
    research and publication of books such as Treason in Transit: Soviet
    Defectors and the Borders of the Cold War World (2022), by Erik R.
    Scott, and Iron Curtain: The Crushing of Eastern Europe, 1944-1956
    (2013)-among many other works of history that shed light on current
    events. NEH-supported English translations of Ukrainian literature,
    including Words for War: New Poems from Ukraine (2017) and The White
    Chalk of Days: The Contemporary Ukrainian Literature Series Anthology
    (2017) bring Ukrainian literature to broader American audiences.
        NEH funding also provides high-quality education on world affairs
    for school teachers and college educators. Using the Holocaust as a
    case study, Kean University's 2021 two-week seminar ``The Search for
    Humanity after Atrocity'' helped higher education faculty integrate
    atrocity studies into their research and curricula. A 2016 program for
    K-12 educators, hosted by Ferris State University, explored U.S.-
    Russian/Soviet relations from 1776 to the present. Moreover, from 2013-
    2018, a series of NEH grants helped community colleges throughout the
    U.S. integrate the study of world cultures into their curricula. These
    programs included content on Latin America, Asia, Russia, Eastern
    Europe, and the Middle East, among other topics.
     building local tourism economies and shoring up community institutions
        NEH funding catalyzes growth in local tourism economies and shores
    up local institutions so that they can continue serving their
    communities. A series of grants to the Dubuque County Historical
    Society, in Iowa, helped the organization transform from a small,
    regional museum into a world-class institution dedicated to the
    Mississippi River and its history-one that contributes more than $10.5
    million per year to the local economy. NEH support has also proven
    crucial to Thomas Jefferson's Monticello, which is an important
    economic driver in its Virginia region: 50 percent of the site's
    400,000 annual visitors stay in a hotel for at least one night,
    contributing no less than $13.1 million to the local economy.
        Humanities organizations play a crucial role in their communities,
    and NEH funding helps ensure their financial stability and longevity.
    From offering COVID relief funding to New Hampshire's Currier Museum of
    Art, to supporting Appalshop following historic flooding in Kentucky,
    NEH funding helps cultural organizations survive times of crisis. NEH
    funding also offers crucial financial support necessary for
    accomplishing the more mundane tasks that private funders often
    overlook, such as replacing the roof on Libby, Montana's Heritage
    Museum or upgrading HVAC systems and improving ADA compliance at
    Detroit's Opera House.

        [This statement was submitted by Stephen Kidd, Executive Director,
    National Humanities Alliance.]
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the National Indian Health Board
        On behalf of the National Indian Health Board (NIHB) and the 574
    sovereign federally recognized American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/
    AN) Tribal nations we serve, thank you for the opportunity to provide
    testimony on the Indian Health Service (IHS) for FY 2025. Tribal
    nations have a unique legal and political relationship with the United
    States. Through its acquisition of land and resources, the United
    States formed a fiduciary relationship with Tribal nations whereby it
    has recognized a trust relationship to safeguard Tribal rights, lands,
    and resources.\1\ In fulfillment of this Tribal trust relationship, the
    United States ``charged itself with moral obligations of the highest
    responsibility and trust'' toward Tribal nations.\2\ In the enactment
    of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (25 U.S.C. Sec. 1602),
    Congress imposed upon itself the duty to provide the highest possible
    health status of Indians and provide the IHS with all resources
    necessary to effect that policy. Each year, the IHS National Tribal
    Budget Formulation Workgroup (NTBFWG), through Tribal input from the 12
    IHS Areas, creates a budget recommendation to meet Indian Country's
    health needs. Unfortunately, Tribal communities continue to be
    underfunded and remain in a health crisis despite these efforts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832).
        \2\ Seminole Nation v. United States, 316 U.S. 286, 296-97 (1942).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           the indian health service
        For FY 2025, the NIHB supports the request of the NTBFWG for IHS in
    the amount of $53.8 billion for IHS, as a mandatory funded program.
    This includes full amount estimates for all services, facilities and
    improvements needed to bring the Indian health system up to the same
    standards as the U.S. population. Top ranked priorities of the
    workgroup are hospitals and health clinics, purchased/referred care,
    alcohol and substance use and mental health, and the Indian Health Care
    Improvement Fund (IHCIF). In facilities the workgroup recommends
    maintenance and improvement, healthcare facilities construction, and
    sanitation facilities construction.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ The NTBFWG's detailed request can be found here: https://
    www.nihb.org/government-relations/budget_formulation.php
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        For the first time in FY 2024, the Appropriations Committees needed
    to cut IHS accounts to make room for growing Contract Support Costs and
    Section 105(l) Lease Payments. Without a mandatory IHS budget as the
    NTBFWG has proposed, the costs for these accounts must come from within
    the discretionary caps placed on the budget. With an already
    dramatically underfunded health system and the rising costs of
    providing health care nationwide, there is little room for crimping to
    accommodate these increasing costs. The accounts which bore the brunt
    were facilities and the electronic health record line-item. This of
    course is also compounded on top of years of sub-inflationary increase
    the Agency's budget has weathered, diminishing Services purchasing
    power for years. These types of cuts impact the health status of
    American Indians and Alaska Natives.
        According to the Indian Health Service and Tribal Health Care
    Facilities' Needs Assessment Report to Congress, the need for
    facilities funding remains enormous. In 1992, the IHS established its
    current new construction priority list. Of the original 27 facilities
    on the list, over 30 years later, seven remain to be fully funded. The
    IHS hospitals now average 39 years of age, over three times older than
    the average age of U.S. not-for-profit hospitals (which is 11.5 years).
    Aging facilities risk code non-compliance, lower productivity, and
    compromises for health care services. Put another way, at the existing
    replacement rate, a new 2021 facility would not be replaced for 290
    years.
        Last year, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported
    that life expectancy for AI/ANs has declined by nearly 7 years, and
    that our average life expectancy is now only 65 years-equivalent to the
    Nationwide average in 1944.

        [This statement was submitted by The cuts also impact the roll out
    of significant enterprise-level operation and systems changes, such as
    the new electronic health record system IHS is adopting. Without
    consistent funding for such important high-level programs, systems
    transitions can become marred by stalls, leadership changes, and
    implementation delays. The IHS budget is already dramatically
    underfunded as evidenced by the NTBFWG's fully funding estimates, but
    when additional cuts to critical accounts and line items occur, it only
    sets the Indian health system back further.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Arias E, Tejada-Vera B, Kochanek KD, Ahmad FB. Provisional life
    expectancy estimates for 2021. Vital Statistics Rapid Release; no 23.
    Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics. August 2022.
    DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15620/cdc:118999.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    reclassify contract support costs (csc) and section 105(l) as mandatory
        The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA)
    requires IHS to compensate Tribes for CSC and Section 105(l) leases
    thus making these payments legally mandatory. Congress provides ``such
    sums as may be necessary'' to meet these obligations but does not
    account for them as mandatory spending in the budget. Since the
    payments are provided through discretionary spending it means that
    annual increases mostly go to these two accounts, leaving all other
    programs in IHS, Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and Bureau of Indian
    Education (BIE) budget flat-funded.
        Congress intended for these payments to be mandatory when ISDEAA
    was first enacted. The Supreme Court upheld these payments as mandatory
    obligations. Appropriations Committees have cited this issue for nearly
    a decade and call on a solution, including reclassification of these
    accounts as mandatory. IHS has also consistently included this solution
    in their budget and this approach has been endorsed in the Committee
    report language throughout the years.
        Congress can reclassify these accounts by simply coming to an
    agreement on how to score them with the Budget Committees,
    Congressional Budget Office, and OMB, as official scorekeepers. We
    believe that no changes in law are necessary--there merely must be an
    agreement on record stating whether the payment is a mandatory or
    discretionary obligation of the United States.
        Now more than ever, this transition is critical. In FY 2024, 105(l)
    leases increased by 34.2 percent and CSC increased by 8.4 percent,
    whereas the total increased funding for IHS was only 0.05 percent. In
    fact, it was the first year where we saw actual IHS budget cuts--cuts
    from essential services and facilities--to fund these mandatory
    obligations. IHS funding last year did not even keep up with inflation,
    which is estimated to be 3.1 percent according to the Consumer Price
    Index. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently considering a case that
    could have major implications on the funding obligations from CSC. The
    court is expected to soon rule on Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe
    and Northern Arapaho Tribe which could significantly increase the
    obligations for CSC in coming years. In today's funding model, it is
    unclear where this funding would come from.
        We are also cognizant that in FY 2025 the Appropriations Committee
    will have to work under the discretionary budget limits set forth by
    the Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) (Public Law 118-5) which will
    provide a maximum of $710.688 billion for nondefense programs; this is
    only 1 percent over FY 2024. All other programs being equal, this would
    not leave room for IHS to fully fund CSC and 105(l) leases (if the
    increases next year are similar to what they were in FY 2024) without
    cuts to other areas of the IHS budget. Furthermore, it would impede the
    ability of the Appropriations Committee to fund staffing, inflation and
    population growth, let alone much needed program expansion. With these
    growing costs, the Interior subcommittee would need a dramatic increase
    in its 302(b) allocation to avoid cuts to other critical programs
    funded by the subcommittee. The time to move these costs to mandatory
    is now.
                   towards full and mandatory funding for ihs
        In addition to the transition of CSC and Section 105(l) Lease
    Payments to mandatory, the NTBFWG has recommended all IHS funding
    transition to mandatory appropriations. The recommendation includes the
    full funding estimate developed by the NTBFWG, $53.8 billion for FY
    2025. IHS funding should be provided for through direct appropriations
    with adjustments for inflation and population growth in an allocation
    mutually agreed to by Indian Tribes. These steps will secure the future
    of the Indian health system and meet the treaty and trust obligations
    of the Federal Government to provide for the health of AI/ANs. Until
    then, the provision, preservation, and enhancement of IHS advance
    appropriations is necessary.
        For the first time, IHS was provided advance appropriations in the
    FY 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Public Law 117-328). Proving
    the life-saving and cost-saving value of this authority in its first
    budget cycle, IHS and the Tribes were able to receive full-year
    appropriation starting on October 1, 2023 for FY 2024 for the first
    time in almost a decade. Advance appropriations is allowing IHS and
    Tribes to focus on implementation and execution of the core mission,
    instead of partial year budgets and reconciliations. Continuation of
    advance appropriations for IHS is imperative, however, not all IHS
    accounts and line items are included. All IHS accounts must be included
    in the advance appropriations as well as increases year-to-year that
    adjust for inflation, population growth, the IHCIF, and other necessary
    programs. Until IHS spending is mandatory, securing advance
    appropriations for every account in the IHS budget is critical to the
    health of every Tribal community in Indian Country.
      reforming federal funding and support for tribal nations to better
     embrace our trust responsibilities and promote the next era of tribal
                               self-determination
        On December 6, 2023, President Biden signed into law Executive
    Order (E.O.) 14112 marking the continuation and further advancement of
    the administration's historic commitment to uphold the Nation's treaty
    and trust obligations to Tribal Nations and their citizens. Further,
    the Executive Order reiterates the United States' commitment to protect
    and support Tribal sovereignty and self-determination.
        The Executive Order also directs the head of each agency to design,
    revise, provide waivers for, and otherwise administer Federal funding
    and support programs for Tribal Nations to achieve objectives such as,
    compacting and contracting, funding for programs to allow Tribal set-
    asides, designing application and reporting criteria that reduces
    administrative burdens, and increasing the flexibility of Federal
    funding Tribes receive.
        At its core, E.O. 14112 recognizes three things: Tribal Nations
    have long-standing legal rights recognizing their inherent sovereignty;
    the United States owes a duty to Tribes that has not been met; and
    Federal agencies have authority to make meaningful change and progress
    toward meeting those obligations, doing so in collaboration with the
    sovereign nations they seek to serve. We hope that Congress will also
    recognize the principles outlined in E.O. 14112 as it makes FY 2025
    funding decisions.
                hhs program funding and report language requests
        Due to the restrictions in the Interior Appropriations
    subcommittee's 302(b) allocation, and increasing CSC and 105(l) leases,
    the most likely and needed funding is from other operating divisions at
    the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). As current law
    States and reiterated in E.O. 14112, all Federal agencies have a
    Federal trust responsibility to provide for Tribal nations. However,
    most agencies, including HHS, do not provide any significant, broad-
    based, dedicated funding to Tribal nations despite significant support
    to States, localities, and territories.
        HHS consistently provides funding in the form of competitive
    grants, block grants to States only, and complicated overburdensome
    administrative procedures and reporting requirements that only serve to
    exclude the vast majority of Tribal nations. Those that get funding
    have a higher administrative capacity, the workforce to handle the
    significant reporting requirements, and likely receive more funding
    than Tribes who don't have this type of infrastructure. This increases
    a vicious cycle where those without resources continue to remain so.
        CDC has engaged with States and localities for decades on this
    work, with nominal support to Tribal nations. Through COVID-19
    supplemental funding IHS received limited funds to assist with public
    health capacity building. However, Congress took almost $800 million of
    that funding away through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024
    (Public Law 118-42) and the Fiscal Responsibility Act (Public Law 118-
    5). We call on the Appropriations Committee to end this epidemic of
    invisibility in the public health system by supporting Tribal nations
    beyond the IHS.
        In recognition of new Executive Order and the constraints on
    Congress in the FY 2025 budget, particularly on the Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies budget, we are recommending further
    report language and increases for Tribal set-asides within the Labor,
    Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies budget. We
    urge this subcommittee to communicate the constraints on Tribal
    programs and the shared responsibility of the Federal trust
    responsibility.
                                   conclusion
        The IHS budget faces many pressures to meet the Federal treaty and
    trust obligations to Tribes in such a constrained fiscal environment.
    This subcommittee can make critical changes to the IHS budget, which
    are budget neutral and take pressure off the Interior budget and the
    IHS. Moving CSC and Section 105(l) Lease Payments, providing for full
    advance appropriations, and supporting expansion of Self-Governance and
    Tribal Support beyond the IHS can dramatically improve the outlook for
    Tribes without breaking a budget cap. This subcommittee can break the
    cycle of inequity. We thank you for the opportunity to provide
    testimony and look forward to working with you for the betterment of
    Tribal nations.

        [This statement was submitted by William Smith (Valdez Native
    Tribe), Chairman, National Indian Health Board.]
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of National Parks Conservation Association
        Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on
    behalf of National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). Founded in
    1919, NPCA is the leading national, independent voice for protecting
    and enhancing America's National Park System for present and future
    generations. We appreciate the opportunity to provide our views
    regarding the National Park Service (NPS) FY25 budget and provide
    commentary on related accounts and issues. We call for a $250 million
    increase for the Operation of the National Park System; $17 million for
    the Housing Improvement Program; $32 million for the National Heritage
    Area program; and support for other accounts without specified
    recommended amounts.
       increase the operation of the national park system (onps) by $250
                                    million
        This account remains NPCA's highest priority and critically needs a
    significant increase, in particular after the damaging cut in FY24. We
    respect your allocation will be limited this year and there are many
    competing priorities. We know you will have to make difficult
    decisions; at the same time, we also urge you to recognize the
    importance of helping our parks operate more capably. ONPS has been
    described as the ``bread and butter'' of our National parks, providing
    critical funding for personnel and other operational needs. It is the
    core funding that allows national parks to meet their mission
    protecting the world-class cultural and natural resources for which
    these places were designated, and to ensure the safety and enjoyment of
    the visiting public that collectively own them. Unfortunately, because
    the ONPS has not kept up with needs, NPS continues to struggle with
    insufficient staff and other operating needs due in part to the impact
    of uncontrollable fixed costs that has been a contributor to the long-
    term erosion of staffing levels.
        Prior to this year, parks and supporting offices were already
    struggling with understaffing due to the impact of uncontrollable fixed
    costs that include staff Cost of Living Increases and pay raises,
    rental payments, the Departmental Working Capital Fund, unemployment
    compensation and more. Outside of more significant appropriated
    increases in FY16 and FY23, appropriated ONPS funding increases over
    the last decade have been largely insufficient to provide for these
    fixed costs. As a result, superintendents have become accustomed to
    letting positions lapse and making other hard decisions to absorb these
    costs. As a result, between 2012 and 2022, NPS lost nearly 3,000 staff
    (in FTES, or full-time equivalent staff).
        The disappointing ONPS appropriation in FY24-the account's first
    cut in a decade-is making this year even more challenging. The
    Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations bill cut park
    operations by $35 million, but this cut was compounded by the forced
    absorption of more than $120 million in fixed costs-a significant
    amount this year due to the mandatory 5.2% Federal pay raise. As a
    result, appropriators in recent budget hearings have been appropriately
    expressing concern that this will mean fewer visitor services during
    the busy season. Resource protection will suffer as well, making it
    that much harder for parks to meet their mission. A $250 million ONPS
    increase would provide for an estimated $44 million in fixed costs and
    ensure a program change of a little more than $200 million that would
    ensure modest, direly needed increases across hundreds of NPS units.
        An ONPS increase is needed to help with high visitation and climate
    change adaptation: NPS understaffing is being compounded by record
    visitation increases. Between 2012 and 2022, NPS gradually lost 13% of
    its staff capacity. Meanwhile, visits to NPS sites grew by 10 percent.
    Superintendents regularly report staffing constraints that are
    compounded by often double-digit percentage increases in visitation.
    Staff commonly cover multiple collateral duties. It is not uncommon to
    have, for example, interpretive staff addressing increased restroom use
    or law enforcement assisting with cars in parking lots. As a result,
    other needs go unaddressed. Natural and cultural resource protection,
    research and monitoring, programming, and other services central to
    parks meeting their mission go unaddressed or delayed indefinitely. NPS
    is addressing the visitation challenge in many parks with timed entry,
    permits, and related tools. However, they all require staffing and
    resources that take away from other needs.
        Our national parks are also on the front lines of climate change,
    between storm surges, wildfire risks, and threatened wildlife habitat
    and irreplaceable cultural sites. Helping our parks adapt to a changing
    climate requires funding. These investments can be made across diverse
    subaccounts within park operations, including Cultural and Natural
    Resource Stewardship. Among other climate-related needs, funding is
    vital to relocate facilities threatened by erosion and storm surges,
    combat invasive species, address catastrophic wildfires, provide
    critical air and water quality monitoring and otherwise inventory and
    monitor cultural and natural resources to identify threats and develop
    adaptive management strategies. Management planning is needed in many
    areas including related to climate and increased visitation.
        ONPS support for cultural resource management is needed: As we
    outlined in our recently released Cultural Resource Challenge for the
    National Park Service, the ability for NPS to staff its cultural
    resource operations has fallen significantly and disproportionately
    over the years. Inventory and monitoring, climate-related needs, museum
    collections and more are all overdue for added investments. A
    significant shortfall in cultural resources funding has undermined the
    agency's ability to plan and manage the resources in their care. It is
    difficult to impossible to care for these resources when NPS has not
    been able to even properly inventory the resources they are tasked with
    stewarding. FY25 is an opportunity to help meet these needs and
    highlight the importance of NPS' world-class, nationally significant
    cultural and historic resources. Our cultural resource report calls for
    investments in: a professional cultural resource stewardship workforce;
    historic research; cultural resource inventory and monitoring; the
    Cultural Resource Project Budget; collections management; and museums
    collections digitization.
        New park units: We commend this committee for historically
    supporting more recent NPS designations. NPCA has advocated for these
    new units that better protect and interpret America's diverse history.
    We encourage continuing fiscal support as well as highlighting in the
    bill's Explanatory Statement the importance of these units, such as
    Birmingham Civil Rights National Monument, Blackwell School National
    Historic Site, and Amache National Historic Site.
        Management Planning capacity is needed. Planning is not happening
    at the pace needed to guide park decision-making; this becomes more of
    an issue when considering the dual and intersecting challenges of
    climate change and skyrocketing visitation at many parks. NPS must be
    equipped to successfully respond to rapidly evolving and increasing
    visitor use. We urge investments to conduct research and prepare and
    implement visitor use management plans to address rising use and its
    threat to visitor safety and resources. NPS needs staff and resources
    to collect baseline data on visitation and resource conditions to
    inform visitor use management planning processes; enhance NPS' capacity
    for conducting good social science and using it to guide visitor use
    management planning and adaptive management; study the application of
    recreation ecology science in visitor use management planning; and
    support mechanisms for gateway communities and other public land
    management agencies to collaborate and conduct coordinated regional
    visitor use management planning. NPS can also improve its
    communications systems to reach new and underrepresented communities.
        Great American Outdoors and appropriated maintenance and repairs:
    The Great American Outdoors Act's Legacy Restoration Fund (LRF) is
    funding hundreds of projects across the country that are successfully
    repairing park infrastructure. We commend your support for and
    oversight of this important program and ask that members of this
    committee support legislation to extend the LRF for at least an
    additional 5 years at current levels. We are hopeful authorizing
    legislation will be introduced in the coming months. We also encourage
    you to support cyclic maintenance, repair and rehabilitation and line-
    item construction to address the $23 billion deferred maintenance
    backlog and ensure the day-to-day maintenance that can reduce the
    growth of the backlog. We are disappointed with the levels in the
    president's budget for these appropriated accounts and encourage you to
    provide more if your allocation allows.
        NPS Housing: Unfortunately, the lack of affordable housing facing
    countless Americans has been taking a toll on NPS' capacity to house
    its employees. Rent and home sale prices have increased prohibitively
    so that as staff who have long served parks retire, new incoming staff
    cannot afford to live near parks. In absence of decent housing within a
    reasonable commuting distance and with limited housing stock in parks,
    prospective park employees turn down jobs and superintendents struggle
    to fill positions even when funds are available. NPCA is discussing
    with partners, congressional offices and NPS the varied options for
    trying to address this housing crisis; however, additional funding
    would clearly be helpful in addressing some of these needs.
    Accordingly, we commend the committee for its $4.7 million increase in
    FY23 for the NPS housing program and its maintenance of that $7.9
    million level in FY24. We ask the committee to support the president's
    budget level of $16.9 million for this important account in FY25.
        Heritage Partnership Program: This program supports National
    Heritage Areas (NHAs) in dozens of communities throughout the country.
    NHAs are strong examples of truly effective public-private partnerships
    established in support of conservation and preservation values. NHAs
    allow local experts to better protect and interpret stories and
    resources that are regionally distinct and nationally significant. The
    Federal funding NHAs receive must be matched 1:1 with money from a non-
    federal source. The NHA system was formalized through legislation at
    the end of the last Congress, so this subcommittee's maintenance of the
    $29 million funding level for this small but mighty program is
    commendable. We urge you to reject the president's proposed cut and
    urge you to provide level funding at a minimum. A modest increase to
    $32 million could ensure that every NHA has at least $500,000 in
    funding, that NPS guidelines and performance benchmarks are met, and
    that the program can support new NHAs and NPS management.
        Historic Preservation Fund: NPCA supports this important program
    that provides support for cultural resource protection in communities
    throughout the country, so were disappointed in the significant cut in
    FY24 and poor funding levels proposed in the president's budget. We
    support increasing this fund with a particular eye towards the Tribal
    Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs) that have long been underfunded.
    We commend the committee's increase for these grants-in-aid to Tribes
    in FY23. This increase raised the average for each THPO to $100,000,
    which is helpful, but these offices are expected to respond to
    thousands of consultation requests. We encourage an increase
    specifically for these THPOs to help meet preservation responsibilities
    under the National Historic Preservation Act and protect important
    artifacts.
        Investments are also needed for related agencies that support the
    health of park resources and communities. We commend the committee's
    work to better invest in the many agencies and programs that support
    wildlife, clean air and water in our parks and help research and
    address climate change. Park wildlife, for example, benefit from US
    Fish and Wildlife Service funding. We urge the committee to make
    significant investments in the protection and recovery of our most
    vulnerable species, including the more than 600 threatened and
    endangered plants and animals in national parks. The US Fish and
    Wildlife Service needs robust funding for Endangered Species Act
    programs. Investments in EPA's Geographic Programs are critical for
    restoring and maintaining the health of the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay
    and other waterways and ecosystems in and surrounding national parks.
    There are many important investments the committee can continue to make
    that helps our parks adapt to climate change. For example, USGS Climate
    Adaptation Science Centers are critical to support climate science that
    benefits our National parks and their ecosystems.
        We urge the committee to support supplemental disaster relief
    funding for NPS. Catastrophic weather events-increasingly related to
    climate change-cause massive harm to park communities and
    infrastructure. We commend the $1.5 billion investment in NPS disaster
    relief in FY23, which will address the damage to numerous parks from
    flooding, hurricanes, wildfires, and more. The nondefense supplemental
    bill introduced in October 2023 included $395 million for disasters at
    numerous parks. This includes the Hurricane Ridge day lodge at Olympic
    National Park and numerous national park sites in California, in
    addition to historic resource damage due to the wildfires in Maui.
    Since then, Acadia National Park has seen at least $20 million in
    damage from two back-to-back storms in January 2024 and Big Thicket
    National Preserve has recently joined surrounding communities in
    suffering from recent flooding. These disasters and any others this
    year should be included in a disaster supplemental package that we hope
    can move forward in the coming months to provide not only for the
    countless communities impacted by climate change-related and other
    disasters, but also our National parks. We urge members of this
    subcommittee to support this funding when an opportunity arises.
        Policy riders: The FY24 Interior bill included hundreds of riders
    that would have damaged national parks, their wildlife and clean air
    and water. We applaud the stripping of these riders in conference and
    urge that the underlying bill in FY25 does not contain damaging riders.

        [This statement was submitted by John Garder, Senior Director of
    Budget and Appropriations, National Parks Conservation Association.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the National Tribal Contract Support Cost
                                   Coalition
        The National Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition is a voluntary
    organization of 21 Tribes and inter-Tribal organizations located across
    13 States, which collectively operate over one billion dollars in
    Indian Health Service (IHS) and Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) programs
    on behalf of over 250 Native American Tribes.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Coalition members are the Alaska Native Tribal Health
    Consortium (AK), Arctic Slope Native Association (AK), Central Council
    of Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes (AK), Cherokee Nation (OK), Chickasaw
    Nation (OK), Choctaw Nation (OK), Citizen Potawatomi Nation (OK),
    Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (MT), Copper River Native
    Association (AK), Forest County Potawatomi Community (WI), Kodiak Area
    Native Association (AK), Little River Band of Ottawa Indians (MI),
    Muscogee (Creek) Nation (OK), Pueblo of Zuni (NM), Riverside- San
    Bernardino County Indian Health (CA), Shoshone Bannock Tribes (ID),
    Shoshone-Paiute Tribes (ID, NV), Southeast Alaska Regional Health
    Consortium (AK), Spirit Lake Tribe (ND), Tanana Chiefs Conference (AK),
    Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation (AK), Northwest Portland Area Indian
    Health Board (43 Tribes in ID, WA, OR), and the Ysleta del Sur Pueblo
    (TX).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The Coalition was launched in 1996 to press Congress and the
    agencies to honor the Government's legal obligation to add contract
    support cost funding to every contract and compact awarded under the
    Indian Self-Determination Act (ISDA). During this same period, Tribes
    across the country launched massive litigation that eventually led to
    two Supreme Court victories cementing the Government's duty to pay
    contract support costs in full: Cherokee Nation v. Leavitt (2005) and
    Salazar v. Ramah Navajo Chapter (2012). In the wake of those victories,
    this Committee adjusted the appropriations process going forward to
    recognize the mandatory nature of these contract payments, based upon
    agency reports on the amounts required to fully reimburse the Tribes.
        But IHS understated the amounts required to fully reimburse the
    Tribes and it continued to underpay them, leading to a third round of
    litigation culminating in San Carlos Apache Tribe v. Becerra, now
    pending before the Supreme Court. I will address this case today
    because a Court decision against IHS in the San Carlos case will
    require a significant adjustment to Tribal contract support cost
    payments going forward, and because IHS has to date failed to advise
    this Committee about the true magnitude of its contract support cost
    obligations to the Tribes.
        The core issue presented in the San Carlos case is whether Congress
    in the ISDA required IHS to reimburse Tribal overhead costs for running
    the entire ``Federal program'' that IHS turns over to Tribal operation,
    including the portion of that program that IHS (and now Tribes) fund
    with ``program income"-principally third-party revenues that IHS and
    Tribes generate from providing services to patients eligible for
    Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance. As IHS has frequently told
    this subcommittee, in some IHS service units third-party revenues fund
    over 60 percent of healthcare operations (with agency appropriations
    funding the balance), and tribally operated service units equally rely
    on these same collections to sustain the contracted Federal programs.
        Contrary to the ISDA (as we see it), IHS has been unlawfully
    reducing its CSC reimbursements to ensure no overhead is paid to
    support the third-party revenue-funded portion of each contracted
    program. At the same time, since third-party revenues are a large part
    of IHS's own operations, IHS's overhead, including its HR and IT
    operations, supports all of its third-party funded personnel and
    expenditures. IHS has been wrong to treat Tribes differently by
    excluding from its CSC reimbursements the portion of Tribal overhead
    costs associated with spending third-party collections.
        In the San Carlos litigation, IHS irresponsibly asserted that the
    total additional cost of covering overhead associated with program
    income spending would be between $800 million and $2 billion. But in
    March, government counsel was forced to admit before the Supreme Court
    that this estimate was overstated, and that IHS had no reliable
    estimate of the amount of its annual underpayment to the Tribes. It
    also mixed up the issue of annual CSC reimbursements (which this
    committee will address) with damage awards for past underpayments
    (which Treasury will address through the Judgment Fund). This Committee
    needs an honest assessment of the added costs needed to fully fund
    Tribal contract support costs going forward. We therefore respectfully
    request that the Committee direct IHS, on an urgent and immediate
    basis, to engage in Tribal consultation on this issue over the next 90
    days. We also respectfully suggest that the Committee ask the General
    Accountability Office to undertake a stratified statistical sampling to
    facilitate this process.
        Other issues also remain which warrant this Committee's attention.
                            mandatory appropriation
        The Coalition renews its request that all contract support cost and
    section 105(l) lease accounts be moved to the mandatory side of the
    budget to ensure these vital funds remain available and are timely
    paid. Language to accomplish this result has been shared with the
    Committee.
     the reconciliation process and difficulties with current bill language
        As we noted last year, current bill language concerning contract
    support cost significantly differs for the BIA and IHS. Bill language
    for the BIA (but not IHS) States that CSC appropriations shall only be
    ``available for obligation'' during the current fiscal year, impeding
    the BIA's ability to access the appropriation to reimburse additional
    audited amounts found due after the fiscal year has closed. The BIA
    language on this score should match the IHS language.
        Conversely, bill language for IHS (but not the BIA) States that
    unspent funds ``shall be applied to contract support costs due'' in
    ``subsequent years"-necessitating an additional process to determine
    exactly how much is available to cover a future year's CSC obligation.
    This language may be responsible for the fact that IHS (but not the
    BIA) has built up a massive post- fiscal year ``reconciliation''
    process that leaves the books open on every Tribal contract until
    audits and indirect cost rate agreements for each year are completed.
    Many Tribal overhead costs therefore go unreimbursed for up to 6 years,
    leading to additional Tribal claims against IHS.
        The IHS reconciliation process is contrary to standard practice for
    calculating and paying contract support costs. Both agencies calculate
    and pay contract support costs-mostly indirect costs-based on an
    indirect cost rate that can be up to 3 years old. This provides
    flexibility in case audits are late, or-as has often been the case in
    recent years-the rate-making agencies are late. Either way, the goal
    should be to pay contract support costs based upon the best available
    data, and to then move on to the next year. IHS's ``reconciliation''
    practice does not facilitate Tribal self-determination and self-
    governance, and each year it costs millions of dollars in man- hours
    for the agency and the Tribes combined. It also complicates Tribal
    accounting and indirect cost negotiations as adjustments are made years
    after the books are already closed. Similarly (and as also mentioned
    earlier), the BIA's practice of recalculating ``direct'' contract
    support costs every year differs from IHS practice and should be
    discontinued because it leads to recurring and unacceptable delays on
    contract payments.
        Attached to this testimony is suggested bill language that would
    make the CSC provisions uniform and eliminate the need for any
    reconciliation process.
                                 payment delays
        The BIA and the DOI Office of Self-Governance consistently fail to
    timely disburse contract funds to contracting and compacting Tribes.
    Unlike other government contractors, Tribes are left to wait months,
    some years, before they receive payment. Last year we noted that one
    Region failed to make any CSC payments to its Tribes. Meanwhile, OSG
    holds back what should be recurring contract payments until late in the
    fiscal year, then threatens Tribes with no payment if information
    demanded in August is not promptly provided.
        These are government contracts, and forcing Tribes to file claims
    in order to be paid is unacceptable. A number of Tribes have called for
    penalties on agency personnel who fail to make timely payments.
                    ihs misconduct in reducing csc payments
        Last year we noted that IHS had unlawfully reduced contract
    payments to a Navajo ISDA hospital contractor based upon a flawed case
    known as Cook Inlet Tribal Council v. Dotomain, 10 F.4th 892 (D.C. Cir.
    2021). Although this misconduct was quickly remedied in Fort Defiance
    Indian Health Board v. Becerra, 604 F.Supp.3d 118 (D. NM 2022)-and
    after the agency's own hearing officer also ruled against the agency-a
    better answer would be enactment of H.R. 409.
        H.R. 409 would not require IHS to pay any sums that IHS does not
    already pay, and the flaw in the Cook Inlet decision is this: the D.C.
    Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that costs which IHS ``normally''
    incurs in its direct operation of a program are not eligible for
    reimbursement as contract support costs. But IHS has for decades
    reimbursed Tribal costs that IHS ``normally'' incurs too, like human
    resource (HR) costs and costs to cover management and planning,
    utilities, financial management, housekeeping and janitorial services,
    building and grounds maintenance expenses, general support services,
    property management repairs and maintenance, records management, data
    processing (information technology, or IT) and office services.
    Requiring that IHS continue to reimburse these costs precisely as it
    has in the past will not cause any increase in outlays, which is why
    H.R. 409 is a reasonable and measured response to the flawed Cook Inlet
    decision.
                                remaining issues
        Two other important issues warrant brief comment.

      --Untimely CSC Reporting. Neither agency is honoring its duty to
            timely report to Congress on the execution of its contract
            support cost obligations. See 25 U.S.C. Sec. 5325(c). IHS and
            BIA reports are several years behind.

        Reporting assures accountability. The Coalition requests that the
            Committee reinforce the agencies' CSC reporting obligations.

      --IHS replacement of contracts with grants. The IHS practice of
            awarding new Indian healthcare funds as grants instead of
            adding them to existing contracts and compacts bypasses the
            ISDA's CSC obligation while also adding unnecessary grants
            management overhead costs. The practice needs to end.

        Prior to FY 2012, IHS transferred earmarked domestic violence and
            methamphe- tamine and suicide prevention (behavioral health
            initiative) funds through compacts and contracts. But a few
            months after the 2012 Supreme Court decision in Ramah, then-
            Director Roubideaux reversed course and demanded that grant
            instruments be used. Without CSC reimbursements, Tribes were
            then compelled to divert program funds to cover overhead costs,
            while also incurring new overhead costs to comply with special
            and different grant management rules.

        Six years ago this Committee pressed IHS to return to the pre-2012
            practice of transferring these and similar funds through
            compacts and contracts. IHS launched, stalled, then relaunched
            a Tribal consultation on the matter, only to let the matter
            die.

        The Coalition respectfully requests that the Committee add bill
            language for FY 2025 mandating the transfer of substance abuse,
            opioid, domestic violence, suicide prevention, and other
            targeted funds to Tribes though their ISDA contracts and
            compacts.

        Thank you for the opportunity to offer this testimony on behalf of
    the National Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition.

        [This statement was submitted by Lloyd B. Miller, Sonosky Chambers,
    Sachse, Miller & Monkman LLP Counsel to the National Tribal Contract
    Support Cost Coalition.]
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the National Trust for Historic Preservation
        I appreciate the opportunity to present the National Trust for
    Historic Preservation's recommendations for FY 2025 appropriations. My
    name is Shaw Sprague, and I am the Vice President of Government
    Relations. The National Trust is a privately funded nonprofit chartered
    by Congress in 1949. We work to save America's historic places to
    enrich our future.
        Thank you for considering recommendations made by the National
    Trust. We look forward to continuing our work with this subcommittee as
    you address the ongoing need for investments to sustain our Nation's
    rich heritage of cultural and historic resources that also generate
    lasting economic and civic vitality for communities throughout the
    Nation. We offer our gratitude for your longstanding support for
    preserving America's special places.
        Our annual report, ``The Preservation Budget: Select Preservation
    Priorities for FY 2025 Appropriations,'' \1\ includes more information
    on the programs identified below, including funding levels over time
    and many remarkable recent examples of program successes.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://savingplaces.org/preservation-funding-priorities
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        National Park Service: Historic Preservation Fund. The HPF is the
    principal source of funding to implement the Nation's preservation
    programs. This critical program saw six successive historic funding
    levels, until FY 2024. While this recent investment in the HPF has
    facilitated innovative and impactful historic preservation work across
    the country, additional appropriations are needed to ensure a more
    complete historic narrative is preserved for future generations and
    lesser-known places of historic and cultural significance may continue
    to enrich our communities.
        HPF funding supports fundamental preservation activities such as
    survey, nomination of properties to the National Register of Historic
    Places, public education, and project reviews required for Federal
    Historic Tax Credit (HTC) projects. Among many highlights, we would
    like to emphasize the subcommittee's sustained support for the African
    American Civil Rights grants program to preserve and highlight sites
    and stories associated with securing civil rights for All Americans. We
    would also like to highlight the extraordinary impact Paul Bruhn
    Historic Revitalization Grants have in fostering economic development
    in our Nation's rural communities. The competitive grant programs
    within the HPF are having a transformative impact in communities
    throughout the country and these investments are helping preserve a
    broader historic narrative while revitalizing communities and creating
    local jobs. State and Tribal historic preservation offices are at the
    forefront of protecting our Nation's historic and cultural resources
    and are consistently asked to do more with less funding. The National
    Trust strongly supports addressing this unmet financial need.
        We respectfully request that Congress provide a total FY 2025 HPF
    appropriation of $225 million. Within that funding, we recommend:

      --$70 million for State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs)

      --$34 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs)

      --$28 million for competitive grants to preserve the sites and
            stories of efforts to advance African American Civil Rights

      --$7 million for the History of Equal Rights Grants program to
            preserve the sites and stories associated with securing civil
            rights for All Americans, including women, American Latino,
            Native American, Alaska Native, Native Hawaiian, and LGBTQ
            Americans

      --$13 million for grants to Historically Black Colleges and
            Universities to preserve and rehabilitate historic buildings

      --$40 million for Save America's Treasures grants

      --$17 million for Paul Bruhn Historic Revitalization grants

      --$5 million for Underrepresented Community grants

      --$11 million for Semiquincentennial Grants program

        National Park Service: National Networks. The NPS manages five
    national networks around important themes in American history: African
    American Civil Rights, the Underground Railroad Network to Freedom, the
    Reconstruction Era, World War II Heritage Cities, and Japanese American
    World War II History. These programs coordinate preservation, research,
    and education efforts nationwide across large networks of partners.
    Please support $11.75 million to administer and enhance National
    Networks programs. Increased funding would provide additional support
    for the NPS to enhance the administration and expansion of National
    Networks programs.
        National Park Service: Deferred Maintenance. The NPS is responsible
    for maintaining a system comprised of more than 85 million acres that
    tell the stories of remarkable people and events in our country's
    history. Unfortunately, after over 100 years of operation and
    inconsistent public funding, the NPS faces a multi-million dollar
    deferred maintenance backlog. Deferred maintenance in our National
    parks puts historic and cultural sites at risk of permanent damage or
    loss, and in the absence of funding, the condition of these assets will
    continue to deteriorate and become more expensive to repair and
    preserve in the future. We also recommend sustained increases for
    specific line items to ensure the maintenance backlog continues to
    decrease.

      --Construction. We recommend at least $150 million in funding for
            Line-Item Construction projects that address the deferred
            maintenance for the NPS' highest priority non- transportation
            assets with project costs greater than $1 million.

      --Repair and Rehabilitation; Cyclic Maintenance. We are enormously
            appreciative of the Committee's commitment to enhancing these
            accounts with significant investments since FY 2016. We
            recommend additional increases for Repair and Rehabilitation at
            $150 million and maintaining $205 million for Cyclic
            Maintenance to ensure routine and emerging needs are
            appropriately addressed.

        National Park Service: Cultural Programs. Within its cultural
    programs, the NPS manages many critical historic preservation
    activities, including management of the National Register of Historic
    Places and the National Historic Landmarks Program, certification of
    Federal historic tax credit (HTC) projects, coordination of Federal
    archaeology programs, and the administration of invaluable and targeted
    grant funding. These grant programs include the Native American Graves
    Protection and Repatriation Act Grants, Japanese American Confinement
    Sites Grants, American Battlefield Protection Program Assistance
    Grants, and many more.
        The National Trust recommends $46 million for Cultural Programs for
    FY 2025. Specifically, we want to highlight our recommendation of $3
    million for the African American Burial Grounds Preservation Program,
    which has been authorized since FY 2023, but has yet to receive any
    appropriated funds to begin this critical work. This recently
    authorized program will allow descendant-led and preservation
    organizations working to protect African American burial grounds to
    receive funding to preserve these sacred landscapes. Assisting with the
    discovery of these places of tribute and memory ahead of commercial
    development will help avoid disturbances of these sacred places and aid
    family members, descendants, and community members in honoring and
    remembering their shared past.
        Further increases in this account will support sustained demands to
    review and approve Federal HTC projects and allow improvements to, and
    a more complete list of, historic and archeological resources in the
    National Register of Historic Places.
        National Park Service: National Heritage Areas. We recommend $34
    million for the Heritage Partnership Program and National Heritage
    Areas (NHAs). This level of investment would provide the necessary
    funding for each of the 62 individual NHAs in 36 States, as well as NPS
    administrative support for coordination, guidance, assistance, and
    training. NHAs uniquely combine historic preservation, cultural and
    natural resource conservation, local and regional preservation
    planning, and heritage education and tourism. According to the NPS,
    NHAs leverage an average of $5.50 for every $1 of Federal investment to
    create jobs, generate local government revenue, and sustain local
    communities through revitalization tourism.
        Bureau of Land Management: Cultural Resources Management. The
    Bureau of Land Management (BLM) oversees the largest, most diverse, and
    scientifically important collection of historic and cultural resources
    on our Nation's public lands, as well as the museum collections and
    data associated with them. The National Trust recommends $25 million to
    bolster this program.
        The cultural resources program also supports Section 106 review of
    land-use proposals, Section 110 inventory and protection of cultural
    resources, compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and
    Repatriation Act, and consultation with Tribes and Alaska Native
    Governments. Moving forward, we recommend $1 million in dedicated funds
    for the agency to enhance its National Cultural Resources Information
    Management System (NCRIMS). This collaboration with state historic
    preservation offices is one of the Nation's most innovative programs to
    support predictive modeling and data analysis to enhance planning for
    large-scale, cross-jurisdictional land-use projects.
        Bureau of Land Management: National Landscape Conservation System.
    The BLM's National Landscape Conservation System (National Conservation
    Lands) includes approximately 37 million acres of congressionally and
    presidentially designated lands, including National Monuments, National
    Conservation Areas, Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, National Scenic
    and Historic Trails, and Wild and Scenic Rivers.
        We encourage the Committee to provide at least $78 million to the
    base program for the National Landscape Conservation System. An
    increase in funding will allow for greater inventory and monitoring of
    cultural resources in this growing system, prevent damage to the
    resources found in these areas, ensure proper management, and provide
    for a quality visitor experience.
        Independent Agencies: National Endowments for the Arts and for the
    Humanities. We urge the Committee to provide no less than $211 million
    each for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and National
    Endowment for the Humanities (NEH). NEA and NEH funding is critical to
    communities around the country and strengthens our Nation by promoting
    the 'lessons of history' to all Americans. This funding has also
    supported efforts by the National Trust's Historic Sites and others to
    tell a fuller American story and engage visitors in compelling ways.
        Independent Agencies: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. We
    recommend $10.5 million for the Advisory Council on Historic
    Preservation (ACHP). This increase would enhance the ACHP's ability to
    perform its essential role in ensuring the Nation's historic and
    cultural resources are protected while also advancing timely delivery
    of major infrastructure projects and improving consultation with Indian
    Tribes. The increase would also support the ACHPs efforts to promote
    enhanced mapping and digitization of cultural resources.
        We stand ready to assist the Committee in support of our
    recommendations.

        [This statement was submitted by Shaw Sprague, Vice President of
    Government Relations, National Trust for Historic Preservation.]
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of National Wildlife Refuge Association
        This testimony is being submitted on behalf of the National
    Wildlife Refuge Association. We appreciate the opportunity to submit
    comments on the fiscal year (FY) 2025 Interior Appropriations bill. We
    request Congress to allocate at least $602.3 million in funding for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance account
    under the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). However, to
    achieve a fully funded and effective Refuge System, an annual budget of
    at least $2.2 billion is needed to provide for its basic needs, meet
    mandates and public demand, and ensure commensurate staffing of other
    similarly sized public lands systems. The President's budget request of
    $602.3 million is an important step towards that goal and we urge
    Congress to make significant investments in these treasured public
    lands and waters.
        The Refuge Association is a non-profit exclusively focused on
    protecting, promoting, and enhancing the National Wildlife Refuge
    System. As the Nation's only set of Federal lands dedicated to the
    conservation and management of America's native wildlife, it is the
    world's largest and most diverse network of conservation lands and
    waters, encompassing more than 850 million acres of unique habitats
    that our native wildlife species depend on. Our national wildlife
    refuges are essential for protecting biodiversity and climate-resilient
    habitats, providing community-driven conservation, and expanding
    wildlife-dependent recreational opportunities nationwide.
        The Refuge System has been stymied by over a decade of a severe
    lack of funding and resources. Steadily ??increasing funding needs
    paired with insufficient budgets has led to a Refuge System that is
    quickly eroding in habitat management and an ability even to keep
    refuges open. Understanding these impacts is critical for Congress to
    begin addressing the significant challenges facing our native wildlife
    and ensure the health and integrity of the Refuge System well into the
    future.
        USFWS' limited staffing capacity has several negative impacts on
    the ecological health of the Refuge System. For example, only 27% of
    the threatened and endangered populations occurring on refuges are
    monitored due to limited capacity. This leads to compromised adaptive
    management capability, inability to manage invasive species, the
    destruction of native habitat, and the potential loss of more species.
    With its current resources, USFWS can only successfully control 7% of
    the lands infested with non-native species, which has increased 30%
    since 2005. Planning is at the core of Refuge System management, but
    more than 60% of refuges have an outdated Comprehensive Conservation
    Plan or no plan at all. Limited capacity is hampering these efforts and
    severely limits landscape-level planning and adaptability to changing
    conditions.
        Significant investments must be made today to begin working towards
    better outcomes for our native wildlife. USFWS has done excellent work
    to deploy creative solutions and new partnerships to manage the Refuge
    System as well as possible with their existing resources. But USFWS
    should not have to make hard decisions every year about how to operate
    under this longstanding funding crisis. The insufficient funding and
    capacity impacts are felt System-wide, impacting not just conservation
    planning and wildlife and habitat management, but also visitor
    services, law enforcement, and maintenance. Congress must provide
    adequate resources to effectively administer the Refuge System.
        The $503 million appropriated to the Refuge System in fiscal year
    (FY) 2010, when the Refuge System relatively saw its highest funding
    and staffing levels, is worth approximately $765 million today. Yet
    current funding sits at $527 million, or $5.55 per land acre.
    Considering the level of inflation and increased needs of the Refuge
    System since FY2010, the Refuge System budget has effectively
    decreased, and USFWS has been forced to do more with less every single
    year. The failure to offset the impacts of inflation has resulted in a
    Refuge System that has long been strained under the weight of
    critically low staffing levels and lost capacity. Rising fixed costs
    are also eating into any increases in appropriations. It costs the
    Refuge System an estimated $3 million for every one percent raise in
    payroll costs. Without base increases in the budget to cover these
    fixed costs, several much-needed positions are eliminated every year.
    This situation is completely unsustainable.
        National wildlife refuges are important recreational and tourism
    destinations in communities across the United States, providing
    families and everyday Americans access to some of the Nation's best
    opportunities for wildlife observation, sustainable hunting and
    fishing, photography, and environmental education for people of all
    ages and backgrounds. Since 2010 the Refuge System has added 21 new
    refuge units, hundreds of millions of acres of marine national
    monuments, opened 6 million acres for hunting and fishing, and
    visitation has grown to over 68 million annual visitors-an increase of
    47 percent since FY2011. This generates over 41,000 jobs and provides
    more than $3.2 billion in economic output each year. It has also added
    new services, such as the Urban Wildlife Conservation Program, which
    was launched in 2012 and seeks to address inequalities in recreational
    access and conservation participation. While these additions have
    enhanced the Refuge System and benefited the communities around these
    refuges, this growth has also put more pressure on the already stressed
    and underfunded Refuge System.
        The number of full-time employees (FTEs)-already a fraction of the
    other comparable Federal land agencies at approximately 2,500 FTEs-has
    decreased by 27% since FY2011. This has made it difficult for the
    Refuge System to manage its vast network of lands and waters and to
    fulfill its mission of conserving wildlife and habitats. No refuges are
    fully staffed, and more than half of refuges have zero staff on site.
    While not all refuges need on-site staffing, many refuges and refuge
    complexes have been de-staffed or understaffed significantly. Multiple
    refuges are closed to the public and are completely unmanaged. Many
    employees must manage multiple wildlife refuge units, sometimes
    traveling over vast distances, hundreds of miles per day.
        Visitor Services staff has decreased by 25% since FY10, yet the
    number of visits has steadily increased by an average of 3.8% annually.
    Sadly, nearly all of the Refuge System's 125 visitor facilities operate
    on limited hours, with some centers completely closed, and none would
    function without volunteers. However, many volunteer programs have been
    cut back or eliminated due to a lack of supervision from professional
    FTEs or necessary infrastructure. In 2023, there were 48% fewer
    volunteers than in 2016.
        A nationwide study conducted by the International Association of
    Chiefs of Police in 2005 indicated that the Refuge System only has 20%
    of the recommended 1,074 Federal Wildlife Officers (FWOs) needed to
    provide adequate public safety and resource protection. As of February
    2024, the Refuge System has the lowest number of FWOs in over 10 years
    with 221 officers, while simultaneously seeing the highest visitation
    and crime rates in its history. Currently, seven States have no
    officers stationed within their boundaries (CT, DE, IA, MI, NH, OH,
    VT), and nine States have just one officer (GA, Guam, HI, IN, KY, PA,
    PR, RI, WY).
        In 2022 alone, officers responded to a total of 10,854 criminal
    incidents on Refuge System lands. There have been 1,384 significant
    incidents in the last 4 years-an average of 1 per day. There have been
    1,605 arson or vandalism cases since 2019. Since 2016, the USFWS has
    sustained $1.7 million dollars in property loss due to theft or damage.
    However, USFWS does not currently have the authority to collect civil
    damages for repairs and restoration.
        The Refuge System also has a large deferred maintenance backlog of
    $2.65 billion, with most structures near or past the end of their
    maximum useful life spans, such as buildings, roads, bridges, and
    trails. Under current appropriations, supplemented by the Great
    American Outdoors Act (GAOA), deferred maintenance costs are projected
    to reach $28 billion by FY2050. Additional funding is necessary to
    address this backlog, or assets will continue to degrade well beyond
    their recommended life spans. This could jeopardize visitor access,
    safety, climate resilience, and wildlife conservation efforts, as well
    as double or triple long-term maintenance costs over the next 20 years.
    We support the permanent authorization of GAOA and increasing the
    allocation of GAOA funds to USFWS from 5% to at least 15% so it can
    begin to address its deferred maintenance backlog.
        Congress must recognize and understand the Refuge System's budget
    realities to begin addressing the significant challenges facing our
    native wildlife and habitats and ensure the health and integrity of the
    Refuge System for future generations. To achieve a healthy and
    adequately staffed Refuge System, the Refuge Association believes it
    needs at least $2.2 billion in annual appropriations to effectively
    fulfill its conservation mission, provide opportunities for wildlife-
    dependent recreation, and connect communities to nature. The
    President's FY2025 Budget Request of $602 million is an important step
    towards that goal.
        We urge Congress to prioritize the Refuge System and address these
    overarching funding challenges to ensure that the USFWS is equipped to
    effectively manage the wildlife, habitat, programs, and visitorship
    that rely on the health and integrity of the Refuge System. Ultimately,
    the Refuge System needs at least $2.2 billion in annual appropriations
    to effectively fulfill its conservation mission, provide opportunities
    for wildlife-dependent recreation, and connect communities to nature.
    The President's FY2025 Budget Request of $602.3 million is an important
    step towards that goal.
        Thank you for considering our request of at least $602.3 million
    for the National Wildlife Refuge System in FY2025. Please contact Libby
    Marking at lmarking@refugeassociation.org for more information
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of Native Village of Eyak
    Recommendations:

        1. Provide full funding and advance appropriations for the Indian
    Health Service (IHS)

        2. Reduce dependence on competitive grants for Indian Country

        3. Permanently exempt the IHS from cuts, sequestrations, and
    rescissions

        4. Ensure mandatory funding for Contract Support Costs (CSC) and
    section 105(l) leases.

        5. Increase funding and accepted applications for the Joint Venture
    (JV) Program

        6. Amend Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act
    (ISDEAA) to clarify CSC provisions.

        7. Fund Critical Infrastructure investments for the IHS.

        8. Increase funding and extend self-governance to the Special
    Diabetes Program for Indians.

        9. Increase funding for behavioral and mental health programs.

        Introduction. Thank you, Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member
    Murkowski, and Members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to share
    our funding priorities for FY 2025. My name is Brooke Kwiik Mallory and
    I serve as the Chair of the Native Village of Eyak. The Native Village
    of Eyak is a federally recognized Tribal government located in Cordova,
    Alaska, on the southeast shores of Prince William Sound in the North
    Gulf Coast. The Tribe is a co-signer to the Alaska Tribal Health
    Compact with the IHS and operates a wide range of health care programs,
    including primary care services and behavioral health. We focus on
    self-determination and self-governance as a means of improving the
    lives and health of our Tribal citizens. We are not only responsible
    for providing quality, available health care services, but also for
    promoting opportunities and partnerships for our citizens, protecting
    our traditional land and natural resources, and for strengthening our
    culture.
        We are grateful for the historic investments Congress has made in
    the Indian health system in recent years via the CARES Act, American
    Rescue Plan Act, and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The direct funding
    model and successful implementation of these laws prove that when
    Tribal sovereignty is honored, Tribal communities thrive. We would also
    like to thank this subcommittee for its bipartisan effort to protect
    the IHS from cuts during the 2024 appropriations process. Furthermore,
    we urge you to remember that Congress' trust and treaty responsibility
    to provide for the health and wellbeing of Tribal Nations exists
    irrespective of any self-imposed budgetary caps. It is imperative that
    this subcommittee appropriate the full amounts necessary to fulfill its
    obligations. To that end, I offer the following recommendations for
    your consideration for FY 2025 appropriations for the IHS.
        Provide Full Funding for the Indian Health Service: The IHS and its
    Tribal partners under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act strive to provide Tribal people with access to high
    quality and comprehensive medical services, in line with the Federal
    Government's trust and treaty obligations. However, chronic
    underfunding of the Indian health system has had detrimental impacts on
    our communities. Alaska Natives are disproportionately affected by
    obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, substance-use disorder and
    other largely preventable conditions. We therefore urge the
    subcommittee to work towards full and mandatory funding for the IHS, in
    line with the IHS Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup.
        The Workgroup has calculated it will take $54 billion to fully-fund
    the IHS. We understand that this represents a dramatic increase in
    funding; however, it is essential that Congress address the true needs
    of the Indian health system. We support their full request and
    reiterate the following four priorities for program expansion as
    follows:

        1) Hospitals and Clinics: $13.6 billion

        2) Mental Health: $4.5 billion

        3) Alcohol & Substance Abuse: $4.9 billion

        4) Dental Services: $3.2 billion

        Continued Support for Advance Appropriations for IHS: If full,
    mandatory appropriations cannot be achieved for FY 2025, we continue to
    support advance appropriations for the IHS in the short-term. This
    year's tumultuous appropriations cycle clearly demonstrates why advance
    appropriations are critical-IHS clinical services remained continuous
    throughout the volatile political process. We urge the subcommittee to
    extend advance appropriations to all IHS accounts, including Electronic
    Health Records Modernization, Health Care Facilities Construction, and
    Sanitation Facilities Construction for FY 2026.
        Reduce Dependence on Federal Grants: We also support moving away
    from competitive grants for Federal funding mechanisms. Grants unfairly
    pit Tribes against each other for resources we are all entitled to. The
    Federal trust responsibility does not require that we jump through a
    myriad of hoops and onerous applications to see that services are
    provided to our citizens. Too often, Tribes are under-resourced to
    apply for Federal grants and comply with their reporting requirements.
    Our staff must divert time to apply and report, thereby diluting the
    usefulness of the resources. Instead, we request wide-spread, formula-
    based funding across all programs. Tribes must also be granted the
    flexibility needed to respond to the specific needs of their own
    communities, not those prescribed by Federal grants. This also means
    appropriating enough resources so funds are provided in meaningful
    amounts across all Tribes. We join other Tribal leaders in calling for
    broad based funding for Indian Country.
        Permanently Exempt the IHS from Cuts, Sequestrations, and
    Rescissions: As demonstrated above, the Indian health system is
    chronically underfunded, with current appropriations sitting around
    one-seventh of need. Nevertheless, Congress routinely threatens and
    enacts additional budget cuts, sequestrations, and rescissions
    affecting the IHS. As recently as FY 2024, this Congress rescinded $350
    million marked for public health infrastructure from the IHS.
    Furthermore, the IHS is the only federally funded service providing
    direct patient care not exempt from sequestration.
        We remind this subcommittee again that its trust and treaty
    obligations to Tribes exist regardless of any self-imposed budget
    control measures. In fact, the IHS budget remains so small in
    comparison to the National budget that cuts, rescissions, and
    sequestrations do not result in any meaningful savings in the National
    debt, but they do devastate Tribal Nations and their citizens. We urge
    Congress to ensure that any budget cuts, whether automatic or explicit,
    hold IHS and our people harmless.
        Mandatory Funding for Contract Support Costs and 105(l) lease
    payments: We appreciate the subcommittee's commitment to ensuring that
    CSC and section 105(l) lease payments are fully funded. However, these
    line items continue to take up a larger and larger percentage of the
    IHS discretionary budget, thereby leaving little room to expand other
    services given the tight budget environment. We strongly agree with the
    subcommittee's words in the explanatory statement for the Further
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Public Law 116-94) regarding
    105(l) costs which said, in part: ``Obligations of this nature are
    typically addressed through mandatory spending, but in this case, since
    they fall under discretionary spending, they are impacting all other
    programs funded under the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill,
    including other equally important Tribal programs.''
        Therefore, we ask you to continue to advocate with your colleagues
    on authorizing committees to enact mandatory appropriations for CSC and
    105(l) lease costs. Doing so will ensure that other areas of the IHS
    budget are held harmless by these costs and true increases in critical
    services line items can move forward. This will enhance care for Tribal
    patients and reduce health disparities.
        Support Expansion of the IHS Joint Venture Program. The IHS Joint
    Venture program provides Tribes with a critical opportunity to build
    new facilities and to enhance health services for their patients. Under
    this project, Tribes can build or acquire a facility with non-IHS
    funds, and the IHS commits to funding the additional staffing and
    operations costs associated with the new or expanded facility. The
    program has been very popular, with close to forty facilities built,
    acquired, or renovated since 1992. Yet, despite the remarkable success
    of this program, projects like ours remain unfunded by IHS. Recently,
    the Native Village of Eyak was on the top 10 list of projects, having
    received a high-score in the application. But we were not funded
    because the IHS only funds the top five projects. We request that the
    Committee direct IHS to fund all high-scoring applicants for JV
    construction projects.
        Additionally, the JV Program currently leaves Tribal facilities
    without necessary maintenance and replacement funds. The Indian Health
    Care Improvement Act requires that the Tribe lease the facility to IHS
    for 20 years at no cost. The JV facility is eligible to receive a share
    of IHS's perennially insufficient Maintenance and Improvement (M&I)
    funding, but is not eligible for a lease under section 105(l) of the
    ISDEAA. This leads to the anomaly that non-JV facilities can be fully
    funded under 105(l), receiving either fair market rental or the cost
    elements set out in the regulations, while JV facilities are stuck with
    nothing but M&I. We request that Congress amend the Indian Health Care
    Improvement Act to correct this issue. We are happy to provide any
    technical assistance necessary.
        Amend ISDEAA to Clarify CSC provisions. We also request that the
    committee consider amending the ISDEAA to clarify that when agency
    funding paid to a Tribe for program operations is insufficient for
    contract and compact administration, CSC will remain available to cover
    the difference. In the recent court decision Cook Inlet Tribal Council,
    Inc. v. Dotomain,\1\ a Federal appeals court held that costs for
    activities normally carried out by IHS are ineligible for payment as
    CSC-even if IHS transfers insufficient, or even no, funding for these
    activities in the Secretarial amount. Under this new ruling, if
    facility costs are higher for a Tribe than for IHS, the Tribe is forced
    to cover the difference by diverting scarce program dollars. Recently,
    this serious misinterpretation of the ISDEAA that has been applied to
    one Tribal organization resulting in a 90% reduction of CSC
    reimbursement threatens Tribal self-governance and self-determination.
    Therefore, we call upon Congress to provide a legislative fix to
    clarify the intent of Congress for this matter, and ensure consistency
    with precedent.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Inc. v. Dotomain, 10 F.4th 892 (D.C.
    Cir. 2021).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Fully fund critical infrastructure investments: We were
    disappointed to see that this subcommittee approved cuts to Electronic
    Health Records Modernization, Health Care Facilities Construction, and
    Sanitation Facilities Construction in FY 2024. The Indian health
    system's infrastructure is among the oldest and most dilapidated in the
    country. This is especially true in Alaska, where more than half of
    homes in thirty-one Alaska Native communities lack proper sanitation
    infrastructure. Additionally, we continue to experience significant
    challenges finding adequate housing for staffing for health
    professionals in our community. As you know, health staffing shortages
    across the Indian health system are dire, and providing adequate living
    spaces for professionals is directly linked with our ability to recruit
    and retain staff.
        Therefore, we request that this subcommittee restore and fully-fund
    these accounts. To implement an interoperable Electronic Health Records
    and telehealth system, $801 million is needed for FY 2025. As you are
    aware, this investment is especially critical as the Veterans'
    Administration and Department of Defense move to modernize their
    systems. It is also critical that Congress make significant investments
    in Health Care Facilities Construction and Sanitation Facilities
    Construction. IHS and Tribal facilities are severely outdated, and we
    appreciate Congress' investment in IHS sanitation facilities through
    the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Yet, with a multi-billion-dollar
    backlog and growing inflation, funding to close out the list is not
    keeping pace with need. This creates situations where facilities are
    unfit and unsafe. Therefore, consistent with the Workgroup's request,
    we recommend $2.8 billion for Health Care Facilities Construction and
    Equipment and $2.2 billion for Sanitation Facilities Construction in FY
    2025.
        Extend Self-Governance Funding Options to the Special Diabetes
    Program for Indians (SDPI) and increase funding to $250 million/year.
    While we understand that SDPI is not under the jurisdiction of the
    subcommittee, we appreciate that Congress included a short-term
    extension of SDPI in FY 2024 appropriations at a $160 million
    annualized rate. We recognize that this is the first increase for SDPI
    in two decades. Communities like ours across Indian Country rely on
    SDPI resources to address the alarming rates of diabetes and diabetes-
    related health complications among our people. SDPI's success rests in
    the flexibility of its program structure that allows for the
    incorporation of culture and local needs into its services. Consistent
    with this model, Congress should authorize SDPI participants the option
    of receiving their Federal funds through either a grant (as currently
    used) or self-governance funding mechanisms under ISDEAA.
        Additionally, SDPI has not had a meaningful increase in funding
    since FY 2004 despite its overwhelming success. Short term
    reauthorizations continue to destabilize this program and make staffing
    and program continuity difficult. For this reason, we recommend
    permanent reauthorization for SDPI at a minimum base of $250 million
    per year with annual adjustments for inflationary increases. We urge
    you to work with your Congressional colleagues to enact this important
    priority.
        Behavioral Health: Our community, like all of Indian Country, has
    been devastated by the ongoing fentanyl and opioid epidemic.
    Nevertheless, funds for these services are extremely limited. For
    example, in FY 2024, Congress only appropriated $2 million to fund
    essential detoxification related services. That's less than $1 per IHS
    patient. We urge the subcommittee to dedicate resources to
    detoxification and reemphasize the importance of fully-funding the
    following accounts: Health Care Facilities Construction, Alcohol &
    Substance Use, and Mental Health. We also fully support the President's
    Domestic Supplemental Request, which includes a $250 million investment
    in the IHS to address the fentanyl and opioid epidemic. Recognizing
    that Indian Country cannot wait any longer, Congress should consider
    this request as soon as possible.

        [This statement was submitted by Brooke Kwiik Mallory, Chair,
    Native Village of Eyak.]
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of Native Village of Kotzebue
    Recommendations:

        1. Increase funding for Tribal Family Courts

        2. Fully Fund the Bureau of Indian Affairs' Indian Child Welfare
    Act (ICWA) Account

        3. Provide Direct Funding for Language Revitalization Activities

        4. Provide full, mandatory funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    (BIA)

        5. Provide advance appropriations to the BIA

        6. Reduce dependence on competitive grants for Indian Country

        7. Permanently exempt the BIA from cuts, sequestrations, and
    rescissions

        8. Enact mandatory funding for contract support costs (CSC) and
    section 105(l) leases

        Introduction. Thank you, Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member
    Murkowski, and Members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to share
    our funding priorities for FY 2025. My name is Qaiqpak Christina
    Hensley, and I am the Executive Director of the Native Village of
    Kotzebue. We are a Federally-recognized Tribal government representing
    the Qikiqtagrunmiut, the original inhabitants Qikiqtagruk (Kotzebue).
    Qikiqtagruk is located in northwest Alaska, thirty miles above the
    Arctic Circle on the Baldwin Peninsula. We operate a variety of
    programs such as realty, general assistance, child welfare, education,
    housing, and natural resource management. We are currently working on
    expanding our Tribal immersion school (Nikaitchuat Illisagviat) and
    establishing a Tribal Family Courts Program.
        We are grateful for the historic investments Congress has made in
    Indian Country in recent years via the CARES Act, American Rescue Plan
    Act, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, and Inflation Reduction Act. The
    direct funding model and successful implementation of these laws prove
    that when Tribal sovereignty is honored, Tribal communities thrive. We
    would also like to thank this subcommittee for its bipartisan effort to
    protect Indian Country from cuts during the 2024 appropriations
    process. Furthermore, we urge you to remember that Congress' trust and
    treaty responsibility to provide for the wellbeing of Tribal Nations
    exists irrespective of any self-imposed budgetary caps. It is
    imperative that this subcommittee appropriate the full amounts
    necessary to fulfill its obligations. To that end, I offer the
    following FY 2025 recommendations for your consideration.
        Provide Increased, Sustained Funding for Tribal Family Courts. Our
    top priority is to increase funding to Tribal Family Courts. We
    recently received one-time funding to establish a Tribal Family Courts
    program for which we are very grateful. Its mission is the protect the
    health, safety, and welfare of the Kotzebue people and Tribe by
    addressing problems locally through the application of unwritten
    cultural traditions and written Tribal ordinances. However, we remain
    hesitant to launch the program without it being a part of our annual
    funding agreement. We therefore ask this subcommittee to increase
    funding to the BIA's Tribal Justice Support and Tribal Courts accounts
    in the amounts of $45.7 million and $1.2 billion, respectively. We
    understand that this represents a dramatic increase in funding;
    however, it is essential that Congress address the true needs of Tribal
    justice programs like the one we are standing up.
        Fully Fund the BIA's ICWA Account. The Native Village of Kotzebue
    is currently engaged in multiple efforts to expand and improve our
    Tribal Family Services Department. However, we face challenges securing
    the funding necessary to provide the full scope of services that our
    families deserve, such as implementing our ICWA program. As you know,
    ICWA was a landmark law that has since greatly improved the outcomes of
    Alaska Native and American Indian children and families involved with
    the child welfare system. The BIA provides base funding to Tribes for
    their ICWA programs, but appropriations to this account have been
    woefully inadequate for decades. We are asking you to fully fund the
    BIA's ICWA account at $46.2 million.
        Provide Direct Funding for Language Revitalization Activities. As
    previously mentioned, we have established an Inupiaq language immersion
    school called Nikaitchuat Illisagviat. Its mission is to instill within
    our citizens knowledge of the Inupiaq language, culture, and identity.
    However, there is no direct funding available for these activities-we
    must instead sustain our school on community contributions and grant
    funding. Not only is this inconsistent with the Federal Government's
    trust and treaty responsibilities to Tribal Nations, but it is also
    problematic because immersion schools require consistent, proper
    funding to be most effective. We thank Congress for its attention to
    language revitalization in recent years, but we urge you to do more by
    establishing a direct funding mechanism for these activities.
    Specifically, we request an increase in funding to the BIA's existing
    language programs and authorization for Tribes to receive this funding
    annually in self-governance agreements, rather than through a
    competitive grant model.
        Provide Full Funding for the BIA. In addition to the accounts
    mentioned above, we urge the subcommittee to fully fund all Indian
    Country programs and move them to mandatory spending. The United
    States' trust and treaty responsibility to Tribes is obligatory and
    should be treated as such in the Federal budget. Discretionary
    appropriations have never, and will never, result in adequate funding
    for Indian Country. As it stands, Alaska Natives and American Indians
    are disproportionately affected by poverty, unemployment, crime,
    substance-use disorder, housing insecurity, poor educational outcomes,
    and involvement with the child welfare system. This is an affront to
    our dignity and sovereignty. We ask the subcommittee to rectify this by
    fully funding the Indian Affairs budget at $23.7 billion, in line with
    the Tribal Interior Budget Council.
        Support for Advance Appropriations for the BIA. If full, mandatory
    appropriations cannot be achieved for FY 2025, we support the provision
    of advance appropriations for the BIA in the short term. This year's
    tumultuous appropriations cycle clearly demonstrates why advance
    appropriations are so critical-BIA programs were regularly in a State
    of uncertainty due to Congress' reliance on continuing resolutions. The
    Federal Government's trust and treaty responsibilities should not be
    held hostage by unrelated political disputes in Washington, D.C. We
    urge the subcommittee to extend advance appropriations to all Indian
    Affairs accounts.
        Reduce Dependence on Federal Grants: We support moving away from
    competitive grants for all Federal funding mechanisms. Grants unfairly
    pit Tribes against each other for resources we are all entitled to. The
    Federal trust responsibility does not require that we jump through a
    myriad of hoops and onerous applications to see that services are
    provided to our citizens. Too often, Tribes are under-resourced to
    apply for Federal grants and comply with their reporting requirements.
    Our staff must divert time to apply and report, thereby diluting the
    usefulness of the resources. Instead, we request widespread, formula-
    based funding across all programs. Tribes must also be granted the
    flexibility needed to respond to the specific needs of their
    communities, not those prescribed by Federal grants. This also means
    appropriating enough resources so funds are provided in meaningful
    amounts across all Tribes. We join other Tribal leaders in calling for
    broad-based funding for Indian Country.
        Permanently Exempt the BIA from Cuts, Sequestrations, and
    Rescissions: As demonstrated above, the BIA is chronically underfunded,
    with current appropriations sitting around one-tenth of need.
    Nevertheless, Congress routinely threatens and enacts additional budget
    cuts, sequestrations, and rescissions affecting the BIA. We remind this
    subcommittee again that its trust and treaty obligations to Tribes
    exist regardless of any self-imposed budget control measures. In fact,
    the BIA budget remains so small in comparison to the National budget
    that cuts, rescissions, and sequestrations do not result in any
    meaningful savings in the National debt, but they do devastate Tribal
    Nations and their citizens. We urge Congress to ensure that any budget
    cuts, whether automatic or explicit, hold BIA and our people harmless.
        Mandatory Funding for Contract Support Costs and 105(l) lease
    payments: We appreciate the subcommittee's commitment to ensuring that
    CSC and section 105(l) lease payments are fully funded. However, these
    line items continue to take up a larger and larger percentage of the
    BIA discretionary budget, thereby leaving little room to expand other
    services given the tight budget environment. We strongly agree with the
    subcommittee's words in the explanatory statement for the Further
    Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Public Law 116-94) regarding
    105(l) costs which said, in part: ``Obligations of this nature are
    typically addressed through mandatory spending, but in this case, since
    they fall under discretionary spending, they are impacting all other
    programs funded under the Interior and Environment Appropriations bill,
    including other equally important Tribal programs.'' Therefore, we ask
    you to continue to advocate with your colleagues on authorizing
    committees to enact mandatory appropriations for CSC and 105(l) lease
    costs. Doing so will ensure that other areas of the BIA budget are held
    harmless by these costs and true increases in critical services line
    items can move forward.

        [This statement was submitted by Qaiqpak Christina Hensley,
    Executive Director, Native Village of Kotzebue.]
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Natural Science Collections Alliance
        The Natural Science Collections Alliance appreciates the
    opportunity to provide testimony in support of fiscal year (FY) 2025
    appropriations for the Smithsonian Institution and the Department of
    the Interior. We encourage Congress to make new investments that
    address agency backlogs and secure future efforts for the preservation,
    curation, growth and study of scientific and cultural collections
    within the Department of the Interior and the Smithsonian Institution.
    We request that Congress provide the National Museum of Natural History
    with at least $60 million in FY 2025, with new funding to correct for a
    lack of adequate increases in recent years. Please provide the United
    States Geological Survey (USGS) with at least $1.85 billion in FY 2025,
    with increased support for collections related activities.
        The Natural Science Collections Alliance is a non-profit
    association that supports natural science collections, their human
    resources, the institutions that house them, and their research
    activities for the benefit of science and society. Our membership
    consists of institutions that are part of an international network of
    museums, botanical gardens, herbaria, universities, and other
    institutions that contain natural science collections and use them in
    research, exhibitions, academic and informal science education, and
    outreach activities.
        Scientific collections, and the collections professionals and
    scientists who make, care for, and study these resources, are an
    important component of our Nation's research infrastructure. These
    collections and their associated experts contribute to the expansion of
    our bioeconomy. Whether held at a museum, government managed laboratory
    or archive, or in a university science department, these scientific
    resources form a coordinated network of specimens, samples, and data
    (e.g. genetic, tissue, organism, and environmental) that are a unique
    and irreplaceable foundation from which scientists are studying and
    explaining past and present life on earth.
        Preservation of specimens and the strategic growth of these
    collections are in the best interest of science and the best interest
    of taxpayers. Existing scientific collections that are properly cared
    for and accessible are a critical component of the US science
    infrastructure and are readily integrated into new research on
    significant questions. Specimens that were collected decades or
    centuries ago are now routinely used in research in diverse fields
    related to genomics, human health, biodiversity sciences, informatics,
    environmental quality, and agriculture.
        According to the U.S. Interagency Working Group on Scientific
    Collections (IWGSC), ``scientific collections are essential to
    supporting agency missions and are thus vital to supporting the global
    research enterprise.'' A 2020 report by the IWGSC highlights the long-
    term benefits of scientific collections and presents a framework for
    estimating and documenting these benefits, both monetary and non-
    monetary, generated by Federal institutional collections. In 2023, the
    IWGSC released another report enumerating the many ways Federal
    scientific collections have served the Nation in diverse areas,
    including with the COVID-19 response and improving national health,
    climate change research and mitigation, ensuring the Nation's food
    security, as well as environmental health and safety.
        Additional recent reports have highlighted the value of mobilizing
    biodiversity specimens and data in spurring new scientific discoveries
    that grow our economy, improve our public health and wellbeing, and
    increase our National security. In 2019, the Biodiversity Collections
    Network (BCoN) issued a community informed call for the development of
    an Extended Specimen Network. The report, Extending U.S. Biodiversity
    Collections to Promote Research and Education, outlined a national
    agenda that leverages digital data in biodiversity collections for new
    uses. ``Science and industry rely on physical specimens housed in U.S.
    biodiversity collections,'' the report suggests. ``Rapid advances in
    data generation and analysis have transformed understanding of
    biodiversity collections from singular physical specimens, to dynamic
    suites of interconnected resources enriched through study over time.
    The concept of the 'extended specimen' conveys the current perspective
    of the biodiversity specimen as extending beyond the singular physical
    object, to potentially limitless additional physical preparations and
    digital resources.'' This endeavor requires robust investments in our
    Nation's scientific collections, whether they are owned by a Federal or
    state agency or are part of an educational institution or free-standing
    natural history museum or other types of research or educational
    centers.
        A 2020 report by the National Academies of Science, Engineering and
    Medicine (NASEM), Biological Collections: Ensuring Critical Research
    and Education for the 21st Century, argued that collections are a
    critical part of our Nation's science and innovation infrastructure and
    a fundamental resource for understanding the natural world. The
    report's recommendations for establishing an action center for
    biological collections and requiring specimen management plans for
    research proposals generating new specimens underscore the importance
    of biodiversity specimen collections and have been supported by the
    CHIPS and Science Act.
        A recently published white paper, ``Envisioning a Natural History
    Collections Action Center,'' summarizes the features and functions of
    an action center and underscores the essential role that collections
    play in medical science, human health, food security, pathogen-borne
    disease, biosecurity, a strong bioeconomy, mitigating the effects of
    climate change, and conserving ecological services for human use and
    subsistence. Such a center will provide leadership, support, and
    coordination for federal, non-federal, and private collections and
    enable transformative research to address grand societal challenges.
    Many Federal agencies have a role in supporting the establishment of an
    action center for biological collections, including the Smithsonian
    Institution and the Department of the Interior and its bureaus.
        All of the above reports articulate a common vision of the future
    of biological collections and emphasize the need to broaden and deepen
    these collections and associated data to realize the potential for
    biodiversity collections to inform 21st century science. Collections
    are a critical resource for advancing the knowledge needed to address
    current global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss,
    and pandemics. The COVID-19 crisis has demonstrated how humans are
    inextricably part of the natural world. Biological collections, their
    extended data, and the experts that build and study them are globally
    important for understanding where viruses such as SARS-CoV-2 exist in
    nature or when they cross from their current hosts to humans.
        The Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History
    (NMNH) is the central Federal partner in the curation and research on
    scientific specimens. Scientists at the NMNH care for 148 million
    specimens and ensure that the institution remains a global leader in
    scientific research and public engagement. To increase the availability
    of these scientific resources to researchers, educators, other Federal
    agencies, and the public, NMNH is working on a multi-year effort to
    digitize its collections. Funding is required to ensure this work is
    completed.
        The National Museum of Natural History is also working to
    strengthen curatorial and research staffing and to backfill positions
    left open by retirements and budget constraints. The current staffing
    level is insufficient to provide optimal care for the collections.
    Future curatorial and collections management staffing levels may be
    further jeopardized given insufficient funding increases in recent
    years. This lack of funding for collections care jeopardizes our
    bioeconomy at a time when critical investments are needed to leverage
    our network of collections to address the myriad issues facing the
    country.
        Interior is an important caretaker of museum collections as well;
    the Department and its bureaus collectively manage an estimated 206
    million museum specimens. Although many of the department's collections
    are located in bureau facilities, numerous artifacts and specimens are
    cared for in non-governmental facilities, such as museums and
    universities. The Interior Museum Program supports these collections by
    providing oversight, policy development, advocacy, technical
    assistance, training, and data management support.
        In addition, the USGS furthers the preservation, inventory, and
    digitization of geological scientific collections, such as rock and ice
    cores, fossils, and samples of oil, gas, and water. The National
    Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation program helps States with
    collections management, improves accessibility of collections data, and
    expands digitization of specimens to ensure their broader use. One
    example of the returns from this program is the potash mineral deposit
    discovered in Michigan that is valued at an estimated $65 billion. Rock
    samples from Michigan were entered into a national database, where
    private companies discovered the deposit's existence and potential for
    mining.
        USGS supports the documentation and conservation of native
    pollinators through its Native Bee Inventory and Monitoring Lab (BIML).
    Pollinators, such as bees, are critical components of ecosystems and
    play an integral role in wildlife and habitat management and
    restoration. Three-fourths of the world's flowering plants and about 35
    percent of the world's food crops rely on pollinators to reproduce.
    Given that pollinator populations are in decline globally, BIML's work
    in developing a nationwide method to inventory and monitor bee
    population trends on public lands is crucial.
        USGS had more than a million specimens of birds, mammals,
    amphibians, and reptiles that were housed at the Smithsonian's National
    Museum of Natural History. The Biological Survey Unit (BSU) consisted
    of USGS scientists stationed at the NMNH, where they conducted research
    on USGS-specimens of fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals that are
    curated at the NMNH. These specimens, data, and the research they
    enable have been critical for informing land and natural resource
    management decisions at the Department of the Interior, and have also
    supported decision-making by State and Tribal governments. This
    arrangement, dating back to 1889, was recently eliminated with the
    Smithsonian taking over care of these collections. The work that BSU
    supported and conducted at the NMNH was important and in the National
    interest. Adequate funding is required to ensure continued care for
    these valuable collections.
        The Bureau of Land Management manages nearly 4 million museum
    objects and archives and has a large backlog of cultural resources to
    inventory on public lands. Currently, only about 11 percent of public
    lands have been assessed for heritage resources. Such assessments need
    to be conducted before unique resources are lost to looting, vandalism,
    fire, or environmental change.
        The National Park Service must continue its investments in
    scientific collections in order to monitor the Nation's protected
    natural heritage, which means cataloging millions of museum objects and
    connecting the resulting databases to national and global data portals
    to monitor changes through time. The National Park Service curates a
    wide range of specimens and artifacts, from historical and cultural
    items to preserved tissues from protected species and living
    microorganisms collected in our National Parks. Several parks have made
    progress on addressing planning, environmental, storage, security, and
    fire protection deficiencies in museum collections, but much work
    remains, and present and future collections will be fundamental for
    effective management efforts.
                                   conclusion
        Scientific collections are critical research infrastructure that
    help support the Nation's bioeconomy. Research specimens connect us to
    the past and are used to document and solve current problems. They
    allow us to predict threats to human health, find successful methods
    for ensuring food security, and address the impact of future
    environmental changes. Sustained investments in scientific collections
    are in our National interest.
        The budget for NMNH has not seen adequate increases in recent
    years. We urge Congress to provide NMNH with at least $60 million in FY
    2025 to allow the museum to undertake critical collections care, make
    needed technology upgrades, and conduct cutting edge research. Please
    support adequate funding for programs within Interior bureaus that
    support the preservation and use of scientific collections--a truly
    irreplaceable resource. We urge Congress to provide the USGS with at
    least $1.85 billion in FY 2025, with increased support for collections.
        Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request.

        [This statement was submitted by Gil Nelson, Ph.D., President,
    Natural Science Collections Alliance.]
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Nature Conservancy
        Chair Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit recommendations
    for fiscal year 2025 (FY25) appropriations. The Nature Conservancy
    (TNC) is a nonprofit conservation organization working around the world
    to protect ecologically important lands and waters for people and
    nature. Investments in our natural systems help bolster resiliency,
    respond to climate change and, if equitably implemented, aid socially
    and economically disadvantaged communities. Recent investments support
    but do not supplant the need for ongoing program funding through the
    appropriations process. A robust appropriations package is needed to
    ensure long-term success for critical programs under the subcommittee's
    jurisdiction.
        Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). We are grateful for the
    Committee's continued leadership and support for conservation and
    recreation needs through dedicated funding of LWCF. Project demand in
    every State and county continues to far outstrip the $900 million a
    year of available funding for the program. TNC appreciates the
    continued support from Congress to improve the appraisal process and
    real estate policies of agencies delivering LWCF programs.
        Forest Restoration and Fire. TNC recommends funding for U.S. Forest
    Service (USFS) and Department of the Interior (DOI) programs that
    address forest threats like catastrophic wildfires, disease outbreaks
    and pest impacts. TNC supports substantial reinvestments in programs
    that increase forest resilience, specifically those that are
    collaboratively developed, science-based, climate-informed and
    ecologically focused. These programs also create jobs, support local
    economies and reduce wildfire risk to communities, among other
    benefits.
        An estimated 50 million acres are in critical need of wildfire
    resilience treatments across the United States. A 2021 TNC report
    recommends an investment surge of $5-6 billion per year over the next
    10 years to increase wildfire resilience and provide communities with
    much-needed resources for infrastructure and adaptation. In 2023, TNC
    released another report detailing 88 comprehensive wildfire policy
    recommendations backed by a diverse group of partners.
        TNC recommends investing in the USFS Hazardous Fuels Program at
    $207 million and DOI's Fuels Management Program at $288 million. In
    addition, TNC supports fully funding the Collaborative Forest Landscape
    Restoration Program at $34 million and the State Fire Assistance at a
    minimum of $76 million. TNC also supports funding Burned Area
    Rehabilitation at a minimum of $20 million in order to address the gap
    in post-fire restoration needs.
        Investing in Ecosystem Restoration, Reforestation and Planting. TNC
    supports sufficient funding for programs that enhance water quality,
    biodiversity and forest health. TNC recommends funding the Urban and
    Community Forestry program at a minimum of $40 million to support the
    increase in tree cover in urban landscapes to improve air quality,
    reduce electricity and help cities mitigate stormwater and floodwater.
    TNC also recommends budgeting $20 million for the Landscape Scale
    Restoration (LSR) Program. LSR promotes science-based restoration of
    priority forest landscapes across multiple jurisdictions.
        Additionally, Vegetation and Watershed Management promotes
    restoration and climate resilience of national forests through
    watershed treatment, invasive plant species control and reforestation.
    TNC supports a funding level for this program at or above $33 million
    in FY25.
        Research and Planning. TNC recommends sufficiently funding research
    programs to include the USFS Research and Development Program (with
    carve-outs for climate research and climate hubs), Forest Inventory and
    Analysis (FIA) and Joint Fire Science for USFS and DOI. Advances in FIA
    measuring and monitoring are critical for public and private forest
    carbon management. Investments in the Joint Fire Science programs would
    provide applied science solutions to improve land management and
    protect communities through interagency partnerships.
        The Land Management, Assessment and Monitoring program provides
    foundational stewardship direction to USFS related to high-carbon,
    mature and old-growth forests on public lands. In FY25, TNC supports
    funding this program at $32 million, $10 million of which should go
    toward developing adaptive strategies for the conservation of old-
    growth forests and to assist USFS in creating a national old-growth
    monitoring network.
        State, Private and Tribal Forestry. Forest health protection
    programs work to minimize the impacts caused by invasive pests and
    disease. The Federal Lands Forest Health Management and the Cooperative
    Lands Forest Health Management programs help maintain carbon stocks and
    reduce outbreaks that destroy iconic American trees. TNC supports
    funding levels for these programs at a minimum of $17 million (federal)
    and $33 million (cooperative).
        Additionally, TNC supports reducing barriers for private landowners
    to reforest and improve management of their lands. The USFS Forest
    Stewardship Program supports landowners to sustainably manage their
    forests, with far-reaching cross-boundary benefits. TNC asks that this
    program be funded at $22 million in FY25.
        Endangered Species. TNC supports continuing funding of at least $60
    million for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund. This
    funding supports critical matching grants to States and territories for
    conservation and species recovery efforts on non-federal lands. TNC
    requests the subcommittee's continued support for Habitat Conservation
    Plan (HCP) funding and HCP Land Acquisition Grants.
        State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. Substantial Federal investments
    are essential to support strategic actions by State, Tribal and Federal
    agencies and the conservation community to protect wildlife and their
    habitats. TNC appreciates the continued support from members of this
    subcommittee to address these significant funding needs through ongoing
    work to enact the Recovering America's Wildlife Act.
        Wildlife Conservation Programs. TNC urges the subcommittee to
    continue funding for North American Wetlands Conservation Act grants,
    the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund, Migratory Bird Joint
    Ventures, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Migratory Bird
    Management Programs and FWS Coastal Program at no less than the FY24
    funding levels. Likewise, TNC supports continued strong funding for the
    Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program, the Cooperative Landscape
    Conservation and Adaptive Science programs and the National Fish
    Habitat Initiative.
        International Programs. Programs appropriated annually within DOI
    and USFS with a global focus include DOI's Office of International
    Affairs, FWS Multinational Species Conservation Funds, FWS Wildlife
    Without Borders regional and global programs, the National Park
    Service's International Program and the USFS International Program. TNC
    requests modest increases over FY24 funding levels for these accounts
    and supports implementation of the Lacey Act to manifest U.S. global
    leadership.
        National Wildlife Refuge System. Found in every State and
    territory, national wildlife refuges conserve the diversity of
    America's environmentally sensitive and economically vital ecosystems,
    including oceans, coasts, wetlands, deserts, tundra, prairies and
    forests. TNC supports increased funding for the system's operations and
    maintenance accounts to meet the well-documented needs of the National
    wildlife refuge system. We support funding for the refuge system at the
    President's requested level of $602 million in FY25.
        Sage Grouse Conservation. TNC requests $85 million to support the
    implementation of the Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy (BLM:
    $75 million, FWS: $5 million, U.S. Geological Survey (USGS): $5
    million). These resources are needed to implement on-the-ground
    projects and monitor habitat treatments, address rangeland fire and
    noxious and invasive grasses, fund suppression and restoration efforts
    and facilitate the partnership and science necessary for effective
    conservation in western States. TNC continues to request the removal of
    language that would bar FWS from proposing a rule to list the greater
    sage-grouse under the Endangered Species Act from the FY25 bill.
        BLM Land Management and Renewable Energy Development. TNC supports
    ongoing work to expedite renewable energy development, including
    funding to operationalize the Renewable Energy Coordination Offices and
    regional clean energy plans. TNC recommends robust funding to support
    BLM's thoughtful planning and management of public lands. This includes
    the National Landscape Conservation System at $65.8 million, the
    Resource Management Planning at $71.6 million, the consolidated
    Wildlife and Aquatic Habitat Management budget line at $153.359 million
    and the Renewable Energy Development program at $53 million.
        BLM's Aquatic Resources Program. Aquatic resources on BLM lands are
    among the most important, productive and diverse resources in the
    Nation. Overall, BLM stewards over 155,000 miles of streams and rivers,
    which provide drinking water to one in 10 Americans. Increasing support
    for BLM's aquatic resource management efforts is key to providing
    reliable water supplies, building long-term wildfire and drought
    resilience, and improving the ability of BLM to conserve the economic
    and resource values of public lands. BLM's Aquatic Resources Program
    also works to prevent the establishment and spread of aquatic invasive
    species and sustain public access to quality hunting, fishing and
    outdoor recreation opportunities. TNC requests $65 million for the BLM
    Aquatic Resources Program in FY25.
        U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Geographic Programs.
    TNC urges the subcommittee to continue robust funding for EPA's
    geographic programs, including the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative
    and the Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, Long Island Sound and Gulf of
    Mexico programs. These programs make significant contributions to
    protecting habitat, improving water quality and enhancing resilience in
    the large landscapes they encompass.
        Colorado River Basin Recovery Programs. The Upper Colorado River
    Endangered Fish Recovery Program and San Juan River Basin Recovery
    Implementation Program take a balanced approach to the recovery of four
    threatened and endangered fish species in the upper Colorado River
    basin. The FWS budget includes $1.64 million to support these programs
    as well as fish hatchery needs associated with the recovery plans. TNC
    supports the budget request for these programs in FY25.
        Restoring Rivers and Streams. Removing problematic dams and
    upgrading culverts can improve public safety and provide environmental,
    economic and social benefits. TNC recommends $30 million for the FWS
    National Fish Passage Program and funding increases for USFS barrier
    removal efforts including the Legacy Roads and Trails program; State,
    Private, and Tribal Forestry programs; and National Forest System
    programs such as Vegetation and Watershed Management. Even with
    enhanced spending levels under the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and
    Jobs Act, demand for aquatic connectivity funds far exceeds the amount
    of funding available.
        Federal Priority Streamgage (FPS) Network. USGS operates the FPS
    Network to provide continuous streamflow information at over 8,400
    locations nationwide. TNC supports $33 million for the FPS Network to
    maintain existing gages. TNC also requests $68 million in Cooperative
    Matching Funds (CMF) for streamgaging and protecting the approximately
    5,275 CMF-supported streamgages already in place and functioning
    nationwide. Lastly, TNC supports $35 million for the Next Generation
    Water Observation System to expand this program and allow USGS to
    modernize water data delivery systems across the United States.
        3D Elevation Program (3DEP): 3DEP sponsors satellite topographical
    mapping, a critical resource that provides communities with high-
    quality elevation mapping. This information is vital for assessing and
    developing strategies to combat challenges such as flood risk, drought
    and erosion. It also informs investments in infrastructure, water
    resource management and protection and much more. The program also
    equips USGS and other Federal agencies with the best scientific
    information to prepare for threats from natural hazards. Understanding
    these threats can help prevent communities from developing in unsafe
    areas and can allow risk mitigation in developed areas. TNC supports
    continued funding of $42.9 million in FY25 for 3DEP.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit TNC's recommendations for
    the FY25 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations
    Bill.

        [This statement was submitted by Brent Keith, Federal Lands Policy
    Team Lead, The Nature Conservancy.]
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Nez Perce Tribe
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony on behalf
    of the Nez Perce Tribe (Tribe) as the Committee evaluates and
    prioritizes FY 2025 appropriations. This testimony covers funding for
    the needs of Tribal Nations regarding the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    (BIA), Indian Health Service (IHS), Environmental Protection Agency
    (EPA), U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
    (USFWS).
        The Nimiipuu (Nez Perce People) want to acknowledge and thank this
    Committee for your efforts, on a longstanding, bipartisan basis, to
    understand the needs of Indian Country and advocate for increased
    appropriations to the many programs in your jurisdiction that benefit
    our citizens, our Tribal governments, and all members of our
    communities. We are deeply grateful that the many funding increases to
    Tribal programs in the final FY 2024 Consolidated Appropriations Act
    build on the increases Congress provided in FY 2023.
        Like any government, the Tribe performs a wide array of work and
    provides a multitude of services to its Tribal membership as well as
    the community at large. The Tribe has a health care clinic; a Tribal
    police force; a Social Services Department; and a comprehensive Natural
    Resources program that does work related to forestry, wildlife
    management, land services and land management, habitat restoration, air
    quality and smoke management, water quality, and sewer service. The
    Tribe also operates one of the largest fisheries departments of any
    Tribe in the Nation working on the recovery of listed species under the
    Endangered Species Act. Each of these programs is necessary and vital
    for the Tribe as a sovereign nation that preserves and protects the
    Treaty rights of the Nez Perce People and provides day-to-day
    governmental services to our members and surrounding communities.
        The Tribe has long been a proponent of self-determination for
    Tribes and believes our primary obligation is to protect the Treaty-
    reserved rights of the Tribe and our members. All the Tribe's work is
    guided by this principle. The Tribe works extensively with many Federal
    agencies and proper funding for those agencies and their work with,
    for, and through Tribes is of vital importance. To accomplish this
    work, as members of this Committee frequently note, the United States
    must affirm its trust responsibility to Indian Tribes by properly
    funding programs. Overall, for FY 2025, the Tribe supports an increase
    of three percent over FY 2024.
                            bureau of indian affairs
        The Tribe requests that overall funding for the BIA and Bureau of
    Indian Education be maintained at FY 2024 levels or increased as
    recommended below for FY 2025. The Tribe also supports the indefinite
    appropriation, recommended in the President's budget request, for
    contract support costs at $426 million for BIA in FY 2025. The Tribe
    also recommends that these costs be reclassified from discretionary to
    mandatory.
        In relation to the BIA Public Safety and Justice account, the Tribe
    supports a $75.5 million increase to funding for law enforcement over
    what was enacted for that account in FY 2024. The Nez Perce Reservation
    spans 1,200 square miles, covering five counties, and has a mixture of
    Tribal and non-Tribal residents. The Tribe provides a full-service Law
    and Justice program and recently completed construction of a detention
    facility. The Tribe has a fully trained and staffed police force, a
    fully staffed Tribal court, a prosecutor, a public defender, and other
    personnel that perform related administrative functions. Currently, the
    Tribe contributes $3,785,480 to cover the shortfall in BIA funding for
    the Tribe's law enforcement/prison boarding and corrections, $743,997
    for judicial services/probation, $480,040 for prosecutorial services,
    and $318,057 for public defender services. This supplemental funding is
    derived from Tribal taxes on goods and fuel and Tribal gaming revenues
    that would otherwise be used for Tribal governmental services. For the
    Tribe to fulfill its law enforcement services obligation to the
    Reservation, an overall increase of $1,623,554 is needed. Funding for
    these programs, including operational costs for the new jail facility
    needs to be maintained and ultimately increased to account for
    shortfalls in funding the Tribe must absorb to continue the operation
    of these important services on the Reservation.
        The Tribe also relies on the BIA for funding for our work related
    to endangered species and protection of the Tribe's Treaty resources,
    including Chinook and steelhead salmon. The funding is used to
    supplement research efforts of the Tribe relative to other sensitive
    species. The Tribe recommends a $1 million increase for the BIA
    Endangered Species Program. This account provides the Tribe with
    technical and financial assistance to protect endangered species on
    trust lands. Also, the Tribe recommends an increase of $2.8 million for
    BIA Natural Resource Tribal Priority Allocations which will help
    increase Tribal land and management capabilities.
        In addition, the funding provided under the BIA Rights Protection
    Implementation account is critical to support the exercise of treaty-
    reserved, off-reservation hunting and fishing for Tribes and items such
    as the Pacific Salmon Treaty. The Tribe supports the $6.9 million in
    funding proposed for FY 2025 for the Pacific Salmon Treaty. These funds
    provide the foundation for core program administration and treaty
    rights protection activities, such as harvest monitoring. These efforts
    are central to the Tribe's fisheries management responsibilities as
    established by the Nez Perce Treaties of 1855 and 1863 and further
    delineated in court decisions regarding implementation of hunting and
    fishing Treaty rights. It is also important to understand that this
    funding is used for job creation.
        The Tribe supports maintaining the FY 2024 funding level in FY 2025
    for the BIA Fish, Wildlife and Parks account. The Tribe, through our
    fisheries programs, has invested a significant amount of personnel and
    resources into the restoration of salmon. The States of Oregon,
    Washington, and Idaho, as well as sports fisheries, directly benefit
    from this work. These programs have been successful with funding under
    the Tribal Management and Development Program which is critical for the
    Tribe's management of fish and wildlife. We recommend a $4 million
    increase over FY 2024 funding for the Tribal Management and Development
    Program.
        The Tribe recommends continued funding for the Columbia River In-
    Lieu Treaty Sites by providing at least the total of $4.6 million
    requested for FY 2025 to implement the Columbia River In-Lieu and
    Treaty Fishing Access Sites Improvement Act.
        The Tribe supports the proposal of $2.8 billion in permanent
    funding over 10 years for the Indian Water Rights Settlement Completion
    Fund to support the work of Tribes such as our work on the Palouse
    River Basin Adjudication.
                             indian health service
        The Tribe operates Nimiipuu Health, a health care clinic on the Nez
    Perce Reservation in Lapwai, Idaho, and its satellite facility located
    65 miles away in Kamiah, Idaho. Nimiipuu Health provides services to
    approximately 4,000 patients each year. Annually, this computes to at
    least 40,000 medical/dental provider visits which does not include
    pharmacy or laboratory visits.
        The Tribe applauds the $12.2 billion provided for IHS in FY 2024,
    which included $5.2 billion in advanced appropriations. We recommend
    maintaining these levels going forward, but it must be noted that this
    funding must be appropriated to keep pace with medical and non-medical
    inflation and with population growth. Recommendations of substantially
    increasing this funding have been supported by the Tribe.
        The Tribe also supports a substantial increase in funding for
    Purchased/Referred Care (P/RC) from the FY 2024 enacted level of $996.8
    to continue to meet the P/RC spending needs of Tribal health facilities
    caused by medical inflation.
        The Tribe supports funding for contract support costs for FY 2025
    at $979 million, a $10 million increase, as contained in the
    President's budget request. However, this change in funding should not
    be accomplished or be offset by reducing other funding for these
    agencies that would adversely affect services or programs. This funding
    should not be reduced by excessive set-asides for administration
    either.
        The Tribe recommends permanent, mandatory funding of the Special
    Diabetes Program for Indians, as proposed in the President's budget,
    recognizing that the proposed increase to $260 million is an important
    step forward. In that regard, similar levels of funding are recommended
    for mental health and substance abuse treatment. The current annual
    allocation for mental health and substance abuse, while very important,
    falls well below the financial needs to provide adequate care and
    treatment on reservations.
        Finally, the Tribe would like to express our support for the
    President's budget recommendation for 105(l) lease costs and to make
    the funding mandatory beginning in FY 2026.
                         u.s. fish and wildlife service
        Additional resources are needed to implement beneficial actions
    across the Columbia River Basin, including salmon propagation at
    national fish hatcheries, studies on conditions impacting fish, and
    habitat restoration efforts. The Tribe supports the President's Budget
    Request of $3 million for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS)
    National Fish Hatchery Operations Program--Columbia River Basin Sub-
    Activity in FY 2025. These funds are important for the operations of
    Kooskia National Fish Hatchery. The Tribe manages the hatchery pursuant
    to the terms of the Snake River Water Rights Act of 2004. The hatchery
    is in dire need of a new water supply system to reduce the
    extraordinary amount of sediment that accumulates in the current water
    at the facility so the Tribe can continue to meet its production goals.
        Second, the USFWS-administered State and Tribal Wildlife Grants
    program is an important and cost-effective expenditure for the Federal
    Government and is one of the few sources of funds Tribes can tap into
    for wildlife research. Over the last several years, the Tribe has
    received grants funding for work on diverse issues such as rare plant
    conservation and Condor habitat research. Continued funding for the
    State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program will allow recipient Tribes to
    build capacity and maintain involvement in key conservation issues. The
    Tribe strongly urges this Committee to not reduce, but instead
    increase, funding for these competitive grants to $75 million for
    formula grants and increase the Tribal share to $6.5 million.
                        environmental protection agency
        The Tribe works closely with EPA on many programs that are
    essential to the health and safety of the 18,000 Tribal and non-Tribal
    citizens residing within the Nez Perce Reservation. These programs also
    protect the Treaty-reserved resources of the Tribe that the United
    States has a trust obligation to preserve. These programs include the
    Clean Water Act 106 Program, the Clean Water Act 319 Nonpoint Source
    (NPS) Pollution Prevention Program, the Indian General Assistance
    Program, the Tribal Brownfields Response Program, the Underground
    Storage Tank Program, the Delegation of Nez Perce Federal
    Implementation Plan, the Clean Air Act 103 Grant-Nez Perce Tribe Air
    Quality Project, and the EPA Region 10 Pesticide Circuit Rider Program.
        The Tribe recommends that the Indian General Assistance Program be
    funded at $75 million, the Tribal allocation under the Clean Water Act
    106 program be increased by 20 percent, Tribal Air Quality Management
    be maintained at $16.3 million, the Brownfields Program be funded at
    $100 million, and a funding amount be specifically allocated in lieu of
    the percent cap on Tribal funding for NPS pollution control.
        The Tribe requests that, within Geographic Programs, the Columbia
    River Basin Restoration Program, authorized under the Water
    Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act of 2016, be funded at no
    less than the $3 million that was previously enacted, but recommends
    that number be substantially increased.
                              u.s. forest service
        The Tribe does a tremendous amount of work with the U.S. Forest
    Service, including landscape restoration and resource management. The
    Tribe entered into a Good Neighbor Authority agreement with the U.S.
    Forest Service in 2022 that will allow more collaboration on work that
    will help protect Treaty-reserved resources on forest system land.
    Receiving stable and consistent funding is important for this work to
    continue. In fact, we would recommend expansion of Good Neighbor
    Authority and stewardship contracting authority to include USFWS and
    the U.S. National Park Service as proposed in the FY 2025 budget
    request. Thank you.

        [This statement was submitted by the Nez Perce Tribe.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of the North American Lake Management Society
        The North American Lake Management Society (NALMS), a professional
    society working to foster the management and protection of lakes and
    reservoirs in the U.S., writes to request $71 million in annual funding
    for the Nonpoint Source Pollution Management Program (Section 319) be
    directed specifically for monitoring lakes, restoration of degraded
    lakes and protection of high quality lakes in the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) budget for the fiscal year 2025 Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. We recommend the
    language below for inclusion in the related Explanatory Statement.
        ``The Committee recognizes our Nation's lakes as the economic
    engine for surrounding communities and for the highly valued ecosystem
    services they provide including drinking water supplies, recreational
    and commercial fisheries, habitat for freshwater species, and nature-
    based recreation, particularly for underserved communities. The
    Committee recognizes the significant potential to build resilience for
    communities and fish and wildlife through lake-focused protection and
    restoration. The Committee supports $71 million for EPA's Nonpoint
    Source Pollution Management Program (Section 319) specifically for
    monitoring and restoration of degraded lakes, ponds, and reservoirs and
    protection of high quality lakes, including lake restoration and
    protection activities previously funded under the section 314 Clean
    Lakes Program.''
        The primary focus of the EPA's water quality programs since 1994
    has been to restore impaired waters and reduce pollutant levels in
    waterways through the Nonpoint Source Management Program (Section 319).
    The EPA, state, Tribal and other partners have made, and continue to
    make, considerable progress in understanding and addressing the many
    sources of pollution to our Nation's waters. There is no doubt that
    they must continue to do so, and appropriations to Section 319 should
    continue to be a priority.
        Nevertheless, existing funding strategies are insufficient to
    reverse the declining water quality trends in U.S. lakes. From 1976 to
    1995, EPA's Clean Lakes Program (Section 314), was a highly successful
    mechanism for funding to States, to clean up individual, publicly owned
    lakes but it has not been funded since the 1990s. In the last 30 years,
    water quality in lakes throughout the U.S. has significantly declined.
        Today, Section 319 is the funding mechanism used to address the
    nutrient pollution that impacts lakes from runoff from the surrounding
    lands that drain into them, called their watershed. States and Tribes
    must compete for very limited funding to address lake water quality.
    Despite roughly 20% of the total 319 funding going to lake, reservoir,
    or pond projects, the US EPA National Lakes Assessments have shown that
    the percentage of lakes with the highest nutrient pollution (called
    eutrophic and hypereutrophic lakes) just keeps growing. Section 319
    funding is typically focused on reducing pollution at the watershed-
    level, but recent proposed guidance from EPA will allow for in-lake
    interventions when the watershed reductions are insufficient alone. In-
    lake interventions have been demonstrated to be successful on lakes
    with historic nutrient pollution loadings, but they are costly.
    Meanwhile, protection of the remaining high quality, low-nutrient
    polluted lakes is urgently needed to ensure future generations can
    experience crystal clear lakes that support cold water fisheries and
    unparalleled recreational and aesthetic experiences. States and Tribes
    will need access to more funding to not only protect the best of the
    remaining healthy lakes, but to restore the overwhelming majority of
    the Nation's lakes that suffer from excessive nutrient pollution.
        Successful lake management requires 1) lake monitoring and
    assessment, 2) diagnostic/feasibility studies to determine cause of
    poor water quality trends or status, 3) restoration and protection and,
    importantly, 4) funding for evaluation to determine if restoration has
    been successful. Because restoration is so costly, much of the 319
    funding goes to implementing restoration efforts at the expense of
    monitoring, protection, diagnostic studies and post-restoration
    evaluation. Significant additional appropriations are necessary to
    provide dedicated resources for the full suite of lake management
    strategies that are needed to meet the goals of the Clean Water Act for
    the Nation's lakes and reservoirs.
        The quality of lakes is expected to worsen as the frequency of
    extreme weather events increases and intensifies. Invasive species,
    nutrient loading, and harmful algal blooms will increasingly impair and
    degrade lakes, exacerbate the release of greenhouse gases, threaten
    human health, limit recreational opportunities, and decrease the
    economic value of lakes. Section 319 does not currently provide funding
    necessary to address these critical threats to water quality in lakes,
    ponds, and reservoirs. Americans value their remaining high quality
    freshwater lakes and the fish and wildlife they support, but very few
    resources are currently available to protect and preserve them.
    Doubling the amount of funding for lake projects from approximately $35
    million to $71 million in annual appropriations will certainly not meet
    the full need, but it will help to stabilize declining lake water
    quality.
        By prioritizing funding for lakes, you will support healthy and
    resilient waters, fish and wildlife, and communities. We appreciate
    your consideration of this request and look forward to working with you
    to ensure our Nation's lakes continue to provide a myriad of important
    benefits across the country.

        [This statement was submitted by Kellie Merrell, President, North
    American Lake Management Society.]
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
        Chair Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Honorable Members of
    the subcommittee, for the record my name is Ed Johnstone, and I am
    Chair of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC). The NWIFC
    is composed of the 20 Tribes in western Washington that are party to
    United States v. Washington, which upheld the Tribes' treaty-reserved
    right to harvest and manage natural resources on and off-reservation,
    including salmon and shellfish. On behalf of the NWIFC, we are
    providing written testimony on our natural resource management and
    environmental program funding requests for the Bureau of Indian Affairs
    (BIA), Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) and Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA) Fiscal Year 2025 appropriations. These programs support
    Tribes to carry out their natural resource management responsibilities
    including the management of Pacific salmon fisheries, which contribute
    to a robust natural resource-based economy and the exercise of our
    treaty rights.
           summary of fiscal year 2025 (fy25) appropriations requests
    Bureau of Indian Affairs

      --Provide $66.0 million for Rights Protection Implementation
            (collective request)

        --Provide $17.146 million for Western Washington Fisheries
                Management

        --Provide $3.771 million for Washington State Timber-Fish-Wildlife

        --Provide $7.82 million for U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty

        --Provide $2.4 million for Salmon Marking

      --Provide $15.0 million for Fish, Wildlife & Parks Projects (non-TPA)

      --Provide $1.109 million for the Salmon and Steelhead Habitat
            Inventory and Assessment Program within the Tribal Management/
            Development Program Subactivity

      --Fully Fund Contract Support Costs

      --Provide $2.0 million for Western Washington Treaty Tribes' Wildlife
            Management

      --Provide $60.991 million for Tribal Climate Resilience

    Fish & Wildlife Service

      --Provide $8.0 million for Tribal Wildlife Grants

    Environmental Protection Agency

      --Provide $96.4 million for General Assistance Program

      --Provide $57.0 million for Puget Sound Geographic Program
                           justification of requests
    Bureau of Indian Affairs

      --Provide $66.0 million for BIA Rights Protection Implementation
            Subactivity

        The 41 Tribes in the Great Lakes and Pacific Northwest with similar
    treaty-reserved rights have collectively identified that no less than
    $66.0 million for the Rights Protection Implementation (RPI)
    subactivity is necessary to support essential Tribal treaty-reserved
    resource management. This request is a $16.8 million increase over the
    FY24 enacted level of $49.2 million. The large disparity between our
    collective request and the enacted level demonstrates that the basic
    natural resource management functions of the treaty Tribes continue to
    be underfunded. Faced with the difficult combination of increasing
    natural resource scarcity and cumulative environmental stressors,
    Tribal natural resource management has become more complex and resource
    intensive. Considering this challenge, additional capacity is needed to
    manage treaty-reserved resources and protect Tribal rights.
    Unfortunately, most of the programs under RPI, such as Western
    Washington Fisheries Management, have not received a meaningful
    increase since FY18. A summary of the subaccounts of importance to us
    within RPI are identified below.

        --Provide $17.146 million for BIA Western Washington Fisheries
                Management

        We respectfully request $17.146 million, an increase of $5.543
    million over the FY24 enacted level of $11.603 million. Funding for
    this program supports the Tribes to co-manage their treaty-reserved
    resources with the state of Washington, and to continue to meet court
    mandates and legal responsibilities. For example, funding supports
    harvest planning, population assessments, data gathering for finfish,
    shellfish and groundfish, and other natural resource management needs.
    This funding is critical to support the day-to-day operations of
    essential fishery management. Reduced abundance and increased
    regulatory scrutiny of fisheries, coupled with ongoing salmon habitat
    loss, increased recreational pressures and climate change are greatly
    increasing the difficulty (and cost) of co-managing salmon and other
    resources.

        --Provide $3.771 million for BIA Washington State Timber-Fish-
                Wildlife (TFW)

        We respectfully request $3.771 million, an increase of $51,000
    above the FY24 enacted level of $3.720 million and level with the FY25
    President's Budget Request. Funding for this program is provided to
    improve forest practices on state and private lands, while providing
    protection for fish, wildlife and water quality. This funding supports
    the Tribes' participation in the TFW Agreement--a collaborative
    intergovernmental and stakeholder process between the state, industry
    and Tribes.

        --Provide $7.820 million for BIA U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty

        We respectfully request $7.820 million, an increase of $1.028
    million above the FY24 enacted level of $6.792 million. This request is
    consistent with that of the Pacific Salmon Commission and is necessary
    to implement the Annex chapters of the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST).
    Tribes assist the U.S. government in meeting its obligations to
    implement the treaty by participating in fisheries management
    exercises, cooperative research and data gathering activities. This
    funding also supports participation in the PST process.

        --Provide $2.4 million for BIA Salmon Marking

        We respectfully request $2.4 million, an increase of $948,000 over
    the FY24 enacted level of $1.452 million. This request would support
    ongoing coded wire tagging and adipose fin clipping (marking)
    operations at Tribal hatcheries. Marking is used to differentiate
    hatchery-origin salmon from natural spawning ones. Since 2003, Congress
    has required that all salmon released from federally funded hatcheries
    are marked for conservation management purposes. Coded wire tags are
    used to provide a unique identifier to a particular hatchery stock,
    which is then used in salmonid abundance assessments and catch rates.
    The NWIFC uses automated trailers to provide efficient centralized
    tagging and marking services to our 20-member Tribes. This state-of-
    the-art equipment is very complex and requires expert technicians to
    operate and maintain. The operations and maintenance of the trailers,
    coupled with an increasing demand for these important services,
    continue to increase our costs to carry out this Federal directive.

      --Provide $15.0 million for BIA Fish, Wildlife & Parks Projects (Non-
            TPA) for Hatchery Operations and Maintenance

        We respectfully request $15.0 million for Hatchery Operations and
    Maintenance within the Fish, Wildlife and Parks Projects account, an
    increase of $2.032 million over the FY24 enacted level of $12.968
    million. More specifically, we request $8.0 million for Hatchery
    Operations and $7.0 million for Hatchery Maintenance. This funding is
    provided to Tribal hatcheries to support the rearing and releasing of
    salmon and steelhead for harvest by Indian and non-Indian fisheries in
    the U.S. and Canada. Without hatcheries, Tribes would lose their most
    basic ceremonial and subsistence fisheries that are central to our
    Tribal culture. We currently estimate that more than 80% of the salmon
    harvested are hatchery-origin fish. Yet despite the central importance
    of these facilities, Tribes face millions of dollars in deferred
    maintenance costs and significant funding shortfalls in operations.

      --Provide $1.109 million for BIA Salmon and Steelhead Habitat
            Inventory and Assessment Program (SSHIAP) (within the Tribal
            Management/Development Program)

        We respectfully request $1.109 million for SSHIAP within the Tribal
    Management/Development Program, an increase of $202,000 above the FY24
    enacted level, of $907,000. SSHIAP is vital to the western Washington
    Tribes because it provides essential environmental data management,
    analysis, sharing and reporting to support Tribal natural resource
    management. It also supports our Tribes' ability to adequately
    participate in watershed resource assessments and salmon recovery work.

      --Fully Fund BIA Contract Support Costs

        We respectfully request that Congress fully fund Contract Support
    Costs (CSC) and reclassify CSC as mandatory. Funding for CSC ensures
    Tribes and Tribal organizations have the capacity to manage Federal
    programs under self-determination contracts and self-governance
    compacts.

      --Provide $2.0 million for Western Washington Treaty Tribes' Wildlife
            Management

        We respectfully request $2.0 million for western Washington treaty
    Tribes' wildlife management programs from an account within the Bureau
    of Indian Affairs Trust--Natural Resources Management Activity. The
    member Tribes of the NWIFC reserved the right to fish, hunt and gather
    natural resources throughout their ceded territories. Part and parcel
    with the Tribes' reserved right to hunt and gather outside of their
    reservation boundaries is the need to co-manage wildlife resources with
    the State of Washington. Requested funding will provide capacity to
    participate in state-Tribal co-management forums, develop wildlife
    management plans, develop and enhance Tribal hunting codes, and design
    and implement applied research projects. These capabilities are
    fundamental to the protection of our Tribes' treaty rights and there is
    currently no dedicated account or funding to directly support this
    critical work.

      --Provide $60.991 million for BIA Tribal Climate Resilience

        We respectfully request $60.991 million for Tribal Climate
    Resilience, an increase of $26.0 million over the FY24 enacted level of
    $34.291 million. Climate change is one of the largest threats to Tribal
    rights and resources. Funding from this competitive grant program will
    support Tribal participation in critical issues that impact treaty-
    reserved resources and promote climate resiliency.
                            fish & wildlife service
      --Provide $8.0 million for FWS Tribal Wildlife Grants

        We respectfully request $8.0 million for the Nationwide Tribal
    Wildlife Grants program, an increase of $1.8 million over the FY24
    enacted level of $6.2 million. Funding from this competitive grant
    program supports the conservation of wildlife and their habitat,
    including species that are culturally or traditionally important to
    Tribes. FWS is using Traditional Ecological Knowledge to build
    partnerships and relationships between conservation biologists and
    Tribes.
                        environmental protection agency
      --Provide $96.4 million for EPA General Assistance Program (GAP)

        We respectfully request $96.4 million for the Nationwide GAP, an
    increase of $24.20 million over the FY24 enacted level of $72.2
    million. We also respectfully request bill or report language that
    would improve flexibility in the GAP to ensure individual Tribal
    priorities and implementation activities would be eligible and that
    allocations will not result in a decreased proportion of funds for EPA
    Region 10 Tribes and consortia. The GAP builds essential Tribal program
    capacity to address environmental issues that impact Tribes' health,
    safety and treaty-reserved resources. The GAP also provides critical
    funding to Tribal consortia to support interTribal coordination on
    environmental issues.

      --Provide $57.0 million for EPA Puget Sound Geographic Program

        We respectfully request $57.0 million for Puget Sound, an increase
    of $3.0 million over the FY24 enacted level. This Geographic Program
    provides essential funding that will help protect and restore Puget
    Sound--an estuary of national significance. Funding for this program
    supports Tribal participation in a broad range of collaborative Puget
    Sound recovery work, including scientific research, resource recovery
    planning and policy discussions that affect our treaty rights.
                                   conclusion
        We respectfully request the subcommittee's support for these
    requests. We greatly appreciate your attention to these matters and
    thank you for your continued commitment to the Tribes.

        [This statement was submitted by Ed Johnstone, Chair of the
    Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission.]
                                     ______

     Prepared Statement of the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board
        Greetings Chairman Merkley and Ranking Member Murkowski, and
    Members of the subcommittee. My name is Nickolaus Lewis, and I serve as
    a Council Member on the Lummi Indian Business Council, the elected
    governing body of the Lummi Nation, and as Chair of the Northwest
    Portland Area Indian Health Board (NPAIHB or Board). I thank the
    subcommittee for the opportunity to provide testimony on the fiscal
    year (FY) 2025 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget.
        NPAIHB was established in 1972 and is a Tribal organization under
    the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA),
    Public Law 93-638, that advocates on behalf of the 43 federally-
    recognized Indian Tribes in Idaho, Oregon, and Washington on specific
    health care issues. The Board's mission is to eliminate health
    disparities and improve the quality of life for American Indians and
    Alaska Natives (AI/AN) by supporting Northwest Tribes in the delivery
    of culturally-appropriate, high-quality health care. ``Wellness for the
    seventh generation'' is the Board's vision. This subcommittee is
    critical to making this a reality. We thank the subcommittee for
    continuing to support increased funding for IHS every year.
        In August 2023, the NPAIHB organized a National Tribal Opioid
    Summit that convened over 1,000 Tribal leaders, providers, community
    members, including Federal and State officials, to discuss opioid
    prevention, care and treatment, data, and law and justice policy
    priorities in Tribal communities.

        Based on the Summit, we make the following IHS funding
    recommendations related to opioids and substance use:

        Increase Funding for Substance Use, including Prevention Services.
    Portland Area Tribes have long recognized how deeply opioid and
    substance use disorders impact their Tribal communities and the healing
    that can occur when our relatives receive effective treatment and
    support on their recovery journeys. IHS and Tribally operated programs
    must support an integrated behavioral health approach to
    collaboratively reduce the incidence of substance use disorders in AI/
    AN communities. IHS substance use funding is used to provide a
    comprehensive array of preventive, educational, and treatment services
    that are community-driven and culturally competent. These collaborative
    activities strive to integrate substance use treatment into primary
    care. Additional funding focusing on harm reduction and peer support is
    desperately needed. For FY 2025, the IHS Tribal Budget Formulation
    Workgroup recommends $4.86 billion for the Substance Use subaccount.
        Increase facilities funding, including for medical facility
    construction, dual-diagnosis facilities, and medically supervised
    withdrawal/detoxification for adults and youth. The need for new
    healthcare facility construction at IHS was estimated to be $23 billion
    in 2021 (up 59% from 2016). There is an additional $1.5 billion backlog
    in maintenance to existing IHS facilities. IHS facilities are often not
    appropriate, or available, to meet the current needs of the patient
    population when it comes to opioid use disorder (OUD) and substance use
    disorder (SUD). In FY 2025, this subcommittee should allocate $5
    billion for Health Care Facilities Construction specific to OUD/SUD
    services such as detox facilities.
        Increase funding for Tribal data analytics at Tribes and TECs. Many
    Tribes do not have sufficient funding to employ health data analysts,
    biostatisticians, or epidemiologists. The priority is the provision of
    clinical services rather than data analysis. In FY 2025, more funding
    is needed for Tribes to hire analysts to evaluate data and drive
    community-based recommendations using Tribal specific data. In addition
    to funding staff at Tribes to do this work, each Tribal Epidemiology
    Center would benefit from stable ongoing funding to support substance
    use disorder and behavioral health analytics.

        For FY 2025, we also make the following ongoing recommendations
    from Portland Area Tribes:

        Provide Mandatory, Full Funding for IHS. Advance appropriations
    will resolve some of the challenges presented by annual discretionary
    funding but will not address the issue of funding adequacy. At the core
    of Indian health policy are the Federal Government's trust
    responsibility and treaty obligations. To address unfulfilled trust and
    treaty obligations towards Tribes and end unacceptable health
    disparities of AI/AN people, the IHS needs full and mandatory funding.
    Determining a figure for full funding that meets the true level of need
    deserves a thoughtful, measured, and tribally-driven approach that
    keeps pace with population growth and both medical and non-medical
    inflation. The National Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup
    recommended, and our Area supported, the request of $53.85 billion to
    fully fund the IHS in FY 2025.\1\ Looking ahead to FY 2026, the
    National Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup met in February 2024 and
    recommended $63 billion to fully fund the IHS in FY 2026.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ National Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup Recommendation,
    Indian Health Service Fiscal Year 2025 Budget, FINAL_FY2025 Budget
    (nihb) (last visited Apr. 12, 2024).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Provide Mandatory Appropriation for ISDEAA Section 105(l) Leases
    and Contract Support Costs (CSC). Although we are appreciative of the
    subcommittee's support in securing an indefinite appropriation for
    105(l) lease agreements and CSC, we request that this subcommittee
    commit to moving 105(l) leases and CSC to mandatory appropriations
    accounts to ensure that these appropriations are funded year after year
    without impacting programmatic increases to IHS and Tribal health
    facilities. Portland Area Tribes are experiencing decreases in funding
    annually due to the rising annual cost of 105(l) leases and CSC.
        Increase Funding for Purchased and Referred Care (PRC). Portland
    Area Tribes have to purchase all specialty and inpatient care because
    there is no IHS hospital in the Portland IHS Area. The PRC program
    makes up over one-third of the Portland IHS Area budget. When there is
    no increase or consideration of population growth and medical
    inflation, Portland Area Tribes are forced to cut health services.
    Areas with IHS hospitals can absorb these costs more easily because of
    their infrastructure and large staffing packages. Substantial PRC
    funding is a top priority for us. As long as the PRC program remains
    severely underfunded, the ability for AI/ANs to access specialty and
    inpatient health care will be threatened. Every year PRC is the second
    rated funding priority of the National Tribal Budget Formulation
    Workgroup--a top priority of Portland Area Tribes. The PRC subaccount
    receives only a nominal annual increase (i.e., average of 1%) and FY
    2024 had no increase. In FY 2025, we request that this subcommittee
    honor the request of the National Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup
    and fund PRC at $9.14 billion.
        Fund Expansion of Community Health Aide Program. NPAIHB has
    successfully established a Community Health Aide Program (CHAP) in the
    Portland IHS Area, working closely with Tribes to set up the Portland
    Area CHAP Certification Board and to build education programs. Students
    are attending our Dental Health Aide Therapists (DHAT) and Behavioral
    Health Aides (BHA) education programs, and Community Health Aide
    education program is in development. Stable funding is necessary to
    ensure that the programs are accessible to our students and can best
    meet the health care needs of the Tribes they will serve. For FY 2025,
    we request $60 million for continuation of the National expansion with
    $10 million for Portland Area to continue to expand CHAP.
        Increase Funding for Mental Health In our Area and nationwide,
    there are high rates of depression and anxiety in our communities.
    Portland Area Tribes need funding to address mental health provider
    shortages and expand services. NPAIHB is particularly concerned about
    our AI/AN youth. Suicide is the second leading cause of death for AI/AN
    adolescents and young adults. AI/AN suicide mortality in this age group
    (10-29) is 2-3 times greater, and in some communities 10 times greater,
    than that for non-Hispanic whites. For FY 2025, the IHS Tribal Budget
    Formulation Workgroup recommends $4.46 billion for Mental Health
    subaccount.
        Fund Youth Regional Treatment Center Construction. Portland Area
    Tribes have prioritized the need for Youth Regional Treatment Centers
    (YRTC) to address the ongoing issues of substance abuse and co-
    occurring mental health issues among AI/AN youth through the provision
    of clinical services, post-treatment follow-up services, and
    transitional living. While there are two Tribal facilities providing
    enhanced behavioral health services to youth and familes in the
    Portland IHS Area, the Healing Lodge of the Seven Nations and Native
    American Rehabilitation Association of the Northwest, more facilities
    are needed. In FY 2025, this subcommittee must fund an expansion of
    YRTC facilities across Indian country.
        Increase Small Ambulatory Program and Joint Venture Construction
    Program Funding. Portland Area Tribes do not support funding for new
    facilities construction under the current IHS Healthcare Facilities
    Construction Priority System because the structure of the existing
    system does not benefit Portland Area Tribes nor equitably benefit
    Areas nationally. For FY 2025, the National Tribal Budget Formulation
    Workgroup recommended a continuation of vital resources for the Small
    Ambulatory Program (SAP) with funding at $50 million and also
    recommended expansion of the Joint Venture Construction Program (JVCP)
    with funding for staffing and equipment. NPAIHB requests that the
    subcommittee provide future increases accordingly.
        Create New Source of Funding for Health Care Facilities
    Construction at $14.5 billion. In its recommendations for FY 2025, the
    National Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup recommended at least $14.5
    billion in facilities construction funding be made available outside of
    the current IHS Healthcare Facilities Construction Priority System
    (HFCPS) as a new, equitable source of funding that will provide access
    to construction funds and demonstration projects under the Indian
    Health Care Improvement Act at 25 U.S.C. Sec. 1637. The Portland Area
    Facilities Advisory Committee (PAFAC) completed a pilot study in 2009
    to evaluate the feasibility of regional referral centers in the IHS
    system, and determined the Portland IHS Area needed three regional
    specialty referral centers. The U.S. Department of Health and Human
    Services partnered with IHS to identify funds to construct the first
    facility in Puyallup (Washington State). This innovative facility will
    provide services such as medical and surgical specialty care, specialty
    dental care, audiology, physical and occupational therapy, as well as
    advanced imaging and outpatient surgery. Some Tribes in our area
    request that the facility include inpatient mental health/substance use
    treatment. It is anticipated that this facility will provide services
    for approximately 50,000 users within the regional service area as well
    as an additional 20,000 in telemedicine consults. For FY 2025, funding
    to complete the first facility is needed in the amount of approximately
    $150 million. In addition, we request funding for the two remaining
    regional specialty referral centers to ensure these services can be
    accessed by IHS beneficiaries throughout the Portland IHS Area.
        Make Health IT Modernization Project Funding Available to Tribes.
    The IHS Health Information Technology (IT) Modernization Program is a
    multi-year effort to modernize health IT systems for IHS, Tribal, and
    Urban Indian health care programs into the 21st century. The software
    currently supported by IHS was implemented 38 years ago. Northwest
    Tribes are in a double bind--we want the IHS Health IT Modernization
    program to be fully funded, and the new EHR implemented because
    Northwest Tribes receiving services directly from IHS need health IT
    systems that support 21st century care for our people. Conversely, many
    Tribes in the Northwest have made significant investments of time,
    talent, and cash to modernize their health IT systems because their
    leadership exercised their rights under self-governance and realized we
    cannot afford to wait when the health of our people is at stake. Tribes
    must be reimbursed by IHS for the funds they have spent to purchase
    Health IT systems, and all Tribes must have access to 21st century
    technology in their health care delivery systems. For FY 2025, we
    request that this subcommittee hold the IHS accountable, through report
    language, for the prudent use of appropriated funds, and ensure funding
    be made available to both implement the IHS Health Technology
    Modernization Program as rapidly as possible and also direct IHS to
    reimburse and provide ongoing financial support for Tribal health
    facilities that have already purchased and implemented commercial off-
    the-shelf EHR systems.
        Increase Funding for HIV and HCV Initiatives. From 2013 through
    2017, rates of new diagnoses of HIV for AI/AN people increased to 7.8
    per 100,000--although rates decreased or stayed stable for all other
    racial and ethnic groups. Chronic Hepatitis C Virus (HCV) is the
    leading cause of cirrhosis, liver cancer, and liver transplants in the
    United States. AI/ANs have more than double the National rate of HCV-
    related mortality, and the highest rate of acute HCV infection. Current
    funding levels for HIV and Hep C initiatives will not end these
    epidemics in Indian Country and must be increased in FY 2025 to $25
    million.
        Thank you for this opportunity to provide recommendations on the
    IHS budget. I invite you to visit IHS, Tribal health programs, and
    urban Indian organizations in the Northwest to learn more about the
    utilization of IHS funding and the health care needs in our Area. I
    look forward to working with the subcommittee on our requests.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ For more information, please contact Laura Platero, NPAIHB, at
    lplatero@npaihb.org or (503) 416-3277.

        [This statement was submitted by Nickolaus Lewis, The Northwest
    Portland Area Indian Health Board.]
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Norton Sound Health Corporation
    The requests of the Norton Sound Health Corporation (NSHC) for the FY
    2025 Budget include:
                             indian health service
      --Recognize Alaska Native communities of 10,000 or less to be treated
            as entire Native communities in the IHS Sanitation Deficiency
            System (SDS), thus eliminating the notion of pro rata
            contribution for incidental benefits ineligible costs for
            sanitation projects.

      --Recommend IHS fund an operation and maintenance (O&M) program to
            support and maintain sanitation infrastructure.

      --Request appropriations in the FY2025 Budget for the operation and
            maintenance of sanitation facilities and make funding available
            through ISDEAA self-governance agreements.

      --Fund construction of employee housing quarters and prioritize
            healthcare facilities without current facilities.

      --Support funding opportunities for Tribal Health to construct
            daycare facilities.

    Department of Transportation (DOT):

      --Increase the number of funded DOT Essential Air Service trips by
            helicopter for passengers to Diomede, Alaska.

      --Support funding for 14 villages in Bering Strait Region, eligible
            for Essential Air Services, to increase daily flight capacity
            by existing airline.

    Federal Aviation Administration (FAA):

      --Revise the mandatory requirement that only FAA personnel can reset
            Automated Weather Observing Systems (AWOS) when they go down in
            rural Alaska.

        Headquartered in Nome, Alaska, Norton Sound Health Corporation is
    owned and managed by the 20 federally recognized Tribes of the Bering
    Strait region. Our Tribal system includes a regional hospital, nursing
    home, and 15 village-based clinics, which we operate under an Indian
    Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA) agreement.\1\
    Our rural and remote Arctic region remains unconnected by roads, and we
    are 500 air miles from Alaska's economic hub of Anchorage. Our service
    area encompasses 44,000 square miles.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ We serve the communities of: Brevig Mission, Council, Diomede,
    Elim, Gambell, Golovin, King Island, Koyuk, Mary's Igloo, Nome, St.
    Michael, Savoonga, Shaktoolik, Shishmaref, Solomon, Stebbins, Teller,
    Unalakleet, Wales, and White Mountain

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Funding for Water & Sewer Projects and Operation and Maintenance:

      --Recognize Alaska Native communities of 10,000 or less to be treated
            as entire Native communities in the IHS Sanitation Deficiency
            System (SDS), eliminating the notion of pro rata contribution
            for incidental benefits ineligible costs for sanitation
            projects.

        We face a $261 million sanitation need in the Bering Strait region.
    Five communities in our area, Diomede, Wales, Shishmaref, Stebbins, and
    Teller, still lack any connection for running water and sewer. The
    community of Gambell is 70% served, with 43 homes in the village
    remaining unconnected to water and sewer. Ongoing sewer and water
    upgrades and maintenance backlogs remain concerns in seven communities.
    An estimated 520 homes in the Bering Strait region have no running
    water or flush toilets, which research correlates with increased
    healthcare expenditures and lower overall quality of health.
        In the authorizing statute (Indian Health Care Improvement Act) for
    the IHS, Congress reaffirmed the Indian Health Service as the agency
    with ``primary responsibility and authority to provide necessary
    sanitation facilities,'' and furthermore, ``it is in the interest of
    the United States and it is the policy of the United States, that all
    Indian communities and Indian homes, new and existing, be provided with
    safe and adequate water supply systems and sanitary sewage waste
    disposal systems as soon as possible'' (25 USC 1632). These services to
    Norton Sound communities cannot come soon enough. Basic human needs
    that most Americans take for granted do not exist in many of our
    communities.
        We are opposed to the decision of the IHS to implement in the
    FY2018 Sanitation Facilities Construction appropriation using a
    methodology to serve Alaska Native homes. The error in this methodology
    is the premise that our Alaska Native villages are 'non-Indian.' Our
    unserved communities are primarily (over 90%) Alaska Native. The SDS
    policy places Indian communities in the same category as ``non-Indian''
    communities, requiring that Tribes find contributions for ineligible
    buildings such as public schools, clinics, Tribal buildings, and
    teacher housing. All community buildings benefit the Native community,
    including schools, which often serve as the community's evacuation
    center and primary gathering place for healthy community activities.
    Schools and teachers' homes are often the only facilities connected to
    sewer and water, creating significant sanitation inequities in a
    community.

      --Recommend IHS fund an operation and maintenance (O&M) program to
            support and maintain sanitation infrastructure and request
            $200M in appropriations in the FY2025 Budget and make funding
            available through ISDEAA self-governance agreements.

        The National Congress f American Indians passed Resolution ANC-22-
    041, which recommends that IHS fund sanitation infrastructure operation
    and maintenance (O&M) as authorized in 25 USC 1632 (b). The FY 2024
    Tribal Budget Recommendations include a request for O&M funding by the
    National Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup. In addition, Congress's
    unprecedented amount of financing for the construction and repair of
    sanitation facilities through the IIJA underscores the need to protect
    the Federal investment and ensure the maximum life cycle and
    sustainable operation of these sanitation systems for as long as
    possible. O&M costs should also be used for existing systems to keep
    projects that are already complete off the SDS list in the future.
    Congress has provided IHS funding to train operators but not a
    designated O&M fund. IHS must request appropriations in the FY 2025
    budget for the operation and maintenance of sanitation facilities
    systems, and further such funding should be made available through the
    ISDEAA self-governance agreement.

    Funding for employee housing quarters.

        Since NSHC opened its new hospital facility in 2013, the workforce
    in Nome and the villages has increased by 12 percent and 23 percent,
    respectively. Unfortunately, the construction project did not include
    housing quarters when the facility was built.
        NSHC owns 29 apartment units in Nome but still leases over 70
    apartment units from various landlords to meet the needs for adequate
    housing for new hires, locum physicians, nurses, clinicians, health
    aides in training, and students. NSHC's usage of such a large portion
    of currently available Nome housing has created a significant housing
    shortage for Nome.
        This housing shortage has prevented NSHC from filling critical
    healthcare positions and created further impediments to hiring a
    permanent local workforce. Typhoon Merbok exasperated the already
    limited housing situation in Nome when the flood destroyed housing
    units, and the subsequent fire destroyed a local hotel, which was
    housing homeless individuals and families.
        The approved Port Project for the City of Nome will result in an
    influx of people to the community while vacant housing is currently
    nonexistent. NSHC proposes constructing four 20-unit apartment
    buildings to meet its growing Nome workforce needs adequately. By
    owning its housing, NSHC could release 70 apartment units, which would
    be available to Nome Port Project laborers, teachers, and homeless
    individuals and families. The total cost to build four 20-unit
    apartment buildings is anticipated to be 73.25 M. The NSHC Board funded
    the $250,000 design and $13 M for the foundation, furniture, fixtures,
    and equipment (FF &E). The site work will begin in the summer of 2024.
    NSHC will dedicate $3M received through the FY23 Omnibus bill, which
    leaves a $57M Legislative and Federal Ask.
        In the surrounding villages, the ability to recruit and retain a
    permanent provider to work at the local clinic and live in the
    community is contingent on housing. There is also a need for more
    housing for local employees. While NSHC has received some funding to
    construct housing in some of its villages, other communities still face
    challenges with inadequate housing: Gambell, Stebbins, Teller, White
    Mountain, Brevig Mission, Shaktoolik, and Elim. NSHC will be building
    two duplexes in Gambell this summer, 2024. The total cost of the
    project is 6.25M. The NSHC Board has funded the design at $250,000; the
    foundation work at $1.75M, and the FF&E at $500,000, which leaves a
    vertical construction Legislative and Federal Ask of $3.75M.

    Funding for Tribal Health to construct daycare facilities.

        The Bering Strait region needs childcare providers. Childcare is a
    basic need that hinders recruitment, retention, and family financial
    sustainability. NSHC aims to address its workforce childcare needs
    through a Nome-based facility currently in the conceptual design phase
    for a 7,460-square-foot building. The facility would be available to
    employees and patients for drop-in appointments and village-based
    health aides during training sessions. The project, estimated at $10.35
    M, received $2.2M from the FY23 Omnibus Bill.
    Funding for additional air transportation to Diomede and other 14
    villages in Bering Strait Region.

      --Increase the number of funded DOT Essential Air Service trips by
            helicopter for passengers to Diomede, Alaska.

        Diomede's residents and critical personnel, such as medical staff,
    rely heavily on the 52 trips funded annually by DOT EAS. However, the
    demand for seats on the 8-passenger helicopter is high, with four
    weekly seats utilized for healthcare needs. Patients use three of these
    seats, while critical healthcare workers use one. NSHC's new health
    clinic, which opened in October 2020, requires ongoing maintenance, and
    the village's clean water and sanitation program needs frequent staff
    visits to provide for the island's needs. While an on-site medical
    provider has increased the level of service available in Diomede,
    patients must still travel for needed imaging, procedures, and
    specialist visits. Flight cancellations due to inclement weather
    conditions can displace community members for extended periods when
    there are no vacant seats on the next available flights. This situation
    has caused residents to hesitate to attend much-needed medical care
    outside of Diomede, fearing displacement. Despite these changing needs,
    the level of EAS has remained stagnant since its establishment. NSHC
    calls on DOT EAS to increase the seats available to community members
    by funding one additional monthly trip at an annual cost of $174,000/
    year.

      --Support funding for 14 villages in Bering Strait Region, eligible
            for Essential Air Services, to increase daily flight capacity
            by existing airline.

        Another critical concern is the need for more access to small
    airline travel in the region. Twenty years ago, the area had three
    small airline carriers, providing many options and opportunities to
    travel from rural villages to the hub of Nome and Anchorage. Over the
    past 5 years, the number of small airlines has reduced to one, with
    only two available flights per day to each community. Limited flights
    impact medical travel, especially for last-minute needs due to urgent
    situations requiring patients to see a physician in the hub of Nome.
    These communities are EAS eligible and this may be the only way to
    expand service for the region. NSHC urges DOT to provide funding to
    expand EAS for each of the 14 villages in the Bering Strait Region.
        Revise the mandatory requirement that only FAA personnel can reset
    Automated Weather Observing Systems (AWOS) when they go down in rural
    Alaska.
        NSHC requests that the FAA prioritize keeping rural airports in
    Alaska operational. Unavailable AWOS readings due to inoperable weather
    equipment are the number one reason why airplanes cannot fly into
    villages. Patient travel is already severely limited since the region
    has only one airline. Our emergency medevac flights experience the same
    restrictions. Due to heightened airport security, the FAA requires only
    FAA personnel to reset AWOS systems when the electrical power goes out.
    In rural Alaska, power outages are common due to the inclement weather
    and dated equipment. Each local airport has direct-hire DOT personnel.
    Recommend the FAA partner with DOT to provide the necessary security
    clearance to these individuals to allow them to reset the local airport
    AWOS systems when they go down. NSHC urges the FAA to consider this
    request to empower local direct-hire DOT personnel to reset AWOS
    Systems.
        We appreciate your consideration of the concerns and requests of
    the Norton Sound Health Corporation.

        [This statement was submitted by Angela Gorn, President/CEO, Norton
    Sound Health Corporation.]
                                     ______

        Prepared Statement of Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
                                  Enforcement
        OSMRE is failing to comply with adequate funding of Title V State
    and Tribal regulatory programs. Therefore, an increase of $13.9
    million, or 21.4%, is requested over the $65.0 million included in the
    FY 2025 budget of the Department of Interior--Office of Surface Mining
    Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE) for State and Tribal regulatory
    grants under Title V of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act
    of 1977 (SMCRA). This increase to $78.9 million equals the funding
    requested by State and Tribal programs for FY 2024.
        My testimony is to bring attention to the significant risk OSMRE's
    is taking by underfunding State and Tribal regulatory programs, these
    programs are responsible for the prevention or mitigation of adverse
    environmental effects of present and future surface coal mining
    operations. Enacted under Title V of SMCRA are rules and regulations
    designed to prevent a repeat of pre- 1977 abandoned and unreclaimed
    mine sites, now costing our Nation billions annually.
        Using my state as an example, for FY 2024, Alabama requested $1.94
    million 50% matching funds as provided under SMCRA. This amount was
    reviewed and recommended for approval by the OSMRE field and regional
    offices to the OSMRE DC office. Yet, Alabama's distribution was set at
    only $1.31 million, a critical shortfall of $648,797 or 32.4%. The
    $1.31 million allocation does not even cover the 50% Federal share of
    payroll much less any other required operating expenses. Alabama must
    somehow cross this gap by elimination or deferral of necessary costs.
    And Alabama is not the only program experiencing the pressures of
    inadequate funding.
        For FY 2024, all Title V State and Tribal programs requested $78.9
    million, an amount that was reviewed and approved for recommendation by
    OSMRE field offices. However, the OSMRE DC offices decided otherwise
    and submitted a budget request of only $65.0 million, later cut of
    $62.4 million as included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024
    dated March 9, 2024. This represents a $16.5 million, or 20.9%
    shortfall across all State and Tribal programs. Also, all regulatory
    programs are personnel heavy, not overstaffed, but with personnel
    needed in multiple sciences. On average, 80% of program costs are
    personnel related. Therefore, $63.12 million, or 80%, of the $78.9
    million requested is personnel costs. The appropriation of $62.4
    million falls short of even covering payroll.
        These facts beg the question of how the OSMRE FY 2025 budget
    request amount was determined in the face of valid program needs.
    Apparently, the regulatory programs, those who have boots on the ground
    experience and knowledge of active coal mining and reclamation and
    recommendations of experienced OSMRE field personnel were not
    considered. Only the opinions of executive level OSMRE DC personnel,
    who probably have never been to a mine site, were considered. Exhibited
    on page 4, is a listing of individual State and Regulatory program
    requests and grant distributions for FY 2024. Underfunding is quite
    evident as not a single program was granted its request, with
    shortfalls ranging from -32.5% in Kentucky to -6.5% in Utah.
        Additionally, below is the history of OSMRE Grants as Compared to
    Budgets from 2019 to 2024.
        The current year distribution since FY 2019 decreased $6.19
    million, or 9%. Over the same period the regulatory request increased
    $6.84 million, or 9.5%. A swing of $13.3 million. When costs go up due
    to significant inflation, funding cannot be decreased. The result is a
    hollowing out of the necessary funding to accomplish the mission of
    protecting the environment as was intended by the 95th Congress. The
    regulatory programs cannot continue without a significant increase in
    funding, otherwise, programs may not be able to meet established Title
    V performance standards. The consequences of which are Federal
    Government takeover.
        One additional point for consideration, on May 9, 2024, the updated
    OSMRE Ten Day notice rule took effect. The effect of this rule is OSMRE
    overstepping its authority as outlined in SMCRA. This new rule is an
    updated version of the 2020 Ten Day notice rule that all participants,
    State, Tribe and OSMRE, worked together to agree upon. Yet, 2 1/2 years
    later, OSMRE decides the 2020 rule is insufficient. OSMRE's preamble
    reports that it is proposing ``non-substantive'' changes and changes to
    ``improve'' readability. However, there are hidden consequences which
    cannot go unrecognized. Without going into detail, this rule
    fundamentally alters the nature of state primacy under SMCRA whereby
    States are given exclusive rights over its regulatory program. Instead,
    the rule provides OSMRE with unjust ``powers'' over regulation of State
    programs not envisioned under SMCRA. Yet to be determined, is what
    circumstances precipitated OSMRE to make such significant changes to a
    rule that was working as designed.
        In conclusion, for Alabama as well as other States and Tribes, the
    funding of Title V programs must be increased to provide adequate
    support. Without a significant increase the intent of SMCRA Title V
    cannot be accomplished to prevent or mitigate adverse environmental
    effects of present and future surface coal mining operations. Congress
    is urged to approve an increase of $13.9 million for State and Tribal
    Title V regulatory programs in FY 2025 to $78.9. A small price to pay
    for enjoying environmental protections and preventing unreclaimed
    properties.
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit my statement on this
    matter. I would be happy to answer any questions.

        [This statement was submitted by Kathy H. Love, Director Alabama
    Surface Mining Commission.]
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Oncology Advocates United for Climate and Health
                                 International
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony to
    highlight the funding priorities of Oncology Advocates United for
    Climate and Health International (OUCH) within the Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA) for fiscal year 2025 (FY25).
        OUCH is a group of oncology-focused health professionals whose
    mission is to advance awareness, actions and policies that mitigate the
    effects of climate change on human health, cancer incidence and
    outcomes, and health equity. We advocate for urgent action by educating
    oncologists, policymakers, professional societies, the public, and
    other stakeholders about the relationships between climate change and
    cancer incidence and outcomes, and to call for actions that eliminate
    reliance on fossil fuels to protect public health. Since our founding
    in 2020 , we have authored more than 37 manuscripts, op-eds, abstracts,
    etc., testified or supported more than 14 initiatives; and presented at
    24 local, national, and international meetings. Our members include
    oncology health care professionals who are interested in mitigating the
    effects of climate change on cancer. Our members represent 27 States
    and 23 different countries, including six oncology professional
    societies.
        In 2021, the World Health Organization called climate change the
    single biggest health threat facing humanity. 230 medical journals,
    including the New England Journal of Medicine, jointly published an
    editorial describing the health effects of climate change as
    catastrophic. 2. yet, climate change is often perceived by the majority
    of the public as an environmental threat or a political problem.
    Largely overlooked is that climate change impacts health, including
    cancer incidence, care delivery and outcomes.
        Air pollution and climate change are two sides of the same coin;
    they both come from the burning of fossil fuels, whether these stem
    from combustion engines or from natural sources, such as wildfires. Air
    pollution contains ``fine'' particulate matter 2.5 microns thick
    (PM2.5). Air pollution and PM2.5 particles have
    been categorized as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency
    for Research and Cancer.
        How do we know that lung cancer is related to air pollution?
    Numerous epidemiological studies have shown that people living in
    highly polluted areas are more likely to die of lung cancer than those
    who live in less polluted areas.
        A study published in the Journal of the American Medical
    Association (JAMA), shows that long-term exposure to combustion-related
    fine particulate air pollution is an important environmental risk
    factor for cardiopulmonary and lung cancer mortality. This study
    indicates that the increase in risk of lung cancer from long-term
    exposure to PM2.5 in a polluted city was of roughly the same
    size as the increase in lung cancer risk of a non-smoker who breathes
    passive smoke while living with a smoker, or about a 20% increase in
    lung cancer risk (see Pope et al., 2002). The study concluded: ``Long-
    term exposure to combustion-related fine particulate air pollution is
    an important environmental risk factor for cardiopulmonary and lung
    cancer mortality.''

    Cardiovascular and Lung Cancer Mortality Risks Increase with Exposure
    to Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) (Adapted from Pope, et al
    2002)
        At least six meta-analyses concluded that the relative risk of
    death from lung cancer ranges from 1.07-1.16. Additionally, 10%--20%
    cases of lung cancer worldwide occur in people who have never smoked.
    One meta-analysis reported that the estimated hazard ratio for death,
    adjusted for age, sex, and smoking status, was 113 (95% CI
    1G607-120) per 10 mg/m\3\ elevation in PM2.5.
        We urge the Committee to support $12 billion in funding for the
    Environmental Protection Agency.
        Investments in EPA programs are critical to protecting public
    health. On behalf of OUCH, I thank you for your consideration of these
    requests.

        [This statement was submitted by Joan H Schiller, MD, Chair,
    Steering Committee, Oncology Advocates United for Climate and Health
    International.]
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress
        The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) is writing to express
    its strong support for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS)
    Fisheries Restoration Irrigation Mitigation Act (FRIMA) program and is
    requesting $15 million in FY2025, which is the previously authorized
    amount. The FRIMA program is an essential cost-share funding program
    that helps water users and fishery agencies better protect sensitive,
    threatened, and endangered fish species while ensuring water supply
    delivery to farms and communities.
        OWRC was established in 1912 as a trade association to support the
    protection of water rights and promote the wise stewardship of water
    resources statewide. OWRC members are local governmental entities,
    which include irrigation districts, water control districts, drainage
    districts, water improvement districts, and other agricultural water
    suppliers that deliver water to roughly one-third of all irrigated land
    in Oregon. These water stewards operate complex water management
    systems, including water supply reservoirs, canals, pipelines, fish
    screens and fish passage, and hydropower facilities.
                             fy2025 appropriations
        The FRIMA program meets a critical need in fishery protection and
    restoration, complimenting other programs through USFWS. Fish passage
    and fish screen installations are a vital component to fishery
    protection with several benefits:

      --Keep sensitive, threatened and endangered fish out of canals and
            water delivery systems

      --Allow fish to be safely bypassed around reservoirs and other
            infrastructure

      --Reduce water quality risks to fish species

        There are over one hundred irrigation districts and other special
    districts in Oregon that provide water supplies to over one million
    acres of irrigated cropland in the state. Almost all these districts
    are affected by either State or Federal Endangered Species Act listings
    of salmon, steelhead, bull trout or other sensitive, threatened or
    endangered species. The design and installation of fish screens and
    fish passage facilities to protect the myriad of fish species is often
    cost-prohibitive for individual districts to implement without outside
    funding sources.
        The cost of addressing fish screening and fish passage needs in
    Oregon far outweighs current appropriations or the program
    authorization as a whole. Oregon irrigation districts anticipate at
    least $25 million in funding is needed to meet current fish passage and
    fish screen needs in our state alone. Limited cost-share funds are
    available from the Oregon Watershed Enhanced Board (OWEB), but the
    primary cost-share for fish screen and fish passage projects has been
    provided by the districts and their water users. Projects include
    construction of new fish screens and fish passage facilities as well as
    significant upgrades of existing facilities to meet new requirements
    (new species or science) from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service and the USFWS. Upgrades are
    often needed to modernize facilities with new technologies that provide
    better protection for fish species as well as reduced maintenance and
    increased lifespan for the operator.
       background of the fisheries restoration irrigation mitigation act
                                (frima) program
        FRIMA, originally enacted in November 2000, created a Federal
    partnership program incentivizing voluntary fish screen and fish
    passage improvements for water withdrawal projects in Idaho, Oregon,
    Washington and western Montana. The funding went to local governments
    for construction of fish screens and fish passage facilities and is
    matched with non-federal funding. Irrigation districts and other local
    governments that divert water for irrigation accessed the funding
    directly, while individual irrigators accessed funding through their
    local Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), which are local
    governments affiliated with USDA's Natural Resources Conservation
    Service (NRCS).
        The original legislation in 2000 (PL 106-502) was supported and
    requested by the Pacific Northwest Partnership, a coalition of local
    governmental entities in the four Northwest States, including OWRC. The
    FRIMA legislation authorized $25 million annually, to be divided
    equally among the four States from 2001 to 2012, which was when the
    original authorization expired. The actual funding appropriated to the
    FRIMA program (through Congressional write-ins) ranged from $1 million
    to $8 million, well short of the $25 million originally authorized and
    far short of what is needed to address fish passage and screening needs
    across the region. However, that small amount of funding was used to
    leverage other funds and assisted the region in making measurable
    progress towards installing fish screens and fish passage critical to
    protecting and restoring populations of sensitive, threatened, and
    endangered fish species.
        FRIMA funding was channeled through USFWS to state fishery agencies
    in the four States and distributed using an application and approval
    process based on a ranking system implemented uniformly among the
    States, including the following criteria: Fish restoration benefits,
    cost effectiveness, and feasibility of planned structure. All projects
    provided improved fish passage or fish protection at water diversion
    structures and benefitted native fish species in the area, including
    several state or federally listed species. Projects were also subject
    to applicable State and Federal requirements for project construction
    and operation.
        FRIMA was reauthorized as part of the Water Infrastructure
    Improvements for the Nation Act (WIIN) of 2016. However, a fifth state,
    California, was also added as an eligible FRIMA cost-share recipient
    and the program was only reauthorized for $15 million, well short of
    the estimated $500 million in fish screening and passage needs in the
    Pacific Northwest alone. Now that the program has been reauthorized, it
    is imperative the program receive appropriations so all five States can
    better leverage State and local funding to meet their fish passage and
    screening needs.
                                program benefits
        FRIMA projects provide immediate protection for fish and fills a
    large unmet need in the Western United States for cost-share assistance
    with fish screening and fish passage installation and improvements.
    Compared to other recovery strategies, installation of fish screens and
    fish passage has the highest assurance for increasing populations of
    sensitive, threatened, and endangered fish species in the Pacific
    Northwest. Furthermore, the construction of these facilities have
    minimal impact on water delivery operations, and projects are done
    cooperatively using methods well accepted by landowners and rural
    communities.
        Funding of the FRIMA program has catalyzed cooperative partnerships
    and innovative projects that provide immediate and long-term benefits
    to irrigators, fishery agencies, and local communities throughout the
    Pacific Northwest. This program is also a wise investment, with past
    projects contributing more than the required match and leveraging on
    average over one dollar for each Federal dollar invested. FRIMA
    provides for a maximum Federal cost-share of 65%, with the applicant's
    cost-share at 35% along with on-going maintenance and support of the
    structure for passage or screening purposes. Applicants operate the
    facilities and State agencies review and monitor the projects.
                           oregon projects & benefits
        Twenty-six fish screen or fish passage projects in Oregon were
    previously funded using FRIMA for part of the project financing. These
    projects have led to:

      --Installation of screens at 17 diversions or irrigation pumps

      --Removal or modification of 12 fish passage barriers

      --Three-hundred sixty-five miles of surface waters re-opened to safe
            fish passage

        In addition, the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has
    used some of the FRIMA funding to develop an inventory of needed fish
    screens and passages in the state. Grants ranged from just under $6,000
    to $400,000 in size with a local match averaging 64% of the project
    costs, well over the amount required under the act (35%). In other
    words, each Federal dollar invested in the FRIMA program generates a
    local investment of just over one dollar for the protection of fish
    species in the Pacific Northwest.
        The following are examples of how Oregon has effectively utilized
    FRIMA money.
        Santiam Water Control District: Fish screen project on a large 1050
    cubic feet per second (cfs) multipurpose water diversion project on the
    Santiam River (Willamette Basin) near Stayton, Oregon. Partners are the
    Santiam Water Control District, ODFW, Marion Soil and Water
    Conservation District, and the City of Stayton. Approved FRIMA funding
    of $400,000 leveraged a $1,200,000 total project cost. Species
    benefited included winter steelhead, spring Chinook, rainbow trout, and
    cutthroat trout.
        South Fork Little Butte Creek: Fish screen and fish passage project
    on a sixty-five cfs irrigation water diversion in the Rogue River Basin
    near Medford, Oregon. Partners are the Medford Irrigation District and
    ODFW. Approved FRIMA funding of $372,000 leveraged a $580,000 total
    project cost. Species benefited included listed summer and winter
    steelhead, Coho salmon, and cutthroat trout.
        Running Y (Geary Diversion): Fish screen project on a sixty cfs
    irrigation water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near Klamath
    Falls, Oregon. Partners are the Wocus Drainage District, ODFW, and
    Jeld-Wen Ranches. Approved FRIMA funding of $44,727 leveraged a total
    project cost of $149,000. Species benefited included listed red-band
    trout and short-nosed sucker.
        Lakeshore Gardens: Fish screen project on a two cfs irrigation
    water diversion in the upper Klamath Basin near Klamath Falls, Oregon.
    Partners are the Lakeshore Gardens Drainage District and ODFW. Approved
    FRIMA funding of $5,691 leveraged a total project cost of $18,970.
    Species benefited included red-band trout, short-nosed sucker and Lost
    River sucker.
                                   conclusion
        Providing funding for the FRIMA program fills a vital funding gap
    for fish screens and fish passage projects that are needed to protect
    and restore sensitive, threatened, and endangered fish species, which
    in turn benefits the economy, local communities, and the environment.
    Eligible FRIMA funded projects are ready for construction and will
    provide immediate habitat benefits for fish as well as jobs and
    economic revitalization for local communities. Dollar-for-dollar,
    providing screening and fish passage at diversions is one of the most
    cost-effective uses of restoration dollars, creating fishery protection
    at relatively low cost, with minimal risk and significant benefits.
        The return of a robustly funded FRIMA program will once again
    catalyze cooperative partnerships and innovative projects that provide
    immediate and long-term benefits to irrigators, fishery agencies, and
    local communities throughout the Pacific Northwest. We respectfully
    request an appropriation of $15 million for U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service's Fisheries Restoration Irrigation Mitigation Act program for
    FY2025.

        [This statement was submitted by April Snell, Executive Director,
    Oregon Water Resources Congress.]
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Oregon Water Resources Congress
        The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) is highly supportive of
    the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Clean Water State
    Revolving Fund Loan Program (CWSRF). OWRC respectfully requests FY2025
    appropriations for this program be increased to at least $3 billion, an
    increase from the $2.77 billion appropriated in FY2023 and FY2024 for
    the Clean Water and Drinking Water SRF programs. The CWSRF is an
    effective loan program that addresses critical water infrastructure
    needs while benefiting the environment, local communities, and the
    economy. As an existing and proven program, it is a perfect fit for
    increased investment during a time of need for climate and
    environmentally friendly infrastructure.
        OWRC was established in 1912 as a trade association to support the
    protection of water rights and promote the wise stewardship of water
    resources statewide. OWRC members are local governmental entities,
    which include irrigation districts, water control districts, drainage
    districts, water improvement districts, and other agricultural water
    suppliers that deliver water to roughly one-third of all irrigated land
    in Oregon. These water stewards operate complex water management
    systems, including water supply reservoirs, canals, pipelines, fish
    screens and fish passage, and hydropower production facilities.
                             fy2025 appropriations
        We recognize our country must make strategic investments with
    scarce resources. The CWSRF is a perfect example of the type of program
    that should have funding increased because it creates jobs while
    benefiting the environment and is an efficient return on taxpayer
    investment. CWSRF projects provide much needed construction and
    professional services jobs, particularly in rural areas facing economic
    hardship. Moreover, as a loan program, it is a wise investment that
    allows local communities to leverage their limited resources and
    address critical infrastructure needs that would otherwise be unmet.
        In Oregon, the CWSRF is administered by the Oregon Department of
    Environmental Quality (DEQ), which has updated its rules implementing
    the program to reflect new criteria enacted under the BIL. DEQ
    responsibly maintains the program through repaid loans, interest, fees,
    and available Federal capitalization grants. According to EPA, for
    every $1 of Federal capitalization funding, $3 worth of assistance is
    provided, leveraging available funds to maximize benefits for local
    communities, the environment, and the economy. Unfortunately, available
    funding for water infrastructure projects continues to be woefully
    insufficient to meet the growing water infrastructure funding needs in
    Oregon and nationwide. Appropriations for the CWSRF needs to be
    increased in FY2025, as authorized in the BIL, to support water
    infrastructure projects that are addressing these critical needs.
            background of cwsrf usage by oregon irrigation districts
        During the program's thirty-plus year history in Oregon, numerous
    OWRC member districts have successfully used CWSRF for projects that
    improve water quality and water conservation associated with water
    delivery diversions, canals, and pipelines throughout the state. OWRC
    and its members are highly supportive of the CWSRF, including promoting
    the program to our members, hosting workshops with agency staff, and
    annually submitting Federal appropriations testimony in support of
    increased funding for the CWSRF. We believe it is an important funding
    tool for irrigation districts and other water suppliers that are using
    it for innovative piping projects that provide multiple environmental
    and economic benefits.
        Numerous irrigation districts and other water suppliers need to
    pipe currently open canals, which significantly reduces sediment,
    improves water temperature, and provides other water quality benefits
    to rivers and streams. Piping immediately improves the efficiency of
    the water delivery system and helps increase available water supplies
    for aquatic life and irrigators alike. These projects also decrease
    energy consumption (from reduced pumping), and have opportunities for
    generating renewable energy, primarily through in-conduit hydropower.
    CWSRF is often an integral part of an overall package of local, State,
    and Federal funding sources necessitating a higher level of Federal
    loan funding availability for planned water infrastructure projects.
    Reductions in CWSRF appropriations could lead to loss of matching grant
    funding and delay or derail beneficial projects irrigation districts
    have been developing for years.
        The success Oregon districts have experienced using the loan
    program to design and implement multi-beneficial projects has led to
    increased applications to the CWSRF. Irrigation districts are once
    again eligible for a key funding element, principal forgiveness, up to
    50% and capped at $500,000 for projects in a distressed community or
    eligible for the Green Project Reserve designation. As a result, we
    expect to see even more interest in the program. OWRC is hopeful there
    will be enough funding available to complete projects that will not
    only benefit the environment and the patrons served by the water
    delivery system, but also benefit the rural economy.
                             cwsrf needs in oregon
        The appropriations for the CWSRF program prior to the BIL had
    fallen far short of what is needed to address critical water
    infrastructure needs in Oregon and across the Nation. This has led to
    fewer water infrastructure projects, and therefore a reduction in
    improvements to water quality and water conservation. However, OWRC is
    pleased with the 5-year commitment to increased funding authorized in
    the BIL. This Federal commitment is important as infrastructure needs
    have become more expensive and even more time critical.
        The most recent Oregon Intended Use Plan (IUP), updated on December
    20, 2023, includes forty-eight loan applications totaling $228,168,903
    in requested CWSRF funding. Currently, the Oregon CWSRF loan program
    has $209,476,794 net available to lend for state FY2024. DEQ can award
    a maximum individual loan amount of $31,421,519.
        The following irrigation district projects are included in the
    current FY2024 IUP. Increased funding will help catalyze many more
    projects like the ones below in Oregon and throughout the Nation.
                          oregon projects in fy24 iup
    arnold irrigation district (deschutes county)--$8,699,900 (ranked #5 in
                                   fy24 iup)
        Design and Construction, Infrastructure Resiliency and
    Modernization Project. The Arnold Irrigation District Infrastructure
    Resiliency and Modernization Project will enclose 11.9 miles (62,868
    length-feet) of open porous canal into leak-free piping resulting in
    the conservation of 11,083 acre-feet (AF) of water per year. Piping the
    canals has two immediate outcomes: (1) a substantial reduction in water
    quantity diverted; and (2) substantial increase of water quantity
    remaining instream. These outcomes have an immediate benefit to
    improving streamflow that will result in improvements to water quality,
    habitat, and habitat availability in the Deschutes River downstream
    from Wickiup Reservoir.
     east fork irrigation district (hood river county)--$4,000,000 (ranked
                                #1 in fy24 iup)
        Design and Construction, EFID Canal and Pipe Improvements. The
    proposed loan will support several water quality/water conservation
    projects that have been identified as high priority actions in recent
    East Fork Irrigation District planning studies. The primary projects
    will replace open canals or non-pressure rated pipe with pressure-rated
    pipe and pressure reducing stations; additional potential projects
    would reduce warm water return flows, reduce sediment and chemical
    inputs to the Hood River, reduce water loss and remove sediment from
    the system, reduce operation and maintenance costs, improve fish
    screening and increase instream flow. The proposed projects will meet
    multiple water quality improvement objectives including: 1) Decrease
    stream temperatures in the East Fork and mainstem Hood River; both
    reaches are covered by the Columbia-Hood River TMDL. 2) Reduce
    sediment, pesticide, fertilizer, and other chemical inputs to the East
    Fork Hood River, Neal Creek, and the mainstem Hood River, all of which
    have water quality 303(d) listings. This project is eligible for
    $2,000,000 in principle forgiveness under the Bipartisan Infrastructure
    Bill.
    medford irrigation district (jackson county)--$2,443,000 (ranked #15 in
                                   fy24 iup)
        Construction, Community Floating Solar. Medford Irrigation District
    is developing a floating community solar project to provide low-cost,
    locally produced, renewable energy to irrigators and area residents.
    The project will be installed on a reregulation reservoir owned by MID
    and located adjacent to MID's offices. It will be Oregon's first
    floating solar installation. The 0.9 MW project will generate an
    estimated 2 million kWh of electricity each year. Under Oregon's
    Community Solar Program, 40% of the energy produced by the project will
    be offered to local businesses, and 60% to Jackson County residents and
    at least 30% to low-income community members. The floating solar panels
    will have water quantity and water quality benefits for MID and its
    patrons. The panels will reduce evaporation from the reservoir,
    improving water supply reliability for agriculture. By shading the
    reservoir, the solar panels will also reduce water temperature in the
    summer, reducing the growth of algae and aquatic weeds and improving
    the quality of irrigation water delivered to farms and other users.
    Once complete, the project will achieve the following objectives:
    generate an estimated 2 million kWh of renewable energy annually;
    reduce electric utility bills for local businesses, irrigators and 100
    low-income households by up to 50%; reduce evaporation from the
    reservoir, conserving water for irrigation supplies; reduce algae
    growth in the reservoir, improving water quality for agriculture;
    create approximately $46,000 in annual revenue for MID to support
    District operations and future modernization projects.
     owyhee irrigation district (malheur county)--$500,000 (ranked #14 in
                                 the fy24 iud)
        Construction--Kingman Lateral First Mile Piping Project. Owyhee
    Irrigation District will construct 5,800 feet of piping of the Kingman
    Lateral canal to address embankment instability caused by seepage. The
    piping will prevent sediment loading and other water quality issues in
    the Owyhee River basin caused by seepage and/or catastrophic failure of
    this canal section. The project includes installation of pipe between
    the lateral headgate and a tunnel at the end of the worst problem
    section.
                  examples of green project reserves in oregon
        Oregon irrigation districts and other water suppliers are on the
    forefront of innovative piping projects that provide and leverage
    multiple benefits, including ``green'' infrastructure projects.
    Otherwise known as Green Project Reserve (GPR), DEQ is required to use
    at least 10 percent of annual Federal capitalization grants on projects
    that promote water and energy efficiency, are environmentally
    innovative, or include green infrastructure. Of the projects listed
    above, Arnold Irrigation District, East Fork Irrigation District, and
    Medford Irrigation District have qualifying GPR projects.
        Providing increased appropriations for the CWSRF program will help
    implement additional innovative and multi-benefit projects like these
    in Oregon and across the Nation.
                                   conclusion
        In conclusion, OWRC is strongly supportive of increased
    appropriations to the CWSRF program, allowing Oregon's DEQ to continue
    making targeted loans that address Clean Water Act issues and improve
    water quality while incentivizing innovative water management solutions
    that benefit local communities, agricultural economies, and the
    environment. This voluntary approach creates and promotes cooperation
    and collaborative solutions to complex water resources challenges. We
    respectfully request an appropriation of at least $3 billion for the
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Clean and Drinking Water State
    Revolving Loan Funds for FY2025.

        [This statement was submitted by April Snell, Executive Director,
    Oregon Water Resources Congress.]
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Outdoor Alliance

                                               Summary of Recommendations

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Agency                                      Program Funding Recommendations
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Department of Agriculture Forest Service\1\..........              --Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness: $70M
                                                                                                                 --Land Mgmt. Planning, Assessment, and Monitoring:
                                                                                                            $21.75M
                                                                   --Cap. Improvements & Maintenance, Trails: $30M,
                                                             including $15M for National Scenic and Historic Trails
                                                                  --Cap. Improvements & Maintenance, Roads: $109.5M
                                                                                                                 --Legacy Roads and Trails: $100M
                                                                             --Forest and Rangeland Research: $375M
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management.....                  --Recreation Resources Management: $100M
                                                                              --Resource Management Planning: $102M
                                                                                           --National Conservation Lands: $78M
                                                                                   --Wilderness Management: $27.67M
                                                                                     --National Trails System: $15M
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Department of Interior National Park Service.........         --National Recreation and Preservation: $136.85M,
                                                                 including $15M for Rivers, Trails and Conservation
                                                                                                         Assistance
                                                           --Park Service Operations for the National Trails System:
                                                                                                           $20.964M
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Environmental Protection Agency......................                           --BEACH Act Grant Program: $15M
                                                           --U.S./Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Grant Program:
                                                                                                              $100M
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Other Priorities.....................................                                                        --Land and Water Conservation Fund: $1.35B, including
                                                                                      $125M for Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ All Forest Service appropriations should be accompanied by a commensurate increase to Salaries & Expenses.

        Outdoor Alliance is a coalition of 10 member-based organizations
    representing the human powered outdoor recreation community. The
    coalition includes Access Fund, American Canoe Association, American
    Whitewater, International Mountain Bicycling Association, Winter
    Wildlands Alliance, The Mountaineers, the American Alpine Club, the
    Mazamas, Colorado Mountain Club, and Surfrider Foundation and
    represents the interests of the millions of Americans who climb,
    paddle, mountain bike, backcountry ski and snowshoe, and enjoy coastal
    recreation on our Nation's public lands, waters, and snowscapes.
        Federal public lands and waters provide outstanding opportunities
    for outdoor recreation, including at some of the world's most iconic
    recreation destinations. These recreation opportunities, as well as the
    irreplaceable cultural, ecological, and scenic values found across
    public lands, in turn support the growing outdoor recreation economy,
    which accounted for $1.1 trillion in gross economic output, 2.2 percent
    of U.S. GDP, and 5 million jobs in 2022.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ U.S. Bureau of Econ. Analysis, BEA 23-54, Outdoor Recreation
    Satellite Account, U.S. and States, 2022 (2023).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Due to decades of underinvestment, Federal land management agencies
    face staffing and resource challenges that have left them unable to
    meet modern needs related to recreation access, conservation, and
    sustainability. This trend of underfunding directly impacts the visitor
    experience on America's public lands and waters. Maintenance issues
    like trash, pollution, fire starts, and erosion have become more
    common, sometimes in a way that creates a public safety issue. In some
    cases, partner-led efforts to complete recreation infrastructure
    projects, such as trail systems, are delayed for years due to lack of
    capacity by agency staff to complete project planning. Moreover, the
    cost-of-living in many gateway communities has increased dramatically
    in recent years, and some land managers have been unable to fill
    recreation-related positions due to inadequate pay rates and cost-of-
    living concerns, particularly around housing. Investing in recreation
    and conservation programs will help fill this capacity gap, improve the
    visitor experience, and enable partner organizations to better invest
    in public lands and waters.
        Over the past decade, Federal public lands have benefited from
    historic investments from Congress through the Great American Outdoors
    Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the Inflation
    Reduction Act. Land managers are currently in the process of putting
    these funds to good use through a wide range of beneficial projects.
    While significant, these funds are not a substitute for adequate
    discretionary funding to support staffing and other basic needs of the
    agencies. Investing in Federal land management agencies will help
    ensure that mandatory dollars are expeditiously put into action to
    benefit the American public.
                              usda forest service
        Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness: $70M. The Recreation,
    Heritage, and Wilderness budget line item is the foundation of the
    USFS's recreation program. An increase is necessary to address
    inflation and cost-of-living for USFS employees and to account for a
    significant increase in recreational visits to USFS lands over the past
    decade. Between 2010 and 2020, funding for Recreation, Heritage, and
    Wilderness decreased 23% accounting for inflation, while recreational
    visits increased 17%.\3\ Funding this program at $70M would allow the
    agency to rebuild its recreation workforce, provide high-quality
    visitor experiences, and implement its new national recreation
    strategy: Reimagine Recreation.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Data are derived from agency budget justifications and NVUM 5-
    year visitation estimates.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Land Management Planning/Assessment/Monitoring: $21.750M. Forest
    plans form the foundation for sustainable recreation opportunities and
    restoration activities across our National Forests, but a majority of
    plans are outdated. An increase in funding will help the USFS increase
    the pace and scale of forest plan revisions and launch the Planning
    Service Organization-a new national organization to make forest
    planning more efficient and responsive to stakeholder input.
        Capital Improvements and Maintenance, Trails: $30M, including $15M
    for National Scenic & Historic Trails. The Forest Service manages more
    than 160,000 miles of trails, which provide access to extraordinary
    scenic, cultural, and ecological resources. Increasing trails funding
    will help the agency maintain and expand its trail system and
    strengthen trails partnerships.
        Capital Improvements and Maintenance, Roads: $109.5M. Forest
    Service roads, bridges, and parking lots are critical access points for
    outdoor recreationists. Significantly increased resources are needed to
    help the agency improve recreation access and increase the resilience
    of the extensive USFS road system to high use levels and extreme
    weather events.
        Legacy Roads and Trails: $100M. Outdoor Alliance supports the WA
    Watershed Restoration Initiative's request for Legacy Roads and Trails.
    Although Congress permanently authorized this program in the IIJA at
    $50M per year, this does not meet the need for road and trail repair,
    road decommissioning, and other needs. IIJA investments should be
    augmented with an additional $100M to prevent adverse impacts to water
    quality, habitat, and recreation from USFS roads.
        Forest and Rangeland Research: $375M. Forest Service research is
    critical to understanding our natural world. Increasing research
    funding will help address pressing ecological questions and develop new
    techniques for forest and rangeland management.
                           bureau of land management
        Recreation Resources Management: $100M. The Recreation Resources
    Management subactivity is the BLM's primary account for providing
    sustainable recreation opportunities. Despite overseeing more lands
    than any other Federal land manager, BLM's recreation funding has
    historically lagged considerably behind other agencies. Since 2006, BLM
    has seen a 25% reduction in real appropriations for Recreation
    Resources Management.\4\ Meanwhile, visitation to BLM lands has
    increased 46%, and the number of full-time equivalents under Recreation
    Resources Management has decreased by 25%.\5\ $100M will restore
    historic funding levels, enabling the agency to rebuild its workforce
    and implement its new national recreation strategy.\6\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ Historic funding data are derived from BLM budget
    justifications.
        \5\ Data are derived from BLM Public Lands Statistics reports and
    agency budget justifications.
        \6\ See, U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management,
    Bureau of Recreation and Visitor Services, The Bureau of Land
    Management's Blueprint for 21st Century Outdoor Recreation, Washington,
    DC (2023).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Resource Protection and Maintenance-Resource Management Planning:
    $102M. BLM planning ensures the best use of BLM lands, including
    balancing recreation with other multiple use values. Approximately 134
    of the BLM's 169 Resource Management Plans are outdated, and additional
    plans need to be completed for new National Monuments.
        National Conservation Lands: $78M. The National Conservation Lands
    system includes some of our country's marquee destinations for outdoor
    recreation. Investing in these lands is critical for their long-term
    protection and their ability to deliver economic benefits to local
    communities. Increased funding is needed to account for the increase in
    acres protected over the last 20 years, and to address the backlog of
    management plans for recently protected areas.
        Wilderness Management: $27.67M. BLM Wilderness lands, which include
    a network of 263 Wilderness areas and 487 Wilderness Study Areas
    totaling more than 21 million acres, provide some of the Nation's best
    opportunities for backcountry recreation. Funding will maintain these
    areas' Wilderness character, while sustaining irreplaceable ecological
    and cultural resources.
                             national park service
        National Recreation and Preservation: $136.85M, including $15M for
    the Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance program. NPS requires
    additional resources to meet the challenges of increased visitation,
    climate, and other stressors. Additionally, RTCA is a critically
    important program for helping local communities realize their visions
    for improved recreation resources.
                        environmental protection agency
        BEACH Act Grant Program: $15M. The BEACH Act grant program provides
    funding to coastal States to run their beach water quality monitoring
    and public notification programs. This funding is critical for
    protecting public health in areas valued for coastal recreation.
        U.S./Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Grant Program: $100M. This
    funding is needed to address a significant public health concern caused
    by sewage pollution from the Tijuana River affecting coastal recreation
    in southern California and Mexico. Funding will advance the EPA
    Comprehensive Infrastructure Solution to upgrade treatment facilities
    at the U.S./Mexico Border.
                        other appropriations priorities
        Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF): $1.35B, including $125M
    for the Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership. Congress guaranteed
    permanent dedicated funding of $900M per year to the LWCF through the
    GAOA. While significant, this funding is intended as a baseline for
    LWCF, and the number of time-sensitive projects seeking funding far
    surpasses $900M.
        National Trails System: We support an increase in appropriations
    for the National Trails System across agencies, including $20.964M at
    NPS, $15M at BLM, and $15M at USFS. This funding will ensure that
    Federal agencies and stewardship partners can keep these iconic trails
    accessible, maintained, and sustainable.

        [This statement was submitted by Louis Geltman, VP for Policy &
    Government Relations, Outdoor Alliance.]
                                     ______

              Prepared Statement of the Pacific Salmon Commission
        Mister Chair, and Honorable Members of the Committee, in March 1985
    the United States and Canada agreed to cooperate in the management,
    research and enhancement of Pacific salmon stocks of mutual concern by
    ratifying the Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST). I am Ron Allen, the Tribal
    Commissioner and Chair of the Finance and Administration Committee for
    the U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC). The U.S.
    Section prepares an annual budget for implementation of the Pacific
    Salmon Treaty. The United States and Canada completed revisions of five
    of the Annex Chapters to the PST in 2019. The Annex Chapters contain
    the details for operations of fisheries under the Treaty for 10 years,
    through 2029. The U.S. and Canada are entering negotiations to revise
    the Annex Chapters for another 10 years, through 2039.
        Funding to implement the PST comes from the Departments of
    Interior, Commerce, and State. The integrated budget details program
    needs and costs for Tribal, Federal, and State agencies involved in the
    Treaty. Tribal participation in the Treaty process is funded within the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) budget as a line item within Rights
    Protection Implementation. Our recommendations are as follows:
        In order to meet the increased obligations under the Pacific Salmon
    Treaty Agreement, the 25 affected Tribes identified costs at $7,420,000
    for Tribal research and monitoring projects and participation in the
    U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty process. This represents a 9.3%
    increase from FY 2023 levels and the FY 2024 CR. The funding for Tribal
    participation in the Pacific Salmon Treaty is a line item in the BIA's
    budget under Rights Protection Implementation.
        Under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service programs, the U.S. Section
    identified funding needs as follows:

        USFWS participation in the Treaty process is currently funded at
    $372,362. In addition, the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission
    (PSMFC) Regional Mark Center receives support from the USFWS to provide
    data services to the PSC process at $236,189 annually. The U.S. Section
    recommends increasing the funding for PSMFC by $150,000. The
    recommended total for the two programs for FY 2025 is $758,551. The
    USFWS received $4,700,000 for Pacific Salmon Treaty Implementation in
    the Hatchery Operations account starting in FY 2020. The USFWS uses
    these funds to work with State agencies and Tribes to implement
    projects on anadromous salmonids subject to the PST including producing
    hatchery salmon to offset Treaty fisheries impacts Southern Resident
    Killer Whales as required under the ESA. For FY 2025 the USFWS plans to
    transfer $400,000 of the additional funds to the BIA to support Tribal
    implementation of the PST. The U.S. Section recommends maintaining that
    level of funding for FY 2025.
        The base funding for the USFWS supports critically important on-
    going work and participation in the process. The funding for Pacific
    States Marine Fisheries Commission's Regional Mark Processing Center is
    utilized to meet Treaty requirements concerning data exchange with
    Canada. These program recommendations are integrated with those of
    participating State and Federal agencies to avoid duplication of effort
    and provide for the most efficient expenditure of limited funds.
        The U.S. Section of the PSC and the Treaty Tribes appreciate the
    increases in funding in recent years for the Tribes to implement the
    revised chapters of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. Tribal programs are
    essential for the United States to meet its international obligations.
    Tribal programs have taken on additional management responsibilities
    over time. All participating agencies need to be adequately supported
    to achieve a comprehensive U.S. effort to implement the Treaty. The
    U.S. Section of the PSC recommends the proposed increase in funding to
    support the work carried out by the twenty-five Treaty Tribes'
    participating in implementation of the Treaty. Programs carried out by
    the Tribes are closely coordinated with those of participating State
    and Federal agencies.
        The USFWS activities are essential, so the U.S. can maintain the
    coded wire tag database necessary to implement the Treaty. The work of
    the Regional Mark Processing Center includes maintaining and updating a
    coastwide computerized information management system for salmon harvest
    data as required by the Treaty. This work has become even more
    important to monitor the success of management actions aimed at
    reducing impacts on ESA-listed salmon populations. Canada has a
    counterpart database. The U.S. database will continue to be housed at
    the Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. The U.S. Section
    appreciates the $4,700,000 in the Hatchery Operations account of the
    USFWS budget to work with State agencies and Tribes on Treaty
    implementation. The U.S. Section recommends maintaining that funding
    for FY 2025.
        Funding to support activities under the Pacific Salmon Commission
    comes from the Departments of Interior, State, and Commerce. The U.S.
    Section can provide a cross-cut budget summary to the Committee.
    Adequate funding from all three Departments is necessary for the U.S.
    to meet its Treaty obligations. All the funds are needed for critical
    data collection and research activities directly related to the
    implementation and are used in cooperative programs involving Federal,
    State, and Tribal fishery agencies and the Department of Fisheries and
    Oceans in Canada. The commitment of the United States is matched by the
    commitment of the Government of Canada.
        Mister Chair, the United States and Canada established the Pacific
    Salmon Commission, under the Pacific Salmon Treaty of 1985, to conserve
    salmon stocks, provide for optimum production of salmon, and to control
    salmon interceptions. After thirty-eight years, the work of the Pacific
    Salmon Commission continues to be essential for the wise management of
    salmon in the Pacific Northwest, British Columbia, and Alaska. For
    example, upriver bright fall Chinook salmon from the Hanford Reach of
    the Columbia River are caught in large numbers in Alaskan and Canadian
    waters. Tribal and non-Tribal fishers harvest sockeye salmon from
    Canada's Fraser River in the Strait of Juan de Fuca and in Puget Sound.
    Canadian trollers off the west coast of Vancouver Island catch
    Washington coastal Coho salmon and Puget Sound Chinook salmon. In the
    Northern Boundary area between Canada and Alaska, fish from both
    countries are intercepted by the other country in large numbers.
        The Pacific Salmon Commission provides a forum to ensure
    cooperative management of salmon populations. The United States and
    Canada reached agreements for revised Annex Chapters for management of
    Chinook, Coho, Chum, Fraser River Sockeye and Pink, and transboundary
    salmon populations for the next 10 years. It is critically important to
    have adequate resources for U.S. participants to implement the revised
    agreements and protect our Tribal Treaty resources.
        Before the Pacific Salmon Treaty, fish wars often erupted with one
    or both countries overharvesting fish that were returning to the other
    country, to the detriment of the resource. At the time the Treaty was
    signed, Chinook salmon were in a severely depressed state because of
    overharvest in the ocean as well as environmental degradation in the
    spawning rivers. Under the Treaty, both countries committed to rebuild
    the depressed runs of Chinook stocks and recommitted to that goal in
    1999 when adopting a coastwide abundance-based approach to harvest
    management. Under this approach, harvest management has complemented
    habitat conservation and restoration activities undertaken by the
    States, Tribes, and other stakeholders in the Pacific Northwest to
    address the needs of salmon listed for protection under the Endangered
    Species Act. The updated Annex Chapters continue these commitments. The
    combination of these efforts is integral to achieving success in
    rebuilding and restoring healthy, sustainable salmon populations.
        Finally, you should consider that the value of the commercial
    harvest of salmon subject to the Treaty, managed at productive levels
    under the Treaty, supports the infrastructure of many coastal and
    inland communities. The value of the commercial, recreational
    fisheries, and the economic diversity they provide for local economies
    throughout the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, is immense. The Commission
    funded an economic study of fisheries and determined that this resource
    creates thousands of jobs and is a multi-billion-dollar industry. The
    value of these fish to the twenty-four Treaty Tribes in Washington,
    Oregon, and Idaho goes far beyond their monetary value, to the cultural
    and religious lives of American Indian people.
        The Commission funded a study to capture the socioeconomic value of
    the fisheries to U.S. Tribes and Canadian First Nations. A significant
    monetary investment is focused on salmon due to the listings of Pacific
    Northwest salmon populations under the Endangered Species Act. Given
    these resources, we continue to utilize the Pacific Salmon Commission
    to develop recommendations that help with the development and
    implementation of solutions to minimize impacts on listed stocks. We
    continue to work towards the true intent of the Treaty, and with your
    support, we will manage this shared resource for mutual enhancements
    and benefits.
        Mister Chair, that concludes my written testimony submitted for
    consideration by the Committee. I want to thank the Committee for the
    support that it has given the U.S. Section in the past. Please feel
    free to contact me, or other members of the U.S. Section to answer any
    questions you or Committee members may have regarding the U.S. Section
    of the Pacific Salmon Commission budget.

        [This statement was submitted by W. Ron Allen, Tribal Commissioner
    and Chair of the Finance and Administration.]
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Partnership for the National Trails System
        Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the
    Partnership for the National Trails System (PNTS). Use of the 32
    Congressionally designated National Scenic and Historic Trails (NSHTs)
    has grown substantially since the onset of the pandemic and is expected
    to continue to grow, making increased investment in National Trails
    System (NTS) critical to meet public demand. PNTS requests the
    following Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 funding for NSHT and the wider trails
    system on Federal lands:

      --Bureau of Land Management (BLM): $14 million for NSHT operations,
            as well as a minimum of $3.15 million for Historic Trail 145
            Interpretive Centers and $78.145 million for the wider National
            Conservation Lands.

      --National Park Service (NPS): $20.964 million for NSHT operations
            plus $15 million for the Rivers, Trails and Conservation
            Assistance (RTCA) program, at least $8 million for Volunteers
            in Parks, a minimum of $10.95 million for Visitor Services sub-
            activity Youth Partnership Programs and $125 million for the
            Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership.

      --U.S. Forest Service (USFS): $30 million for Trails with $15 million
            for NSHTs in the Capital Improvement and Maintenance (CMTL)
            account plus $70 million for Recreation, Heritage and
            Wilderness and $100 million for Legacy Roads and Trails.

        PNTS supports robust funding for the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund (LWCF) with up to $20 million set aside from the Federal land
    acquisition programs of the BLM, the NPS and the USFS for projects that
    complete NSHTs and protect side or connecting trails and viewsheds.
    Finally, we ask that Congress fully fund agency requests for deferred
    maintenance projects on NSHTs.
        Authorized through the 1968 National Trails System Act, the NTS
    includes 10 National Scenic Trails (NSTs) and 22 National Historic
    Trails (NHTs) that will eventually preserve over 62,000 miles of public
    trails, traversing all 50 States and the District of Columbia,
    connecting 84 national parks, 89 national forests, 70 national wildlife
    refuges, over 100 BLM public land areas and 179 national wilderness
    areas. The NTS continues to grow with new trails in the pipeline to be
    considered by Congress in 2025 and beyond. NSHTs represent a broad
    spectrum of our Nation's iconic landscapes and its natural and cultural
    heritage. From the Southern Appalachian Mountains to the wildest
    reaches of Alaska, the San Francisco Bay and the breathtaking coast of
    the ``Big Island'' of Hawaii, they feature diverse ecosystems and shine
    a light on the stories of the lands, the people and the United States
    as a nation such as the struggles for independence and equal rights,
    the forced relocation of Native Americans, the trails blazed by
    indigenous peoples, immigrants and pioneers and more.
        NSHTs are collaboratively managed with volunteer-based, private
    nonprofit partners and Federal administrators. In 2023 alone, nonprofit
    partners leveraged Federal funds to raise and invest over $56.5 million
    in private funding and volunteer hours on NSHTs. PNTS is the only
    national nonprofit focused on NSHTs. Our trail organization members are
    the primary partners working with the Federal agencies to cooperatively
    manage, construct, maintain, protect, and promote the NTS.
        PNTS is grateful for support for NSHTs, and all trails administered
    by the land management agencies that Congress has provided, in the
    FY2024 House Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. It will
    have an incredible impact on the general public and on local economies.
    We also thank you for the 2020 passage of the Great American Outdoors
    Act and urge the reauthorization of the Legacy Restoration Fund to
    continue to address the backlog of deferred maintenance to the Nation's
    trail system that is the result of inadequate ongoing regular funding
    and the impact of climate change reflected to increasing levels of
    wildfire and storms.
        Adequate annual funding is essential to achieving Congressional
    intent to provide high quality outdoor recreation opportunities for
    urban and rural communities on National Trails. It is up to Congress to
    ensure that adequate annual trail funding needs are met so the agencies
    and their nonprofit partners have sufficient resources to complete and
    maintain NSHTs to the necessary, expected and deserved standard. Public
    access to public lands is at stake.
              land management agency staffing and assessment needs
        The impact of funding increases for trail development and
    maintenance over the last several years cannot be fully realized
    without adequate agency staffing. For instance, the commitment to fund
    deferred maintenance through GAOA has been critically needed yet,
    without additional staff resources, the backlog continues to grow even
    as specific deferred maintenance is addressed.
        The administrative and field staff at Federal land agencies have
    been severely reduced over the past 20 years, leading to fewer 'boots
    on the ground' and less oversight. For example, many USFS positions
    were vacated over the last decade due to ``fire borrowing.'' While
    Congress fixed that budgetary issue years ago, the results linger, and
    agency staff has not been restored to its previous strength.
        Federal agency NSHT staff work collaboratively with nonprofit trail
    partners, providing crucial administration, oversight, skills, and
    expertise. Their guidance is key to the success of nonprofit partners
    as they fulfill their co-management responsibilities, and as they
    recruit, train and marshal tens of thousands of volunteers in public
    service. Staffing must be substantially increased to sustain the
    current NTS, and to increase its capacity should Congress choose to
    designate more NSHTs.
        As the Committee prepares the FY 2025 budget, PNTS requests
    increased funding for Federal staffing at land management agencies as
    noted below, including at least one dedicated superintendent or
    administrator per NSHT, with related direction for the agencies. PNTS
    requests report language to audit the centralized agency hiring
    practices, which have been identified as a roadblock to filling
    thousands of crucial vacancies. Centralizing hiring prevents land
    managers from quickly filling vacancies from local talent pools. The
    cumbersome process slows hiring so much that vacancies often go
    unfilled. This is especially true for short term or seasonal positions.
        Great disparities in the levels of funding appropriated to operate
    each NSHT exist, further exacerbating the staff limitations on these
    trails. For greater clarity and transparency and to ensure fiscally
    sound management of the NTS, PNTS requests the Committee direct
    agencies administering NSHT to conduct an assessment to examine the
    actual needs and costs of operating NSTs and NHTs to establish a
    baseline level of funding needed to operate and staff trails.
                        bureau of land management (blm)
        The BLM administers and manages NSHTs as part of its National
    Conservation Lands. BLM protects nearly 6,000 miles of 18 designated
    trails in 15 States, in addition to thousands of miles of trails under
    study for potential designation. It administers the Iditarod NHT and
    co-administers the Old Spanish and El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro NHT
    with the NPS.
        We are grateful that Congress included language in the FY 2022 bill
    to encourage BLM to restructure its budget and for noting a dedicated
    National Trails System budget line item as an example. Moving forward,
    we request Congress continue to its support of adding transparency to
    agency budgeting by instructing BLM to retain and effectively manage
    its line items for trails and for each NSHT in its budget. At a
    minimum, like the guidance the subcommittee provided to the USFS in FY
    2020, we ask that the FY 2025 bill direct BLM to include unit-level
    allocations within major sub-activities for each of the NSHTs as BLM
    has done for individual national monuments, wilderness areas, and
    conservation areas.
        PNTS requests including at least $14 million for NSHTs to
    administer, manage, maintain and improve the Trails under BLM
    jurisdiction on public lands and add or improve amenities for trails.
    This should include for interpretive planning and resource inventory
    work on the Iditarod NHT.
        PNTS also respectfully requests $78.154 million for overall
    management of the National Conservation Lands. This level of funding is
    needed to properly administer the system's expansion by 18 million
    acres since 2000, and will permit increased inventory, monitoring, and
    protection of cultural resources, enhance proper management of all
    resources and provide a quality visitor experience.
                          national park service (nps)
        The NPS administers 26 NSHTs established by Congress. Funding at
    $20.964 million within the Park Service Operations account for the
    NSHTs is essential for keeping these popular trails that connect people
    to iconic landscapes and the quintessential stories of the U.S., both
    past and present, accessible for all. This request will help the work
    of NPS and its nonprofit trail organization partners as they build,
    maintain, and interpret the trails.
        PNTS requests additional fund totaling for construction projects on
    the Ice Age NST ($55,000), the Overmountain Victory trail ($1 Millon),
    and for signage along the Washington Rochambeau Revolutionary Route in
    the run up to the event's 250th Anniversary ($150,000), and to fund the
    completion of the long overdue, Congressionally required Comprehensive
    Plan for the Potomac Heritage Trail.
        In addition, continued support for the RTCA program will provide
    NPS expertise in trail and other recreation access projects to
    communities across the country. When a community asks for assistance
    with a trail or other project, NPS staff provide critical tools for
    success, on-location facilitation, and planning expertise, which draw
    from project experiences across the country and adapt best practices to
    a community's specific needs. Funding at $15 million will ensure these
    trail planning services are available to communities in all regions of
    the Nation.
                           u.s. forest service (usfs)
        The USFS is the administering Federal agency for five NSTs
    (Arizona, Florida, Pacific Northwest, Continental Divide and Pacific
    Crest), one NHT (Nez Perce) and manages 16 NSHTs in part where they are
    on USFS managed lands.
        Funding for the USFS administered and managed portions of the NSHT
    comes from the CMTL account. In FY25, PNTS respectfully requests an
    appropriation of $30 million USFS managed trails, with $15 million
    specifically allocated to the NSHT. This funding will allow the USFS to
    meet its administering agency responsibilities such as trail-wide
    coordination, guidance, technical assistance, and consultation with
    National Trail managers. Congressionally designated NSHT are special
    places and have specific legislative requirements that are broader than
    typical trail construction and maintenance activities on National
    Forest System trails. These legislative requirements, particularly the
    requirement for volunteer engagement and partnerships with volunteer
    organizations, are unique to NSHT programs and form a core component of
    their administration. Funding the USFS NSHT at $15 million will assist
    the Service meet its management responsibilities. An additional
    $888,000 for new trail construction for priority reroute projects on
    the Arizona NST.
        As part of its ongoing 'budget modernization' project the USFS
    removed the salaries and travel expenses from the CMTL line. This makes
    it impossible for trail partner nonprofits to track staff time
    dedicated to national trails. Already, we've seen the loss of a
    dedicated trail administrator position in favor of a much broader,
    regional trail administrator position and consolidation of their
    duties. Such a trend would further overwhelm over-extended staff in a
    manner that threatens the quality and integrity of the NSHT. We
    respectfully ask that the subcommittee include language in its FY25
    appropriations bill that compels USFS to calculate and provide staff
    and travel expenses in addition to CMTL for the National Trails System
    trails or otherwise delineate those expenses for each NSHT in its
    budget.
        We request report language that encourages the Forest Service to
    prioritize funding for their private partners who can often leverage
    Federal funds with private dollars and volunteer labor to extend the
    impact of the Nation's investment in these trails
                    land and water conservation fund (lwcf)
        We appreciate and look forward to a minimum of $900 million in
    annual LWCF appropriations being utilized to protect public lands.
    Given the healthy pipeline of forthcoming land preservation projects on
    National Trails, PNTS respectfully requests Congress increase funding
    to a minimum of $20 million per year for the next 3 years for NSHT. The
    funding provides an important opportunity for agencies to prioritize
    voluntary trail land protection projects on Congressionally designated
    NSHTs. Dedicated funding would empower NSHT public and private partners
    to more actively pursue NHST projects to complete NSHTs.
        PNTS stands ready to work with you to secure critically important
    programs that help fund, maintain and protect the NTS across the
    Nation. The examples provided in the testimony of how the funding will
    be used represent only a small proportion of the work being done and
    funding needs of the NTS. PNTS would be happy to provide additional
    detailed information as needed. Thank you for the opportunity to
    provide this testimony and your consideration of our request for
    greater investment in our National Trails System.

        [This statement was submitted by Courtney Lyons Garcia, Executive
    Director, Partnership for the National Trails System.]
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge
        This testimony is being submitted on behalf of the Friends of
    Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge, which was formed in 1994 to
    support the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge. We appreciate the
    opportunity to submit comments on the fiscal year (FY) 2025 Interior
    Appropriations bill. We request Congress to allocate $602.3 million in
    funding for National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance
    account under the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
        Established in 1994, as the 502nd national wildlife refuge in the
    country, the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge and Management Area
    is located in rural southwestern Indiana, in Pike and Gibson counties.
    The refuge is 30 miles north of the city of Evansville, Indiana by way
    of State Road 57 and adjacent to the small towns of Oakland City along
    State Road 64 and Winslow on State Road 61.
        As of 2021 the Refuge was a mosaic of 10,295 acres of non-
    contiguous parcels, and the Refuge continues to grow. Acquisitions
    obtained each year from willing sellers move the Refuge closer to the
    completion of its authorized 22,472-acre boundary. This boundary
    stretches for 20 miles as the crow flies in an east-west direction
    along the lower third reach of the 162-mile-long Patoka River. It
    includes 30 miles of Patoka River channel, 19 miles of cut-off river
    oxbows, three miles of the South Fork Patoka River, and 12,700 acres of
    existing bottomland wetland habitat. Shaped by the last retreating
    glacier 10,000 years ago, the Patoka River meanders through the sand,
    gravel, and silt deposits from the glacial outwash.
        Lying within the Southern Bottomlands and Southwestern Lowlands
    Natural Regions, the principle natural habitat in the Patoka River
    Refuge is bottomland forested wetland. These wetlands provide some of
    the most productive wood duck nesting and brood-rearing habitat in the
    State. They also support several nesting colonies of great blue herons.
    A few select areas of old growth forest maintain a healthy population
    of nesting cerulean warblers. These and other species of neotropical
    migratory songbirds thrive in this rich ecosystem which lies within the
    historically important north-south flyway of the Wabash River Basin.
        Two outlying wildlife management areas (WMAs) are also managed out
    of the Patoka River Refuge headquarters. The 463-acre Cane Ridge WMA
    lies 24 miles to the west of Oakland City. This Wabash River bottoms
    property lies off the southwest corner of the 3,000-acre Gibson Lake.
    The 219-acre White River Bottoms WMA lies nine miles to the north of
    Oakland City, just to the northwest of Petersburg on the south side of
    the White River.
        The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System is to administer
    a national network of lands and waters for the conservation,
    management, and where appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife,
    and plant resources and their habitats within the United States for the
    benefit of present and future generations of Americans.
        For more information, visit the Refuge website at: www.fws.gov/
    refuge/patoka_river/
        The refuge provides an area for the community to get out and enjoy
    nature by hiking, fishing hunting, bird watching, painting, photography
    etc.. The refuge also protects Over 380 species of wildlife, including
    nesting bald eagles, the Federally endangered Indiana bat and the
    threatened northern copperbelly watersnake that reside upon the Refuge.
    At least 20 plant species and 63 animal species considered as
    threatened, endangered or of special concern by the State of Indiana
    live within this river valley. The friends group works on projects such
    as building trails, surveying wildlife and eradicating invasive
    species. In addition to this they offer programs and activities, and
    educating the public about this special place and what it has to offer.
    This year programs had included: In February a ``Species Spotlight'' on
    the Whooping Crane. In the not-so-distant past, Whooping Cranes faced
    near extinction throughout North America. Thanks to the widespread
    conservation efforts, their population is slowly growing. A few can
    frequently be seen at the Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge. March
    was ``An Evening with the Woodcocks'' a unique birding experience for
    the whole family. April was Wabash and Erie Canal Walk/Talk. Where
    there are places the canal can still be recognized to this day on the
    Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge. Also in April the Friends Group
    gave away 1000 trees to members of the community in support of
    conservation efforts and in celebration of Earth Day. May the 18th at
    10 AM Central Time is a program on Dragonflies and Damselflies.
    Additional programs are being planned for the remainder of the year.
        Since 2010 the Refuge System has added 21 new refuge units and 549
    million submerged marine acres, opened 6 million acres for hunting and
    fishing, and seen visitation grow to over 68 million annual visitors-an
    increase of 47 percent since FY2011. While these additions have
    enhanced the Refuge System and benefited the communities around these
    refuges, this growth has also put more pressure on the already stressed
    and underfunded Refuge System.
        Funding for the Refuge System has only increased by 4.7% since
    FY2010 to $527 million, or $5.55 per land acre. When accounting for
    total land and water acres, the Refuge System budget is a mere .62 per
    acre. Considering the level of inflation, annual fixed costs, and
    increased needs of the Refuge System since FY2010, the Refuge System
    budget has effectively decreased.
        The number of full-time employees (FTEs)-already a fraction of the
    other comparable Federal land agencies at 2,500 FTEs-has decreased by
    27% since FY2011. This has made it difficult for the Refuge System to
    manage its vast network of lands and waters and to fulfill its mission
    of conserving wildlife and habitats. The insufficient funding and
    capacity impacts are felt System-wide, impacting conservation planning,
    wildlife and habitat management, visitor services, law enforcement, and
    maintenance. No refuges are fully staffed, and more than half of
    refuges have zero staff on site. Multiple refuges have been closed to
    the public and are completely unmanaged. Many employees must manage
    multiple wildlife refuge units, sometimes traveling hundreds of miles
    per day. Many volunteer programs have also been cut back or eliminated
    due to a lack of supervision from professional FTEs or necessary
    infrastructure.
        **Anything further you want to say.
        We urge Congress to prioritize the Refuge System and address these
    overarching funding challenges to ensure that the USFWS is equipped to
    effectively manage the wildlife, habitat, programs, and visitorship
    that rely on the health and integrity of the Refuge System. Ultimately,
    the Refuge System needs at least $2.2 billion in annual appropriations
    to effectively fulfill its conservation mission, provide opportunities
    for wildlife-dependent recreation, and connect communities to nature.
    The President's FY2025 Budget Request of $602.3 million is an important
    step towards that goal.
        Thank you for considering our request of $602.3 million for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System in FY2025. Please feel free to contact
    Nancy Gehlhausen, President of the Friends of Patoka River National
    Wildlife Refuge, at naturegirl.gehlhausen@gmail.com, Phone: 812-457-
    4859, Address: 510 and One Half West Morton Street, Oakland City, IN
    47660

        [This statement was submitted by Lisa Clark, Board Member, Patoka
    River National Wildlife Refuge.]
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of Physicians for Social Responsibility
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony to
    highlight the funding priorities of Physicians for Social
    Responsibility (PSR) within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
    for fiscal year 2025 (FY25). PSR is a national non-profit organization
    that works to protect human life from the gravest threats to health and
    survival, namely climate change and nuclear war. Our 24,000 members and
    e-activists and over 20 chapters nationwide contribute a health
    perspective to energy, environmental health, and nuclear weapons policy
    at all levels of government. On behalf of our membership, we urge the
    Committee to support $12 billion in funding for the Environmental
    Protection Agency in fiscal year 2025.
        While the Nation, with EPA's leadership, has made great progress in
    cleaning up air pollution thanks to the directives of the Clean Air
    Act, poor air quality contributed to by a range of pollution sources
    continues to threaten health across the country. Exposure to emissions
    like particulate matter, ozone, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides can
    trigger asthma attacks, worsen lung conditions, lead to developmental
    and reproductive harm and even cause premature death. In addition to
    these severe impacts, climate change caused by carbon pollution is also
    a health emergency. Communities across the country are experiencing
    adverse health and mental health impacts due to changing climate
    conditions, such as increasingly frequent and severe natural disasters,
    record high temperatures, and stress on existing infrastructure, water
    systems and food production. Moving forward, we can avoid worsening
    some of the catastrophic impacts we're seeing now while also delivering
    immediate health benefits. EPA's work to protect public health from
    pollution and climate change is imperative and deserves robust,
    dedicated funding.
        EPA is also responsible for administering funds to States,
    localities, Tribes and communities to improve air quality and build
    resilience. Funding spurred by the Inflation Reduction Act is leading
    to additional improvements across the country and PSR supports its
    continued implementation. However, that funding does not replace the
    need for necessary and predictable funding of the agency's core
    programmatic work. Below, we have highlighted several key areas that
    are need of strong appropriations for FY25:
        Provide $915.5 million for EPA's Clean Air program. Robust funding
    for EPA's clean air work is necessary to meet the agency's
    responsibility under the Clean Air Act to protect health. This funding
    allows EPA to assist States, localities and Tribes with meeting Federal
    clean air standards by providing technical assistance, resources and
    expertise on how to clean up the sectors that contribute to air quality
    challenges. Please provide $694.6 million for Environmental Programs
    and Management and $220.9 million for Science and Technology.
        Provide $500 million for State and Local Air Quality Monitoring
    Grants and $57.4 million for Tribal Air Quality Monitoring Grants.
    State, local and Tribal air agencies receive grants from EPA to help
    maintain their air monitoring networks. Air agencies are operating
    under constrained budgets, impairing their ability to adequately
    maintain and improve air monitors. This funding is crucial to help
    inform the public about local air quality risks to their health and in
    identifying areas that are most in need of pollution cleanup.
        Provide at least $369.1 million for environmental justice efforts.
    Far too many communities are still waiting on the promise of clean air
    and a healthy environment. Targeted funding dedicated to improving air
    quality in disadvantaged communities and to advance the protection of
    those overburdened by pollution is necessary to close the gaps of
    health and environmental inequities.
        Provide $5 million for coal ash remediation. Coal ash constitutes
    the second-largest industrial waste stream in the U.S., second only to
    mining wastes. For decades, power plants disposed of coal ash by
    dumping it in unlined ponds, landfills, and mines where the toxic
    pollution could leak into the air, waterways, and groundwater. Coal ash
    routinely contains the neurotoxin mercury, cancer-causing elements such
    as cadmium, chromium and arsenic, and other dangerous substances.
    Exposure to coal ash can have negative impacts on all bodily systems
    and can contribute to mortality through cancer, heart disease,
    respiratory illnesses and birth defects. With new finalized regulations
    from EPA addressing coal ash remediation, proper funding must be
    ensured.
        Provide $150 million for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act and
    Support the Clean School Bus Program. The Diesel Emissions Reduction
    (DERA) Grant program continues to be a successful program that enjoys
    bipartisan support. According to EPA's 2022 report to Congress, the
    health benefits of diesel emissions reduction projects are cost-
    effective, with monetized health benefits estimated to exceed Federal
    funding by a factor of 10 to 1. However, there are still millions of
    dirty diesel engines that are polluting communities--particularly low-
    income areas and communities of color. We also urge the Committee to
    support the popular Clean School Bus Program. The program has already
    led to the replacement of dirty diesel school buses with cleaner zero-
    emission versions; PSR supports even greater adoption of zero-emission
    school buses.
        Provide $100 million for the Office of Air and Radiation/Indoor
    Environments Division and $10 million to EPA's Office of Children's
    Health Protection. Exposure to indoor air pollution can decrease school
    attendance, negatively impact test scores and worsen asthma symptoms,
    among other negative health impacts. PSR strongly supports the
    prioritization of indoor air quality through building decarbonization,
    promotion of energy efficiency, and decreasing the use of fossil fuels
    in homes. Outside of the home, educators and school personnel need
    education, training and resources to implement effective prevention
    measures. A 2020 GAO report found that 41% of school districts were in
    need of HVAC repairs in at least half of their schools. Additionally,
    the Office of Children's Health Protection plays a critical role in
    researching children's risks and exposures in school and childcare
    facilities.
        Provide $15 million for wildfire smoke preparedness. Wildfire smoke
    is an urgent and increasing threat to public health, and it is not
    confined to western areas of the country. In 2023, wildfires in Canada
    and the Northeast set off unprecedented air quality alerts down the
    East Coast, increasing emergency department visits for asthma-related
    conditions. EPA plays a vital role in forecasting and communicating the
    impacts of wildfire smoke.
        Oppose all policy riders. Lastly, PSR strongly opposes the
    inclusion of policy riders that would weaken clean air or other
    environmental protections, particularly those that would undermine the
    Clean Air Act and its benefits to public health. We urge the Committee
    to reject policy riders in appropriations bills.
        Investments in EPA programs are critical to protecting public
    health and our shared climate. On behalf of Physicians for Social
    Responsibility, I thank you for your consideration of these requests.

        [This statement was submitted by Brian Campbell, PhD, Executive
    Director, Physicians for Social Responsibility.]
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of Prairie Wetlands Learning Center
        I am submitting this testimony as a retired U.S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service employee and current volunteer at the Prairie Wetlands Learning
    Center, part of the Fergus Falls Wetland Management District in Fergus
    Falls, Minnesota and part of the National Wildlife Refuge System. I was
    employed there for 18 years ending last summer. Thank you for the
    opportunity to submit comments on the fiscal year (FY) 2025 Interior
    Appropriations bill. I request Congress to allocate $602.3 million in
    funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and
    Maintenance account under the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
    (USFWS).
                        prairie wetlands learning center
        The award-winning Prairie Wetlands Learning Center (PWLC) sets an
    example to all of the USFWS in visitor services, especially innovation
    and effectiveness in environmental education. However, the USFWS fails
    to prioritize and adequately staff the facility to serve the public due
    to chronic inadequate funding from Congress. The visitor center has
    only been open one day per week to walk-in visitors for the last 2
    years due to declining staffing. The only USFWS employee currently
    working there is a maintenance professional.
        Visitor services have been significantly reduced for its former
    70,000 annual walk-in visitors, preschool through college classes,
    youth, and families. The PWLC no longer offers USFWS staff-led
    educational programming for preschool through college-level classes
    visiting the center with the exception of two visits per year with
    Fergus Falls Public Schools 3rd graders. Since most teachers prefer
    staff-led visits, the Prairie is void of the delighted voices of
    thousands of children from over 30 communities who visited up to 3
    times per year for the past 15 years. The PWLC no longer offers
    preschool through 6th grade summer nature programs, residential
    educational experiences for 5th grade and older, the Jr. Friends of the
    PWLC for youth, numerous special events for the public, and much more.
    Monarch tagging has been severely reduced at a critical time for this
    vanishing species. The PWLC has been tagging monarchs with students and
    the public longer than any other site in the National Wildlife Refuge
    System.
        The USFWS has recently invested large sums of Federal funds in
    building and parking lot renovations (which I applaud) but cannot staff
    the facilities to keep the doors open. The epitome of government waste.
    This is what flatlining agency budgets looks like on the ground. Who
    are the Fergus Falls Public Schools supposed to partner with for the
    new school they propose to build across Highway 210 from the PWLC
    entrance?
        This past winter, a former Friends of the PWLC president and I
    alerted the public to this staffing crisis. As a result of the public
    response, USFWS regional director Will Meeks committed to filling two
    of the four vacant positions by fall. Filling two vacancies sets us in
    the right direction, and at a minimum, we need the other two filled for
    a fully staffed and fully operational facility. It is past time for
    Congress to do its part to reverse this trend for the PWLC as well as
    for hundreds of sites in the National Wildlife Refuge System across the
    country.
                              friends of the pwlc
        The Friends of the PWLC are contributing to resolving this chronic
    and urgent matter by securing grant funds to temporarily hire a few
    seasonal naturalists (myself included) to keep the few remaining
    services afloat. However, it is not the role of Friends groups to
    permanently fix this ongoing crisis. It is Congress' job to provide
    Federal funding to fill Federal positions. I urge Congress to prevent
    frustrating and morale busting emergencies like this from happening
    again and to fully and sustainably fund and staff the internationally
    recognized PWLC so it can return to full staff capacity and full
    operations serving the public.

        The Friends of the PWLC:

      --Promote conservation and understanding of the prairie pothole
            region

      --Support activities of the Prairie Wetlands Learning Center

      --Creatively generate funds and foster volunteer involvement at the
            PWLC.

      --Solicit community, regional, Statewide and Federal support.

        More specifically, the Friends own and operate the Bluestem Store,
    welcome visitors, help staff events, provide funding for an education
    intern, help administer the annual Summer Explorers Biology Camp and
    concurrent Teaching in the Outdoor Classroom Workshop, publish a
    quarterly newsletter and The Compass to Nature booklet, sponsor a
    narrow photography contest, and donate thousands of hours of volunteer
    time to the PWLC. They have raised funds for construction of a teaching
    greenhouse and continue to fund a naturalist position.
                           pwlc and western minnesota
        The PWLC is so vital to western Minnesota that the city of Fergus
    Falls unanimously passed a resolution in support of fully funding,
    staffing and operating the facility. The city of Fergus Falls is the
    first Prairie City USA, has been a signatory to the Mayors Monarch
    Pledge for 5 years, has established numerous pockets of prairie in city
    parks and sites, and is a Fergus Falls Wetland Management District
    Partner of the Year. In large part, these achievements have occurred
    because of outreach efforts of PWLC staff into the community over more
    than 25 years.
        The city and USFWS have worked in close partnership since 1998
    through a Memorandum of Understanding. The city owns the PWLC
    buildings, while the USFWS owns the remaining acreage as Townsend
    Waterfowl Production Area and provides staff and most maintenance. The
    USFWS also works in close partnership with Fergus Falls Public Schools
    through another MOU for housing and operating the Prairie Science Class
    since 2003, where the same 200, 4th and 5th graders spend half of every
    school day over 9 months at the Prairie, taught mainly by school
    district teachers, indoors and outside daily.
        These two most vital partnerships are the resulting legacy started
    in the 1970s by dedicated, visionary, passionate, local conservation
    heroes. They flourished among many other partnerships not only in
    Fergus Falls but beyond in western Minnesota that thrived with a fully
    staffed and fully operational PWLC.
        The PWLC is our best connection to prairie wetlands ecology and
    conservation in the vast Prairie Pothole Region creating and supporting
    a citizenry that is literate and active in land stewardship. People of
    all ages, abilities and backgrounds CAN once again engage with USFWS
    professional conservation educators outdoors in meaningful ways that
    leads to respect for and a positive relationship with the natural world
    that sustains us all.
                            america's refuge system
        The staffing crisis at the PWLC is symptomatic of a larger, long-
    term problem in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service which can be fixed
    by Congress providing funding that keeps up with costs instead of
    flatlining the agency's budget for the past 10 years. Hundreds of sites
    across the country in the National Wildlife Refuge System, including
    the PWLC, are hurting for funds for staffing and suffering from a lack
    of professionals to keep visitor services in operation and to conserve
    wildlife and the habitats they need to survive.
        Since 2010 the Refuge System has added 21 new refuge units and 549
    million submerged marine acres, opened 6 million acres for hunting and
    fishing, and seen visitation grow to over 68 million annual visitors-an
    increase of 47 percent since FY2011. While these additions have
    enhanced the Refuge System and benefited the communities around these
    refuges, this growth has also put more pressure on the already stressed
    and underfunded Refuge System.
        Funding for the Refuge System has only increased by 4.7% since
    FY2010 to $527 million, or $5.55 per land acre. When accounting for
    total land and water acres, the Refuge System budget is a mere .62 per
    acre. Considering the level of inflation, annual fixed costs, and
    increased needs of the Refuge System since FY2010, the Refuge System
    budget has effectively decreased.
        The number of full-time employees (FTEs)-already a fraction of the
    other comparable Federal land agencies at 2,500 FTEs-has decreased by
    27% since FY2011. This has made it difficult for the Refuge System to
    manage its vast network of lands and waters and to fulfill its mission
    of conserving wildlife and habitats. The insufficient funding and
    capacity impacts are felt System-wide, impacting conservation planning,
    wildlife and habitat management, visitor services, law enforcement, and
    maintenance. No refuges are fully staffed, and more than half of
    refuges have zero staff on site. Multiple refuges have been closed to
    the public and are completely unmanaged. Many employees must manage
    multiple wildlife refuge units, sometimes traveling hundreds of miles
    per day. Many volunteer programs have also been cut back or eliminated
    due to a lack of supervision from professional FTEs or necessary
    infrastructure.
        I urge Congress to prioritize the Refuge System and address these
    overarching funding challenges to ensure that the USFWS is equipped to
    effectively manage the wildlife, habitat, programs, and visitorship
    that rely on the health and integrity of the Refuge System. Ultimately,
    the Refuge System needs at least $2.2 billion in annual appropriations
    to effectively fulfill its conservation mission, provide opportunities
    for wildlife-dependent recreation, and connect communities to nature.
    The President's FY2025 Budget Request of $602.3 million is an important
    step towards that goal.
        Thank you for considering my request of $602.3 million for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System in FY2025. Thank you for your effective
    attention to this matter.
        Please feel free to contact me at msprairiefairie@gmail.com or cell
    218-770-7291.

        [This statement was submitted by Molly Stoddard.]
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of Preservation Action
        Chair Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski and Members of the
    subcommittee, on behalf of Preservation Action's thousands of members
    and supporters--representing nearly every State--we appreciate the
    opportunity to present written testimony on the Department of
    Interior's FY 2025 Appropriations for the National Park Service and its
    historic preservation programs. Founded in 1974, Preservation Action is
    a 501(c)4 nonprofit created to serve as the National grassroots
    advocacy organization for historic preservation. We represent an active
    and engaged grassroots constituency from across the country, and this
    testimony reflects their priorities.
        Preservation Action's mission is to demonstrate that historic
    preservation is a national priority. For 50 years we've advocated for
    sound preservation policy, including two of the most important Federal
    tools for historic preservation: the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF)
    and the Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC).
        First, we would like to thank the subcommittee for their continued
    support of historic preservation programs and priorities--especially
    for including language to reauthorize the Historic Preservation Fund
    for 1 year in your FY24 Interior Appropriations bill. No doubt the
    Committee's support was instrumental in HPF authorization being
    included in the final bill. Thanks to your support, all Americans
    continue to benefit from programs that have a proven track record of
    saving places Americans value, revitalizing communities, combating
    climate change, promoting heritage tourism, and creating jobs. In
    Fiscal Year 2024 the HPF was funded at $188.66 million, a nearly $16
    million cut below 2023 enacted levels. While we recognize the
    challenging budget, these cuts undermine the critical preservation work
    carried out by the program.
            national park service: historic preservation fund (hpf)
        The HPF is the principal source of funding to implement the
    Nation's historic preservation programs. Since 1976 the HPF has helped
    to recognize, save, revitalize, and protect America's historic
    resources.
        HPF funding is critical to ensure State and Tribal Historic
    Preservation Offices (SHPOs/THPOs), whose job it is to administer
    Federal historic preservation programs, have the staffing capacity
    needed for the timely review of infrastructure, renewable energy, and
    other Federal projects, per requirements under the National Historic
    Preservation Act. In FY 2022 SHPOs reviewed and consulted on 177,400
    Federal undertakings (a 42.7% increase over FY 2021), provided 83,200
    National Register eligibility opinions and surveyed over 5.3 million
    acres for cultural resources.
        HPF's competitive grant programs preserve, document, and exhibit
    diverse histories. These programs address a wide variety of
    preservation needs across the country and fund various types of work.
    In 2019, the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department was awarded a
    $665,000 Paul Bruhn Historic Revitalization grant to implement a grant
    program for the preservation of historic theaters in rural communities.
    Eight theaters received between $80,000-$90,000 to repair and preserve
    their venues. In 2023, the Chilkoot Indian Association received a Save
    America's Treasures grant for the stabilization and rehabilitation of
    the Noow Hit Tribal house. Noow Hit is the last surviving example of
    Lingit vernacular architecture in Haines, Alaska and this $744,507
    grant preserves the knowledge of traditional construction techniques.
        Preservation Action appreciates the support this Committee has
    shown for the HPF, but more is needed. The bipartisan Infrastructure
    Investment and Jobs Act has added significantly to the workload of
    SHPOs and THPOs and cuts to HPF grant programs, like the ones mentioned
    above, undermine preservation efforts and the economic development
    these programs produce.

      --Preservation Action recommends this subcommittee support historic
            preservation by appropriating $225 million in funding for the
            Historic Preservation Fund in FY25's Department of Interior
            budget, including funding at the following levels:

      --$70 million for State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs). SHPOs
            carry out the primary functions of the National Historic
            Preservation Act: finding and documenting America's historic
            places, nominating places to the National Register, aiding
            rehabilitation tax credit projects, reviewing impacts of
            Federal projects, working with local governments, and
            conducting preservation education and planning. Due to 2023
            changes to SHPO apportionments, 23 States did not receive an
            increase in funding from 2022 to 2023.

      --$40 million for Save America's Treasures Program. The Save
            America's Treasures grants program helps preserve nationally
            significant historic properties and collections that convey our
            Nation's rich heritage to future generations of Americans.

      --$34 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs).
            THPOs are designated by federally recognized Tribal governments
            and assume the Federal compliance role of the SHPO on Tribal
            lands. Tribal historic preservation plans are based on
            traditional knowledge and cultural values, and often involve
            projects to improve Indian schools, roads, health clinics and
            housing. THPOs are chronically underfunded. Funding levels have
            not kept pace with the growing number of Indian Tribes with
            THPO programs, resulting in a lower average apportionments per
            tribe.

      --$28 million for the African American Civil Rights Initiative
            Grants. A competitive grant program to preserve the sites and
            stories of the African American struggle to gain equal rights.

      --$13 million for Historically Black Colleges and Universities
            (HBCUs). Funding provides grants to HBCUs to preserve and
            repair historic buildings on their campuses.

      --$17 million for Paul Bruhn Historic Revitalization Subgrants.
            Supports the rehabilitation of historic properties and fosters
            economic development of rural communities through subgrants.

      --$11 million for the Semiquincentennial Grants. Competitive grant
            program that preserves publicly-owned historic sites
            commemorating the 250th anniversary of the founding of the U.S.

      --$7 million for the History of Equal Rights Grant Program. A
            competitive grant program to preserve sites and stories related
            to the struggle of all Americans to achieve equal rights.

      --$5 million for the Under-Represented Communities Grant Program.
            Competitive grants that support the survey and nomination of
            properties to the National Register of Historic Places
            associated with under-represented communities.
         total fy 2025 historic preservation fund request: $225 million
        Additionally, we are grateful to Congress for reauthorizing the HPF
    for 1-year as part of the FY24 Appropriations bill and urge support for
    a longer-term authorization. Preservation Action supports the
    bipartisan Historic Preservation Fund Reauthorization Act (H.R. 3350),
    which would reauthorize the HPF for 10 years and increase the
    authorized level to $250 million annually. This would provide much-
    needed certainty to the States, Tribes, and local communities that rely
    on this funding to carry out their critical preservation work.

      --Preservation Action encourages inclusion of language to reauthorize
            the Historic Preservation Fund and increase the authorized
            level. The HPF's authorization has not been increased since the
            program's inception in 1976 and the program's current
            authorization is set to expire in September of this year.
    national park service: federal historic rehabilitation tax credit (htc)
        The HTC, administered by SHPOs, THPOs, and the National Park
    Service is the most significant Federal investment in historic
    preservation. The HTC supports historic rehabilitation projects across
    the country, like the recent rehabilitation of the Patton Home in
    Portland, OR. The Patton Home was built in 1890 to provide shelter and
    social services to those and need and is now continuing that tradition
    by providing affordable housing to Portland's neediest residents. The
    HTC has been a catalyst for development and job creation, and is
    responsible for:

      --Rehabilitating more than 49,000 historic buildings across the
            Nation.

      --Leveraging over $235 billion in private investment.

      --Creating more than 3.2 million jobs since its inception.

      --Producing over 199,000 affordable housing units.

      --Rehabilitating buildings and revitalizing communities in all 50
            States.

      --Returning more to the Treasury than the cost of the program.

        Preservation Action supports the bipartisan Historic Tax Credit
    Growth and Opportunity Act (H.R 1785, S. 639), which would increase the
    value of the HTC, improve access to the credit, and make the credit
    more appealing for smaller projects.

      --Preservation Action urges the Committee to support the HTC by
            sufficiently funding SHPOs, THPOs and the National Park Service
            who administer the program.
      national park service: african-american burial grounds preservation
                                    program
        The African American Burial Grounds Preservation Program was
    established by Congress in 2023 and was included in the President's
    budget request. This program will identify, document, preserve,
    research, and interpret these historic and sacred burial sites whose
    protection and documentation has too often been neglected or forgotten.

      --Preservation Action supports $3 million in funding for the newly
            authorized, African-American Burial Grounds Preservation
            Program.
                 national park service: national heritage areas
        Designated by Congress, National Heritage Areas (NHAs) are
    community-driven sites that weave cultural, natural, and historic
    resources together to tell nationally significant stories. NHAs rely on
    public-private funding where every Federal dollar allocated is matched
    with an average of $5.50 in public and private funds.

      --We express our support for $34 million for the Heritage Partnership
            Program, which supports National Heritage Areas nationwide.
            This funding level keeps individual NHAs at their existing
            funding levels while providing funding for newly authorized
            NHAs.
         independent agency: advisory council on historic preservation
        The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) is an
    independent Federal agency that promotes the preservation, enhancement,
    and sustainable use of the Nation's diverse historic resources, and
    advises the President and Congress on national historic preservation
    policy. We appreciate the continued support of this important agency.

      --Preservation Action recommends the Committee support $10.5 million
            for the ACHP. This will enhance the critical functions of the
            agency: ensuring the Nation's historic and cultural resources
            are protected, advancing Tribal consultation, and finding
            efficiencies to deliver timely Federal review of major
            infrastructure projects.
                                   conclusion
        Preservation Action appreciates the opportunity to provide our
    views on the FY25 Department of Interior budget. We work closely with a
    broad cross-section of preservation professionals from the State and
    local level and are pleased to add their perspective through our
    testimony. We value the dedicated work of National Park Service
    employees, partnership with the Advisory Council on Historic
    Preservation, and the instrumental work of SHPOs and THPOs in
    preserving our cultural heritage.
        Thank you for valuing the input of the preservation community as
    you consider the FY25 funding levels and your past support of vital
    historic preservation programs. We look forward to working with the
    committee and are happy to answer any questions.

        [This statement was submitted by Russ Carnahan, President,
    Preservation Action.]
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Public Lands Foundation
        We thank you for this opportunity to present the subcommittee with
    our views regarding the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) budget for FY
    2025. As a national, non-profit organization with more than 600
    members, comprised principally of retired BLM employees, the Public
    Lands Foundation (PLF) has a unique body of experience, expertise, and
    knowledge of public land management. As retirees, we believe we offer
    an objective and non-bureaucratic view of what is currently happening
    on the public lands managed by the BLM. The PLF supports the BLM and
    its programs, but we are independent in our views and requests. We
    strive to improve the effectiveness of the BLM by: 1) encouraging
    professionalism of its employees; 2) increasing the public's
    understanding of and support for the proper management of the public
    lands; and 3) promoting scientific management of lands administered by
    the BLM. The PLF supports a proposed FY 2025 budget of $1.6 billion for
    the BLM. The PLF also identifies additional funding needs in this
    written testimony.
                       bureau of land management overview
        The BLM manages the most diverse landscapes in the Nation's
    portfolio; providing stewardship to approximately 245 million acres of
    land and 700 million acres of mineral estate from the north slope of
    Alaska to Jupiter Inlet in Florida, and from tundra to old growth
    forests to desert landscapes. These lands consist of many attributes,
    habitat for thousands of species of plants and animals, clean water,
    cultural resources, scenic beauty, solitude, and special places. They
    also provide the Nation with wealth from its many resources including
    oil and gas, coal, renewable energy, non-energy minerals, all types of
    recreation, livestock grazing, timber, and wild horses and burros. The
    economic value of these lands to the American people is immense;
    according to the BLM: A Sound Investment for America 2022 report,
    during Fiscal Year 2021 these lands supported $201 billion in economic
    output and nearly 783,000 jobs. These lands are important economically
    to all taxpayers and are especially vital to the many rural communities
    throughout the West that are intermixed with these lands and whose
    citizens work and recreate on the lands. The BLM manages for a balance
    between energy development and other programs, such as wildlife,
    livestock grazing, forest management, and recreation to provide for the
    diversity of uses and maintenance of healthy, resilient landscapes.
                   workforce capacity and organization health
        Three years ago Secretary Haaland made the decision to move the BLM
    Headquarters back to Washington, D.C. The PLF strongly supports that
    decision. This decision places the leadership of the BLM where it can
    better work with the Department, other agencies, OMB, Congress and
    National constituencies, while maintaining its western presence through
    its State and Field Office organizations. The reorganization in 2019
    and 2020 resulted in the loss of a large part of the senior level staff
    of the agency through reassignments to other agencies or retirements.
    This reorganization, along with the Covid-19 pandemic, resulted in a
    huge number of vacancies across the Bureau, estimated to be 25 percent
    of the full-time positions in 2023. BLM has reduced that number to a
    vacancy rate of around 19 percent, but more effort in FY 2025 is
    required. These vacancies affect the Bureau at all levels of the
    organization. The loss of capacity is impacting the BLM in efficiently
    meeting its multiple use and sustained yield mission, along with the
    additional workload that goes with implementing new initiatives such as
    the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA). This lack of
    capacity is PLF's greatest concern for FY 2025. We request that
    Congress appropriate additional funding to cover workforce planning,
    hiring, and training as well as establishing more efficient hiring
    mechanisms. A 19 percent vacancy rate is significant and unacceptable.
                              greater sage-grouse
        An area of great interest to the PLF is the management of habitat
    for species across the diverse landscapes the BLM manages. Habitat for
    the greater sage-grouse is one species of particular concern because
    its management affects vast areas of the West. As the West has become
    urbanized over the last 100 years, large areas of sagebrush have been
    impacted and the bird has suffered population declines. Although it is
    a State-managed species, the BLM manages large areas of the habitat
    across the western States and must be in lock step with management
    strategies of the western States. The PLF fully supports the $71
    million funding for the BLM to coordinate activities on the public
    lands with State agencies, stakeholders, and partners to improve and
    restore habitat that has been damaged by wildfire, weed invasions, and
    development. Conserving and restoring habitat for sage-grouse will also
    enhance populations of elk, mule deer, golden eagles, and hundreds of
    other species. Healthy sagebrush habitats also sustain vibrant ranching
    communities dependent on these habitats and a thriving outdoor
    recreation economy.
                             wild horse and burros
        Wild horse and burro populations continue to be an issue. Our
    assessment of the May 2020 Report to Congress is that it presented a
    conservative estimate of what it would take to achieve a sustainable
    wild horse and burro program. Unfortunately, entering FY 2024, the
    program is $50 million behind in needed cumulative funding and over $70
    million behind what was needed for Program Year 4 . This has resulted
    in a disconnect between ability to gather excess animals, apply
    fertility control and regather for continued application of fertility
    drugs, and cover the cost of caring for animals removed from the range.
    Inadequate numbers are being gathered and inadequate numbers are being
    treated with fertility control drugs as priority is necessarily given
    to caring for animals that have already been removed. It will only be a
    matter of years before the populations on the range return to the 2020
    levels. We urge the Congress to revisit the May 2020 Report and fund
    the Program Year 3 level of $185 million in an effort to get back on
    track to a sustainable, although delayed, basis.
                   wildland fire/rangeland and forest health
        Several Administrations and Congresses have recognized that
    catastrophic wildland fires continue to be a serious issue across all
    land ownerships. These fires are the result of several conditions
    across the landscape including climate change, deteriorating forest and
    rangeland health, increased recreational use, and increased development
    within the wildland-urban interface. Providing adequate funding for
    wildfire preparedness and suppression is critical and we appreciate the
    past funding made available. Equally important is the need to reduce
    wildland fuel loads and improve forest and rangeland health and
    resiliency through active management. The land management agencies have
    been working to reduce wildland fire risks over the past few decades;
    however, there has not been adequate funding for the agencies to
    address the problem at the pace and scale needed. We appreciate
    Congress recognizing this need and providing funding through the
    Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the Inflation Reduction Act. This
    additional funding will allow the agencies to increase the pace and
    scale of this important work. The PLF fully supports the
    recommendations of the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management
    Commission and encourages the Congress to provide the funding necessary
    to start implementation of the consensus-based recmommendations,
    particularily those related to providing for workforce capacitiy. The
    PLF requests that the BLM and other land management agencies be fully
    funded for wildland fire suppression and landscape health and
    resiliency projects.
        An increasingly growing need confronting BLM's forest management
    program is post-disturbance reforestation. Large wildfires over the
    last several years are creating a backlog that funding and
    appropriations in this program cannot keep up with the reforestation
    need. The BLM is faced with the need to procure seedlings, complete
    site preparation and planting of damaged areas, and conduct treatments
    to assure planted seedlings survive. One very successful tool the BLM
    has to help fund forest restoration projects is the Forest Ecosystem
    Health and Recovery Fund (FEHRF). In 1992, Congress established the
    FEHRF (Public Law 102-381) to authorize the BLM to recover dead and
    dying timber rapidly and restore the forested area quickly. This Fund
    was later broadened to include forest health treatments. The Fund
    provided that the Federal share of monies received from the disposal of
    the timber from these treatments would remain available, without
    further appropriation, for the BLM to conduct similar treatments. Since
    that time, the BLM has successfully treated tens of thousands of acres
    using this authority. It has been an important source of funds on the
    O&C lands, but in particular on the Public Domain forestlands to
    restore the health of forests. Authority for this fund had sunset;
    however, it was reauthorized for 1 year through the Consolidated
    Appropriations Act for 2023 and again in the 2024 Appropriation. We
    appreciate the Committee including this important authority; however
    year-by-year reauthorization makes it very difficult to conduct
    treatments that may take multiple years to complete. We strongly
    encourage the Congress to restore authority for this important funding
    tool permanently, or in the alternative, for a period of not less than
    10 years.
                              rangeland management
        The BLM administers approximately 18,000 grazing permits on nearly
    22,000 grazing allotments. Grazing permits are generally renewed every
    10 years. A proper renewal requires an appropriate level of NEPA
    analysis to ensure healthy rangelands and conserve and protect lands
    and other important resources. There is a backlog of approximately
    10,845 permit renewals as of November 2023 with 1,445 expiring in the
    next year. A priority needs to be placed on the funding for the
    analysis and review of those permits impacting riparian areas and those
    permits not meeting rangeland health standards. Some reports have
    indicated that 54 million acres, or half of the 108 million acres of
    BLM grazing leases, do not meet rangeland health standards. If the BLM
    is unable to conduct the reviews and analyses necessary to administer
    these permit renewals, it will not only affect the range management
    program but also all other programs. This backlog of permit renewals
    exposes the agency to litigation that will consume more manpower and
    financial resources. The PLF strongly urges Congress to appropriate an
    additional $8 million specifically for the analyses and administration
    of grazing permit renewals for each of the next 3 years, starting in FY
    2025. At the proposed funding level, the BLM is only committing to
    renewing 1,000 permits in FY2025, a losing battle.
                                   recreation
        The BLM has seen a dramatic increase in the recreational use of the
    public lands. Western communities are growing and recent national
    trends toward more remote work have allowed more employees to locate
    nearer public lands. One of the attractions of the public land is the
    broad spectrum of recreation activities that the public lands support,
    both dispersed recreation and developed recreation sites. In 1993, the
    BLM recreation program budget was $47 million. Adjusted for inflation,
    the FY 2025 appropriation should be $98 million just to break even with
    the much reduced workload of 30 years ago. The 2025 budget only
    proposes $61.5 million, a shortfall of $36 million. Without adequate
    and sustained increases, the adverse impacts on the public lands from
    ever-increasing recreation use will continue to be significant and the
    recreational visitor will have less than positive experiences. In FY
    2023, the BLM counted 85 million recreation visits, a 35 percent
    increase just since 2015, with most of the increase occurring in the
    last 3 years.
                     foundation for america's public lands
        The current administration recently established the Foundation for
    America's Public Lands, which was authorized by Congress in 2017. This
    Foundation is being tasked with providing supplemental resources and
    support to the BLM which will benefit all Americans who value and use
    BLM-administered public lands. Congress needs to provide sufficient
    funding in FY 2025 to allow the Foundation to become fully functional
    and begin its work on behalf of the BLM.
                        a good investment for the public
        The public lands managed by the BLM are a good investment that can
    provide positive returns to the Treasury as well as many amenities that
    contribute to the wellbeing of the American people. These lands are the
    lifeblood of many communities that provide economic development in
    commodities, recreation, cultural identity, and many other benefits.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share the PLF's priorities for the
    BLM FY 2025 Budget.

        [This statement was submitted by Mary Jo Rugwell, President, Public
    Lands Foundation.]
                                     ______

                     Prepared Statement of Pueblo of Acoma
    Recommendations:

        1. BIA--$1.5 million in dedicated funding for NAGPRA
    implementation.

        2. BIA--$1 million for implementation of the Safeguard Tribal
    Objects of Patrimony Act.

        3. BIA--$40 million for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices.

        4. DOI--Maintain the funding moratorium for energy leasing in the
    Greater Chaco Region.

        5. DOI--Increase funding for all public lands conservation
    accounts.

        6. IHS--Provide permanent advance appropriations for the Indian
    health system.

        7. IHS--Designate Section 105(l) lease and CSC payments as
    mandatory funding.

        8. IHS--Increase SDPI funding to $250 million with annual inflation
    adjustments.

        9. IHS--Increase funding for Preventive Health Services.

        10. DOI--Support Funding for Indian Water Rights Settlements.

        11. BIA--Not less than $90 million for the BIA Roads Maintenance
    Program.

        12. DOI--Provide targeted funding totaling $ 59 million for
    community development.

        13. BIA--$40 million for Mesa Hill Bridge Project under Tribal
    Transportation Account.

        14. BIA OTS--Increase support for traditional irrigation
    infrastructure projects.

        15. BIE--$15 million to establish Regional BIE Tele-Education
    Learning Centers.

        16. BIA--Not less than $8 million for the BIA Endangered Species
    Program.

        17. DOI--$48 million for the BIA Tribal Climate Resilience Program.
                      safeguard tribal cultural patrimony
        1. $1.5 Million for Native American Graves Protection and
    Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) Enforcement. The provision of dedicated
    NAGPRA enforcement funding has supported the creation of a new FTE
    position committed to the protection of Tribal patrimony, as well as
    Bureau-wide trainings on the law and the harmful consequences that can
    ensue when it is violated. This is contributing directly to the
    development of a more culturally competent understanding of the
    importance of Tribal patrimony to Native peoples for improved law
    enforcement activities. We ask that this funding be maintained in FY
    2025 and beyond.
        2. $3 Million for Funding Implementation of the Safeguard Tribal
    Objects of Patrimony (STOP). Act. This law, passed in the last
    Congress, will assure the protection of many sensitive Tribal items
    from illegal export. It is important to put in place the necessary
    resources in the Federal Government to enable this law to be
    implemented. We request that at least $1 million be allocated for FY
    2025 for the purposes of implementation and enforcement of this law.
        3. $40 Million for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs).
    The preservation of Tribal sacred and cultural sites is a priority for
    all Indian Country. Damage of these sites is often irreversible,
    forever altering the way in which we can express ourselves as
    indigenous people. More Tribes are establishing THPOs under the
    National Historic Preservation Act to protect this heritage, yet
    Federal funding has not kept pace with this expansion. It is thus
    difficult for Tribal governments to meet their preservation compliance
    duties and responsibilities, which include working with other
    governments on site identification, conducting surveys, compiling data
    and samples, documenting best practices, and assisting in museums and
    research centers that preserve and share Tribal material culture. We
    request $40 million for THPO support in FY 2025.
        4. Maintain the Funding Moratorium Related to Energy Leasing in the
    Greater Chaco Region. We request that Congress maintain the moratorium
    on oil and gas leasing on Federal land in the withdrawal area of the
    Greater Chaco Region. We request this moratorium span the lifetime of
    the legislation rather than becoming ineffective upon completion of the
    ongoing Tribally-led cultural resource studies. However, if a temporal
    limit must be included, we ask the moratorium stay in place until
    completion of the studies and the Resource Management Plan Amendment.
        5. Increase Funding for All Public Lands Conservation Program
    Accounts. Acoma's religious, cultural, social, and ancestral identity
    is rooted in the land of Bears Ears, Mount Taylor, and Chaco Canyon-
    among countless other sacred landscapes in the region. Any reductions
    in the Federal protections accorded to these lands per their status as
    National Monuments, Forests, Parks, or Wilderness Areas necessarily
    impacts our cultural and spiritual interests. The failure to provide
    minimum appropriations to carry out Federal public lands management
    responsibilities impairs the ability of Interior agencies to fulfill
    trust obligations and places invaluable Tribal resources at risk. We
    urge Congress to provide increased funding for public lands
    conservation programs across the Department of Interior, including the
    NPS, USFS, USFWS, BIA, and BLM.
              promote the health and well-being of indian country
        6. Provide Permanent Advance Appropriations for the Indian Health
    System. We ask for full funding for the IHS on a permanent 2-year
    advance appropriations cycle to fulfill the United States' obligation
    to provide for Indian health. This advance appropriation has occurred
    for FY 2024 but needs to be made permanent. We strongly support the IHS
    Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup's recommendation for $53.85 billion
    to fully fund the Indian health system budget. It is vital that this
    funding be consistently provided on an advance appropriations basis to
    promote greater stability in services, medical personnel recruitment
    and retention, and facilities management. Indian health should not be
    subject to the uncertainties of the annual budgeting process with its
    risk of continuing resolutions and government shutdowns. Critically,
    advance appropriations would align Federal funding with trust and
    treaty obligations. It would also provide the IHS long overdue parity
    with the Veterans Health Administration. We also urge the Committee to
    expand advance appropriations to the entirety of the four main
    appropriations accounts: services, facilities, contract support costs,
    and payment for Tribal leases.
        7. Mandatory Funding for Contract Support Costs (CSC) and Section
    105(l) Lease Payments. We appreciate this subcommittee's commitment to
    ensuring that CSC and Section 105(l) lease costs are fully funded by
    including an indefinite discretionary appropriation in past years. We
    ask that Congress build on this important work in FY 2025 by
    designating these accounts as mandatory funding. CSC and Section 105(l)
    lease funds are already an entitlement under the Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act. Changing the appropriation
    of these accounts from discretionary to mandatory would bring Federal
    funding into line with the clear legal requirements of the authorizing
    statute.
        8. $250 Million with Self-Governance Funding Mechanism Option for
    the Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI). Indian Country has
    seen dramatic improvements in the prevention and treatment of diabetes
    and diabetes-related conditions under SDPI. For program stability and
    expansion, we seek an increase in mandatory funding to $250 million
    with automatic annual adjustments for medical inflation. We also ask
    that Congress authorize the use of either a grant (as currently used)
    or Public Law 93-638 funding mechanisms for SDPI participants
    consistent with our Tribal sovereignty.
        9. Increase Funding for Preventive Health Services. Acoma's
    experience with the Acoma-Canoncito-Laguna Hospital crisis and the
    vulnerabilities in the Indian health system revealed by the pandemic
    has taught us the critical value of preventive health. Such services
    are a cost-effective use of resources to reduce future incidence rates
    of chronic illness, acute conditions, and associated medical costs. We
    urge an increase in funding for IHS Preventive Health Services as an
    investment in future Indian health.
              construct safe tribal communities and infrastructure
        10. Support Funding for Indian Water Rights Settlements. The Pueblo
    of Acoma, along with other parties, has negotiated a water rights
    settlement with the United States and the State of New Mexico (Rio San
    Jose Water Settlement) that has just been introduced in the House and
    Senate. We ask that the Congress support full funding for Indian water
    rights and would like to note that the President's FY 2025 budget
    proposal includes funding to ``build on Bipartisan Infrastructure Law
    investments by providing $2.8 billion in additional mandatory funding
    to the Indian Water Rights Settlement Completion Fund, as well as $226
    million in discretionary funding to meet existing settlement
    obligations.''
        11. Not Less Than $90 Million for the BIA Road Maintenance Program.
    Funding for the BIA Road Maintenance program has been chronically below
    the level of demonstrated need. In FY 2021, the BIA received only
    $36.79 million to address a nationwide deferred maintenance backlog of
    almost $300 million-an equivalent to only 12% of documented need. It
    costs our Pueblo alone over $650,000 to maintain the 363.8 miles
    included on the BIA road inventory within our exterior boundaries (a
    further 298.2 miles are not on the inventory). We receive insufficient
    funding to cover these costs and are, thus, forced to use our limited
    Tribal funds to maintain Federal roads. Congress must start to
    alleviate this heavy financial burden by providing not less than $90
    million for BIA Roads Maintenance in FY 2025.
        12. $59 Million for Community Economic Development Projects. We
    seek $59 million in targeted funding to support the development of
    shovel-ready community economic projects that would greatly benefit our
    Tribe and our citizens. Specifically, these are (1) full reconstruction
    of the fifty-year old Haaku Road that has structural failures
    throughout its length, contributing directly to dozens of vehicle
    crashes over the years ($25 million request), and (2) development of
    the Acoma Business Park corridor that is planned to include a business
    incubator, retail and service enterprises, post office, and new housing
    to create jobs and generate revenue ($34 million request).
        13. $40 Million for Mesa Hill Bridge Project under BIA Tribal
    Transportation Account. Acoma is bisected by a major transcontinental
    railway that is level with the existing roadway with minimal safety
    features. The flat terrain, lack of a fixed schedule for freight
    trains, and misjudgments on train speed and distance pose a significant
    public safety risk to motorists and pedestrians. Distressingly, there
    is no way to avoid the danger. Our healthcare and businesses are
    located on the north side of the tracks, while our community service
    facilities-such as Head Start, residential areas, and government
    buildings-are in the south. Our people must face the daily challenge of
    traversing the tracks to bring their children to school or attend
    medical appointments without the safety of an elevated crossing.
    Despite the clear threat to public safety posed by this situation, we
    have faced repeated barriers in accessing the necessary funds to
    construct the Mesa Hill Bridge. We urge Congress to provide $40 million
    in targeted funding under the BIA Tribal Transportation Program to
    construct the Mesa Hill Bridge at Acoma Pueblo.
        14. Increase BIA Irrigation Infrastructure Funding. Congress
    enacted the Pueblo Irrigation Infrastructure Act as Section 9106 of the
    Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009. This
        Act directs the Secretary of the Interior to conduct a study of the
    irrigation infrastructure of the Rio Grande Pueblos, including Acoma.
    It also authorizes funding to address deficiencies identified by that
    study. The implementation of this act will favorably impact Pueblo
    traditional lifestyle and culture, which has been based on agriculture
    and irrigated lands for hundreds of years. We urge Congress to increase
    support for BIA irrigation projects on all New Mexico Pueblos in FY
    2025.
        15. Establish Regional BIE Tele-Education Learning Centers.
    Broadband is an essential service rapidly changing the educational
    landscape in rural communities. Acoma, however, continues to face
    significant challenges in this area stemming, in part, from a woefully
    inadequate municipal infrastructure and limited economic and
    educational resources. Rural education does not and should not mean
    limited opportunities for growth and development. We seek to expand
    Acoma's horizons by connecting Pueblo members with previously unheard-
    of access to local tele-educational resources. We ask for targeted
    funding for regional BIE tele-education learning facilities with an
    initial allocation of $15 million to establish the account.
                     protect wildlife and natural resources
        16. Not Less Than $8 Million for the BIA Endangered Species
    Program. The effective management and conservation of our natural
    resources is not limited to the waters, soil, and trees that form the
    rich landscape of Pueblo Country. We must also account and
    appropriately care for the diversity of wildlife that is meaningful to
    our culture and essential to maintaining our ecosystems' equilibrium.
    The BIA Endangered Species Program provides Tribal nations with the
    technical assistance and financial resources to protect endangered
    species on Tribal lands through natural resources restoration and
    management, as well as economic development. We recommend Congress
    provide at least $8 million for the BIA Endangered Species Program.
        17. $48 Million for the Tribal Climate Resilience Program and
    Adequately Fund Cooperative Landscape Conservation Programs. Across
    America, communities are facing mounting challenges related to our
    progressively unstable natural environment. Invasive species,
    disappearing tree lines, and accelerated rates of erosion are also
    taking an increasing toll on our agricultural and natural resources.
    These two Interior programs equip Tribal nations with the tools to
    manage resource stressors, develop adaptive management plans, and
    engage in intergovernmental coordination. We request Congress
    appropriate $48 million for the BIA Tribal Climate Resilience Program
    and restore adequate funding for Department-wide Cooperative Landscape
    Conservation programs.

        [This statement was submitted by Governor Randall Vicente, Pueblo
    of Acoma.]
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of Ramah Navajo School Board
        Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc. (RNSB) operates a complex of Head
    Start, Elementary, Junior High and High Schools, as well as the Pine
    Hill Health Center and Behavioral Health and Social Services programs
    on the Ramah Navajo Reservation in New Mexico. In 1970, RNSB, Inc.
    established the Ramah Navajo High School, the first Indian community
    school governed by an all-Indian, locally controlled school board. Our
    efforts were a model for the groundbreaking 1975 Indian Self-
    Determination and Educational Assistance Act, PL 93-638 (ISDEAA). In
    1978, we established health services under the ISDEAA. Today, RNSB,
    Inc. provides quality services and programs to address our community's
    needs and uplift their economic conditions.
        RNSB Inc. would like to express deep appreciation to Representative
    Gabe Vasquez for introducing bipartisan legislation to extend Federal
    Employee Retirement System (FERS) benefits to teachers and staff in
    Tribally Controlled Schools (H.R. 5669). We would also like to express
    deep appreciation for the Replacement Facilities Construction funding
    that has been allocated to replace some of our most dilapidated school
    buildings. RNSB, Inc.'s priority budget concerns include line items in
    the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), Bureau Indian Affairs (BIA), and
    Indian Health Service (IHS) budgets. We also have significant facility
    and infrastructure challenges that must be addressed to be able to
    deliver our programs and services safely and without disruptions.
    RNSB, Inc.'s Education priorities for the BIE and BIA budgets are:

      --$950 million for ISEP Formula Funds (BIE) to provide equitable per
            student funding, and ensure full funding for Teacher Pay Parity
            (BIE);

      --Ensure that all the employees of BIE-funded schools receive Federal
            Employees Retirement System (FERS) benefits (BIE);

      --Increases for Student Transportation (BIE) and Road Maintenance for
            School Bus Routes (BIA);

      --Full and Forward funding for Facilities Operations and Facilities
            Maintenance (BIE);

      --Significant improvements to Maximo, the Facilities Management
            System; and

      --Education Construction (BIE).

        RNSB, Inc.'s Health priorities for the IHS budget are:

      --$54 billion for full and mandatory funding for the Indian Health
            Service;

      --Provide Tribal Communities with supplemental resources to recover
            from the effects of COVID, protect against the next pandemic,
            and address the opioid epidemic;

      --Increased support for emergency response capabilities; and

      --Funding for Staff Housing and Administrative Complex Replacement.
                                   education
        ISEP Formula Funds is the core BIE account, which funds our
    school's operations, but it is severely underfunded. Underfunding ISEP
    means that RNSB, Inc. does not have the budget to compete with the
    teacher salaries and benefits being offered by public schools here in
    New Mexico, or with any other jurisdiction for that matter. Without
    equitable funding, we will continue to struggle to attract and retain
    quality teachers. Without quality teachers, we cannot offer our
    students a quality education--it is as simple as that. We ask the
    subcommittees to equitably fund ISEP Formula Funds and we ask that the
    subcommittees to continue to hold the BIE accountable for ensuring that
    the amounts requested for teacher and counselor pay parity are
    sufficient to match the increases provided by the Defense Department
    schools and are clearly calculated and identified for each school.
    Further, given the significant salary increases for public school
    teachers in New Mexico, RNSB, Inc. also encourages consideration for
    pay rate increases that would keep pace with either the Defense
    Department schools, or the rate of nearby public schools, whichever of
    these rates is higher.
        Ensuring that all the employees of BIE-funded schools receive
    Federal Employees Retirement System Benefits (FERS) is critical.
    Representative Vasquez's Parity for Tribal Educators Act (H.R. 5669) is
    urgently needed. RNSB, Inc. observes that while Tribally Controlled
    Schools and BIE-operated schools are both part of the BIE-funded school
    system, it only the teachers and staff in BIE-operated schools who are
    eligible to receive FERS benefits. This disparity puts Tribally
    Controlled Schools like ours at a significant disadvantage and has the
    effect of undermining the intent of Congress in the Indian Self-
    Determination and Educational Assistance Act and the Tribally
    Controlled Schools Act, Public Law 100-297. As stated in Senate Report
    118-83, accompanying the FY 2024 Consolidated Appropriations Act, ``Any
    policy denying Federal benefits to employees carrying out a Federal
    trust responsibility is incompatible with the Federal policy of self-
    determination.''
        Increases for Student Transportation in the BIE Budget and Road
    Maintenance Funding for School Bus Routes in the BIA Budget are of
    particular importance to RNSB, Inc. Our experience is consistent with
    what the Government Accountability Office (GAO) reported in 2017: poor
    road conditions on school bus routes present safety concerns and pose
    obstacles to student attendance. Our school is in a high-elevation high
    desert mountainous region where we receive abundant snowfall in the
    wintertime and when the snow melts the dirt roads become a sea of mud.
    Many of our students travel long distances on unpaved (gravel) and
    unimproved earth roads. A strong rain or snowstorm can render our
    school bus routes impassible and disrupt learning for days. Also, as
    the GAO pointed out, our geographically dispersed locations and poor
    road conditions result in increased transportation costs for fuel,
    additional vehicle maintenance, and the increased bus driver pay
    associated with our rural and isolated routes. RNSB, Inc. is greatly
    concerned by the increased costs for Student Transportation and the
    continued deteriorating conditions of the roads serving our
    communities. Most Tribally Controlled Schools on the Navajo Nation
    exhaust their student transportation funds by February of each school
    year.
        Full and Forward funding for Facilities Operations and Facilities
    Maintenance is long overdue. The amount of funding that is provided for
    our school Facilities Operations and Facilities Maintenance accounts is
    at 51%. Additionally, appropriations for these accounts have been
    funded in bits and pieces via numerous Continuing Resolutions for the
    last several decades. Because these two core operating accounts are not
    forward funded like the rest of our core school operations accounts, we
    constantly have to move money from our forward accounts to cover things
    like our monthly utility bills and our ongoing maintenance needs. The
    funds we do receive are sent to Pine Hill Schools randomly and at
    different intervals throughout the fiscal year. This makes it very
    difficult to operate our school and complete our annual reports.
        Significant improvements to Maximo, the Facilities Management
    System, and are needed. All the schools in the BIE-funded school system
    are expected to upload our facilities management deficiencies into the
    Maximo system. The Maximo system poses a barrier in reporting
    deficiencies and funding for projects needed at the school. The system
    is far more complex than most users are capable of. The awarding of
    funds and the approval process in Maximo also takes far too long. The
    awarding officials at the Indian Affairs Division of Facilities
    Management and Construction (DFMC) do not approve or provide feedback
    in a timely manner and in the meantime, the quotes we receive expire.
    This makes it extremely difficult to find contractors who will work
    with us. We have found that the only way to receive timely responses
    from the DFMC is if we travel to Washington, DC to request meetings
    with Federal officials or if we involve our Congressional delegation in
    the process. Further, the projects we pay for out of our ISEP funds are
    not reimbursed. The Pine Hill Schools have paid for numerous
    deficiencies dating back to 2004 that have never been reimbursed, and
    now we are now hearing that the DFMC is considering limiting
    reimbursements to only 2 years back! Finally, the DFMC now requires
    schools to pay for items under $10,000, when the threshold used to be
    $2,500. We need a computer system that is user-friendly or funds to pay
    the salaries of trained IT personnel to manage Maximo at each school, a
    quick response to our inquiries and requests for funding, to be
    reimbursed for all the projects we have previously paid for with our
    ISEP funds, and we need adequate facilities funding.
        Education Construction. RNSB, Inc. deeply appreciates being
    approved for Replacement Facilities Construction funding to address
    severe deficiencies in many of our school buildings. We are concerned;
    however, about the timing and the scope of this funding. Specifically,
    we operate our various education and health programs with a unified
    administration and support staff housed all in one administration
    building. As part of the planning for the Replacement Facility
    Construction process, were informed that the new administration
    building could only be built large enough to accommodate staff who work
    on Education, not Health. Because these programs share administration
    and support staff, this would create tremendous complications and
    inefficiencies for us.
                                     health
        Full, Mandatory funding for the Indian Health Service. The IHS and
    its Tribal partners under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act strive to provide Tribal people with access to high
    quality and comprehensive medical services, in line with the Federal
    Government's trust and treaty obligations. Unfortunately, the
    inadequate funding levels appropriated to the IHS year after year have
    translated to average per capita spending on health care several times
    less than average per capita health care spending for the general
    population. This chronic and systemic funding disparity has real,
    detrimental impacts on our communities. Native people are
    disproportionately affected by obesity, diabetes, heart disease,
    cancer, substance-use disorder and other largely preventable
    conditions. RNSB, Inc. therefore urges the subcommittees to work
    towards full funding for the IHS, in line with the IHS Tribal Budget
    Formulation Workgroup's recommendation of $54 billion. Further, this
    funding should be reclassified as mandatory and thus not subject to the
    variability of the yearly appropriations process.
        Supplemental resources to recover from the effects of COVID,
    protect against the next pandemic, and address the opioid epidemic.
    Because of chronic underfunding for public health infrastructure,
    overcrowded and underfunded housing, and a lack of access to the type
    of basic utilities most communities take for granted, our Tribal
    communities were far less equipped to respond to the COVID pandemic.
    This resulted in much higher rates of disease incidence and mortality
    than the general population. We are also similarly ill-equipped to care
    for community members suffering from the effects of long COVID-a little
    understood, but often debilitating aspect of the disease. Another issue
    that the COVID pandemic revealed is the lack of mental health services
    for domestic violence victims and the profound trauma they are
    grappling with. As the pandemic recedes, many people want to simply
    move forward, but we are still mourning lost family members in our
    small, tight-knit community and trying to secure the resources to
    assist children who lost their primary caregivers. We are concerned
    that if another pandemic occurs, none of these things will have
    changed. We are also similarly ill-equipped to address the rapidly
    worsening opioid epidemic--a national problem with devastating local
    impacts. RNSB, Inc. therefore urges significant supplemental funding to
    support impacted families, address long COVID, improve our public
    health infrastructure, address the opioid epidemic, and address the
    multifaceted trauma in our Tribal communities.
        Increased support for emergency response capabilities. The growth
    of the population in our rural emergency response region is increasing
    and we are the only emergency medical service provider in the western
    part of Cibola County. We need to expand our EMS, by building another
    EMS station and helicopter landing pads for faster transport to urban
    trauma centers for life-threatening injuries or illnesses. Disasters
    like the recent train derailment in northwest New Mexico diverted
    Interstate 40 traffic onto rural narrow two-lane roads, making it
    dangerous to travel on with semi-tractor-trailers. There were many
    stories of near missed traffic accidents with semi-trucks. We need to
    be better prepared to respond to these emergencies and have the
    capability to transport patients within the ``Golden Hour'' of
    accessing life-saving health centers.
        Staff Housing. RNSB, Inc. has not provided a separate designated
    housing for its health clinic employees and it now necessary to address
    this need which requires additional funding, due to the remote and
    isolated location of the community it is essential to provide necessary
    staff housing. Pine Hill Clinic employs 90 specialized staff in health
    such as doctors, nurses, pharmacists, psychologists, and dentists and
    assistants, which are from outside the community and require
    appropriate and adequate housing accommodations. In addition, many are
    on rotating schedules for short periods and require available housing.
        Administration Complex Building. While the existing building that
    houses the comprehensive administration services comprising of
    administrative, financial, human resources and health and
    administrative service to provide the essential core functions of the
    RNSB, Inc. operations has been determined to be demolished due to its
    designated useful life and normal wear and tear. A replacement for this
    building for 40 employees is a dire need. A more modern building with
    state-of-the-art technology and appropriate equipment upgrades and
    infrastructures is overdue.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide appropriations testimony
    about our priorities.

        [This statement was submitted by Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc.]
                                     ______

         Prepared Statement of the Rappahannock Wildlife Refuge Friends
        I am submitting this testimony as vice president of the
    Rappahannock Wildlife Refuge Friends (RWR Friends), a refuge volunteer
    and a 32-year veteran of the National Wildlife Refuge System. We
    appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the fiscal year (FY)
    2025 Interior Appropriations bill. We request Congress to allocate
    $602.3 million in funding for National Wildlife Refuge System
    Operations and Maintenance account under the United States Fish and
    Wildlife Service (USFWS).
        The RWR Friends is a 501c3 non-profit corporation formed in 2004 in
    Warsaw, Virginia dedicated to supporting the Rappahannock River Valley
    NWR and the National Wildlife Refuge System. The RWR Friends is made up
    of people with diverse backgrounds and interests. We build and maintain
    trails, establish and maintain native plant gardens, participate in
    wildlife surveys, fight invasive species, host educational field trips,
    administer hunt programs, and more. What all our members have in common
    is a love of the National Wildlife Refuge System and its mission to
    help protect our environment and, in particular, our wildlife.
        When I think about the Refuge System I am filled with pride, and
    immensely saddened. I am proud that at the dawn of the 20th century,
    our Nation's leaders had the foresight to create what would become
    largest, most diverse assemblage of lands and waters dedicated to fish
    and wildlife conservation anywhere in the world. I am in awe of a
    Refuge System workforce that is among the most resourceful, dedicated,
    and passionate of all in our public service sector. These facts should
    elicit pride in every American.
        What saddens me is to see it diminished and starved for lack of
    adequate congressional funding. Each year over the past ten, we
    witnessed modest increases to the Refuge System budget be completely
    swallowed by fixed salary costs and general inflation. Even before the
    recent spike in inflation resulting from a deadly world-wide pandemic
    and supply chain disruptions, ``normal'' inflation was enough to negate
    modest annual budget increases. The result is a Refuge System that is
    dying a death from a thousand cuts.
        That description is unfortunately not far off. The Refuge System
    has shed 27% of its workforce since 2011, over 600 full time positions.
    As noted by the National Wildlife Refuge Association, ``the
    insufficient funding and capacity impacts are felt System-wide,
    impacting conservation planning, wildlife and habitat management,
    visitor services, law enforcement, and maintenance. No refuges are
    fully staffed, and more than half of refuges have zero staff on site.
    Multiple refuges have been closed to the public and are completely
    unmanaged. Many employees must manage multiple wildlife refuge units,
    sometimes traveling hundreds of miles per day. Many on volunteer
    programs have also been cut back or eliminated due to a lack of
    supervision from professional FTEs or necessary infrastructure.''
        We have seen this play out over the past 10 years at the Eastern
    Virginia Rivers National Wildlife Refuge Complex. The Rappahannock
    River Valley NWR is one of four refuges that comprise this Complex.
    ``Complexing'' is mild sounding word strikes fear into refuge staffs.
    It translates into combining what were stand-alone refuges with other
    refuges in the landscape, thereby giving refuge managers and staff more
    responsibility but with fewer resources. Example: Two refuges, each
    with a modest staff are located 100 miles apart. The manager of one
    refuge retires, so to save money, the refuge are combined into a
    ``complex,'' with now one manager supervising both. When a position
    becomes vacant, it often remains vacant and the duties are spread among
    other staff. This has been happening for many years and has
    significantly diluted the ability of existing staff to fulfill the
    mission of the Refuge system.
        The Eastern Virginia Rivers NWR Complex has a staff of five
    individuals charged with achieving the Refuge System mission on four
    refuges scattered over hundreds of square miles. This is down from a
    staff of seven 10 years ago, when the Complex was much smaller. In past
    years there was also a student trainee position at the Complex to bring
    fresh ideas and diversity into the ranks. That position has been
    eliminated. That is simply unacceptable and as congressional leaders,
    it should give you pause.
        There is no law enforcement staff stationed at the Eastern Virginia
    Rivers Complex as there had been in the early-mid 2000s. If any
    emergency occurs, the refuge must call upon and rely on local law
    enforcement from the sheriff's departments of the various counties in
    which the refuge units are located. The counties have complained for
    years that refuge revenue sharing payments have significantly
    diminished and are at an all-time low. Localities are receiving less
    than 25% of what the revenue sharing formula calls for, so when the
    refuge asks a county for assistance, it can increase resentment of the
    refuge and the Federal Government as a whole.
        The Rappahannock River Valley refuge has never had a staff person
    dedicated to visitor services, yet it offers the visiting public
    opportunities to engage in all six of the priority uses that Congress
    directed the Refuge System to provide. That is why the RWR Friends have
    spent much of our energy and resources creating and maintaining visitor
    facilities, staffing events on and off the refuge, leading school field
    trips, and organizing special hunts for youth and disabled hunters to
    name a few of our regular activities. This frees staff to work other
    priorities, but the help from Friends and volunteers is not enough.
    More permanent staff are needed, and quickly, to stop the hemorrhaging.
        Since 2010 the Refuge System has added 21 new refuge units and 549
    million submerged marine acres, opened 6 million acres for hunting and
    fishing, and seen visitation grow to over 68 million annual visitors-an
    increase of 47 percent since FY2011. While these additions have
    enhanced the Refuge System and benefited the communities around these
    refuges, this growth has also put more pressure on the already stressed
    and underfunded Refuge System.
        We urge Congress to prioritize the Refuge System and address these
    overarching funding challenges to ensure that the USFWS is equipped to
    effectively manage the wildlife, habitat, programs, and visitorship
    that rely on the health and integrity of the Refuge System. Ultimately,
    the Refuge System needs at least $2.2 billion in annual appropriations
    to effectively fulfill its conservation mission, provide opportunities
    for wildlife-dependent recreation, and connect communities to nature.
    The President's FY2025 Budget Request of $602.3 million is an important
    step towards that goal.
        Thank you for considering our request of $602.3 million for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System in FY2025. Please feel free to contact
    me at joemccauley1955@gmail.com.

        [This statement was submitted by Joseph F. McCauley, Vice-
    President, Rappahannock Wildlife Refuge Friends.]
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian
                                  Health, Inc.
        I am Catalina VillaMontes and I am the Treasurer of the Board of
    Directors for the Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health, Inc.
    (RSBCIHI), located in Southern California. I am also a member of the
    Pechanga Band of Indians, one of nine consortium Tribes of RSBCIHI and
    I also serve on the California Rural Indian Health Board. I serve in
    all these roles because the health and welfare of my people is my
    highest priority. I am honored to be here and have the opportunity to
    testify today.
                       protecting vital health care funds
        Year after year, you hear from Tribes and Tribal organizations
    asking for more Indian health funding. While we support those pleas, we
    also recognize the need to protect the recurring funding for Indian
    health programs we already rely on to provide services. Unfortunately,
    the many delays of the fiscal year (FY) 2024 appropriations process
    exemplified why the entire IHS budget needs to be moved to mandatory
    appropriations.
        To be clear, we are extremely appreciative that in FY 2023,
    Congress first provided for advance appropriations for the Indian
    Health Service. However, certain accounts were excluded from those
    advanced appropriations, including contract support costs, lease funds,
    and certain facilities funds. The threat and disruption of potential
    shutdowns, sequestrations and continuing resolutions continue to loom
    over our operations despite advanced appropriations. The only way to
    ensure that Indian health programs are held harmless, like other
    Federal health programs, is to move the IHS budget to the mandatory
    side. This is necessary to uphold the Federal obligation for Indian
    health care and to provide funding stability for Tribal health
    programs.
        We also ask that Congress realize that inflation, especially in the
    medical sector, has decreased our buying power and means these
    continuing funds do not go as far as they historically have. Post
    pandemic provider salaries, medication costs, and nearly every
    component of our programs have increased. While in fiscal year 2023,
    the Administration's projection to fully fund the Indian Health Service
    required only $36.7 billion, only 1 year later, that number rose to $54
    billion. Yet, the total agency appropriation remains less than $10
    billion. We continue to support the Budget's push towards full funding
    for the IHS and at the least meaningful increases to allow our programs
    to keep up with historically high inflation.
                     purchased/referred care (prc) funding
        The California Area does not receive equitable funding. Our State
    is one of four Indian Health Service Areas that are designated ``PRC
    dependent,'' meaning we have little or no access to an IHS or tribally-
    operated hospital and therefore must purchase all or a large portion of
    inpatient and specialty care from non-Tribal providers at a
    significantly higher cost. As we've shared previously, our current PRC
    funding is insufficient to meet the need for specialty and advanced
    care. Every year our PRC funding is depleted before the end of the
    fiscal year. Due to the large carryover in PRC funds from federally-
    operated service units, however, we have not seen a meaningful increase
    in PRC funds since 2018. As a result, our patients must forego the
    higher level care they need unless they have non-IHS resources to cover
    the costs. We ask this Committee to provide additional PRC funding for
    Tribal programs or to require redistribution of the large agency
    carryover balances so that funds can go where they are actually needed.
    We also ask the Committee to support funding for Regional Specialty
    Care Centers, especially in California, that will provide a Tribal
    facility we can refer patients to and alleviate pressure on our PRC
    budget.
        We note that when new funding comes in or a change in distribution
    formula is discussed, the California Area is routinely out voted by
    other Areas. As a result, we have little recourse to correct these
    inequities without Congressional funds directing them to the areas that
    need them most.
                      funding for tribal ehr modernization
        We know that IHS has continued to ask for large budget outlays for
    its health information modernization project and that the agency
    intends to move to replace its antiquated system with a new Oracle
    system. However, our programs could no longer wait for IHS to decide to
    modernize; over 6 years ago, we purchased our own modern electronic
    health record (EHR) system that was necessary for us to meet our
    patient needs. However, using this different EHR technology impacts our
    ability to submit data to the Federal data warehouse and the
    incompatibility between our system and IHS's system impacts patient
    data that may feed into funding formulas. We ask that Congress provide
    funding to improve systems integration with new IHS EHR technology, and
    ongoing maintenance costs required to enhance data accuracy.
                      fully funding contract support costs
        Contract support costs, which cover our necessary overhead and
    administrative costs, are necessary to sustain our operations and
    ensure that our program funds can be dedicated to services. However,
    ever since Congress mandated full funding of contract support costs in
    2014, IHS has devised different ways to attempt to limit or reduce
    these reimbursements. Therefore, we support the enactment of H.R. 409
    sponsored by Representative Tom Cole, which will maintain the status
    quo on these calculations, and protect against IHS reducing them by
    over 90% as it tried to do to a Tribal contractor on the Navajo Nation
    in 2022 and 2023. We also ask the Committee to order IHS to eliminate
    its ``reconciliation process,'' which permits IHS to come back years
    after our books are closed to request funds back for a prior fiscal
    year, many of which
        have already been spent. Our indirect cost rate-setting process
    already accounts for over or under recoveries in any given fiscal year
    and this repetitive agency reconciliation process only distorts this
    process further.
        We thank you for your time and consideration of our requests.

        [This statement was submitted by Catalina VillaMontes, Treasurer,
    Board of Directors for the Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian
    Health, Inc.]
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Sage Memorial Hospital on the Navajo Nation
                                recommendations
        1. Provide full, mandatory funding for the Indian Health Service
    (IHS).

        2. Reduce dependence on competitive grants for Indian Country.

        3. Exempt the IHS from rescissions and sequestrations.

        4. Ensure mandatory funding for Contract Support Costs and section
    105(l) lease payments.

        5. Restore critical infrastructure investments for the Indian
    health system.

        6. Address Staffing Shortages through Full Funding and Enactment of
    S.3022.

        7. Increase funding and extend self-governance to the Special
    Diabetes Program for Indians.

        8. Increase funding for behavioral and mental health programs.

        Introduction: Thank you, Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member Murowski,
    and Members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to share our
    funding priorities for the FY 2025 Federal budget. My name is Melinda
    White, and I serve as the CEO of the Sage Memorial Hospital on the
    Navajo Nation. The hospital campus included a Critical Access Hospital
    and outpatient clinic. We also operate a separate outpatient clinic
    located 28 miles away in Greasewood Springs, Arizona.
        We are the first Native-managed private comprehensive health care
    system in the country and have been managed since 1978 by an
    independent, entirely Navajo Board of Directors. Sage Memorial Hospital
    is the only Native American hospital to hold both a license from the
    Arizona Department of Health Services and Accreditation from The Joint
    Commission. Today, we are the sole provider of healthcare services for
    a community of approximately 23,000. We prioritize integration of
    Native culture with western medicine to provide quality health care to
    the residents in the Ganado, Kinlichee, Klagetoh, Wide Ruins, Lower
    Greasewood Springs, Cornfields, Nazlini, and Steamboat chapters of the
    Navajo Nation.
        We are grateful for the historic investments Congress has made in
    the Indian health system in recent years via the CARES Act, American
    Rescue Plan Act, and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. The direct funding
    model and successful implementation of these laws prove that when
    Tribal sovereignty is honored, Tribal communities thrive. We would also
    like to thank this subcommittee for its bipartisan effort to protect
    the IHS from cuts during the 2024 appropriations process. Furthermore,
    we urge you to remember that Congress' trust and treaty responsibility
    to provide for the health and wellbeing of Tribal Nations exists
    irrespective of any self-imposed budgetary caps. It is imperative that
    this subcommittee appropriate the full amounts necessary to fulfill its
    obligations. To that end, I offer the following recommendations for
    your consideration for FY 2025 appropriations for the IHS.
        Provide Full Funding for the Indian Health Service: The IHS and its
    Tribal partners under the Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act strive to provide Tribal people with access to high
    quality and comprehensive medical services, in line with the Federal
    Government's trust and treaty obligations. However, chronic
    underfunding of the Indian health system has had detrimental impacts on
    our communities. American Indians and Alaska Natives are
    disproportionately affected by obesity, diabetes, heart disease,
    cancer, substance-use disorder and other largely preventable
    conditions. We therefore urge the subcommittee to work towards full and
    mandatory funding for the IHS, in line with the IHS Tribal Budget
    Formulation Workgroup.
        The Workgroup has calculated it will take $54 billion to fully-fund
    the IHS. We understand that this represents a dramatic increase in
    funding; however, it is essential that Congress address the true needs
    of the Indian health system. We support their full request and
    reiterate the following four priorities for program expansion as
    follows:

        1) Hospitals and Health Clinics: $13.6 billion

        2) Mental Health: $4.5 billion

        3) Alcohol & Substance Abuse: $4.9 billion

        4) Dental Services: $3.2 billion

        Continued Support for Advance Appropriations for IHS: If full,
    mandatory appropriations cannot be achieved for FY 2025, we continue to
    support advance appropriations for the IHS in the short-term. This
    year's tumultuous appropriations cycle clearly demonstrates why advance
    appropriations are critical-IHS clinical services remained continuous
    throughout the volatile political process. We urge the subcommittee to
    extend advance appropriations to all IHS accounts, including Electronic
    Health Records Modernization, Health Care Facilities Construction, and
    Sanitation Facilities Construction for FY 2026.
        Reduce Dependence on Federal Grants: We also support moving away
    from competitive grants for Federal funding mechanisms. Grants unfairly
    pit Tribes against each other for resources we are all entitled to. The
    Federal trust responsibility does not require that we jump through a
    myriad of hoops and onerous applications to see that services are
    provided to our citizens. Too often, Tribes are under-resourced to
    apply for Federal grants and comply with their reporting requirements.
    Our staff must divert time to apply and report, thereby diluting the
    usefulness of the resources. Instead, we request wide-spread, formula-
    based funding across all programs. Tribes must also be granted the
    flexibility needed to respond to the specific needs of their own
    communities, not those prescribed by Federal grants. This also means
    appropriating enough resources so funds are provided in meaningful
    amounts across all Tribes. We join other Tribal leaders in calling for
    broad based funding for Indian Country.
        Permanently Exempt the IHS from Cuts, Sequestrations, and
    Rescissions: As demonstrated above, the Indian health system is
    chronically underfunded, with current appropriations sitting around
    one-seventh of need. Nevertheless, Congress routinely threatens and
    enacts additional budget cuts, sequestrations, and rescissions
    affecting the IHS. As recently as FY 2024, this Congress rescinded $350
    million marked for public health infrastructure from the IHS.
    Furthermore, the IHS is the only federally funded services providing
    direct patient care not exempt from sequestration.
        We remind this subcommittee again that its trust and treaty
    obligations to Tribes exist regardless of any self-imposed budget
    control measures. In fact, the IHS budget remains so small in
    comparison to the National budget that cuts, rescissions, and
    sequestrations do not result in any meaningful savings in the National
    debt, but they do devastate Tribal Nations and their citizens. We urge
    Congress to ensure that any budget cuts, whether automatic or explicit,
    hold IHS and our people harmless.
        Fully fund critical infrastructure investments: We were
    disappointed to see that this subcommittee approved cuts to Electronic
    Health Records Modernization, Health Care Facilities Construction, and
    Sanitation Facilities Construction in FY 2024. The Indian health
    system's infrastructure is among the oldest and most dilapidated in the
    country. Therefore, we request that this subcommittee restore and
    fully-fund these accounts. To implement an interoperable Electronic
    Health Records and telehealth system, $801 million is needed for FY
    2025. As you are aware, this investment is especially critical as the
    Veterans' Administration and Department of Defense move to modernize
    their systems.
        It is also critical that Congress make significant investments in
    Health Care Facilities Construction and Sanitation Facilities
    Construction. IHS and Tribal facilities are severely outdated, and we
    appreciate Congress' investment in IHS sanitation facilities through
    the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Yet, with a multi-billion-dollar
    backlog and growing inflation, funding to close out the list is not
    keeping pace with need. This creates situations where facilities are
    unfit and unsafe. Therefore, consistent with the Workgroup's request,
    we recommend $2.8 billion for Health Care Facilities Construction and
    Equipment and $2.2 billion for Sanitation Facilities Construction in FY
    2025.
        Address Staffing Shortages. The Indian health system is chronically
    understaffed due to a variety of challenges including underfunding and
    rural location. We face difficulties recruiting and retaining critical
    staff, including nurses, because we must compete with the larger non-
    Tribal health systems nearby. We reiterate our request that this
    subcommittee fully fund the IHS at $54 billion, with $13.6 billion
    going to Hospitals and Health Clinics, to ensure Tribal health programs
    have the funding to offer competitive salaries and benefits. We also
    urge this subcommittee to direct resources to staff housing. Finally,
    we fully support S.3022, as reported by the Senate Committee on Indian
    Affairs, to permit IHS loan repayment and scholarship recipients to
    satisfy service obligations through half-time clinical work for a
    doubled amount of service time. This puts the IHS at parity with
    similar loan repayment programs through the Health Resources and
    Services Administration, which can be cumbersome and difficult to
    obtain.
        Mandatory Funding for Contract Support Costs and 105(l) lease
    payments: We appreciate the subcommittee's commitment to ensuring that
    Contract Support Costs (CSC) and section 105(l) lease payments are
    fully funded. However, these line items continue to take up a larger
    and larger percentage of the IHS discretionary budget, thereby leaving
    little room to expand other services given tight budget environment. We
    strongly agree with the subcommittee's words in the explanatory
    statement for the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (Public
    Law 116-94) regarding 105(l) costs which said, in part: ``Obligations
    of this nature are typically addressed through mandatory spending, but
    in this case since they fall under discretionary spending, they are
    impacting all other programs funded under the Interior and Environment
    Appropriations bill, including other equally important Tribal
    programs.''
        Therefore, we ask you to continue to advocate with your colleagues
    on authorizing committees to enact mandatory appropriations for CSC and
    105(l) lease costs. Doing so will ensure that other areas of the IHS
    budget are held harmless by these costs and true increases in critical
    services line items can move forward. This will enhance care for Tribal
    patients and reduce health disparities.
        Extend Self-Governance Funding Options to the Special Diabetes
    Program for Indians (SDPI) and increase funding to $250 million/year:
    While we understand that SDPI is not under the jurisdiction of the
    subcommittee, we appreciate that Congress included a short-term
    extension of SDPI in FY 2024 appropriations at a $160 million
    annualized rate. We recognize that this is the first increase for SDPI
    in two decades. Communities like ours across Indian Country rely on
    SDPI resources to address the alarming rates of diabetes and diabetes-
    related health complications among our people. SDPI's success rests in
    the flexibility of its program structure that allows for the
    incorporation of culture and local needs into its services. Consistent
    with this model, Congress should authorize SDPI participants the option
    of receiving their Federal funds through either a grant (as currently
    used) or self-governance funding mechanisms under the Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act.
        Additionally, SDPI has not had a meaningful increase in funding
    since FY 2004 despite its overwhelming success. Short term
    reauthorizations continue to destabilize this program and make staffing
    and program continuity difficult. For this reason, we recommend
    permanent reauthorization for SDPI at a minimum base of $250 million
    per year with annual adjustments for inflationary increases. We urge
    you to work with your Congressional colleagues to enact this important
    priority.
        Behavioral Health: Our Tribe, like all of Indian Country, has been
    devastated by the ongoing fentanyl and opioid epidemic. Nevertheless,
    funds for these services are extremely limited. For example, in FY
    2024, Congress only appropriated $2 million to fund essential
    detoxification related services. That's less than $1 per IHS patient.
    We urge the subcommittee to dedicate resources to detoxification and
    reemphasize the importance of fully-funding the following accounts:
    Health Care Facilities Construction, Alcohol & Substance Use, and
    Mental Health. We also fully support the President's Domestic
    Supplemental Request, which includes a $250 million investment in the
    IHS to address the fentanyl and opioid epidemic. Recognizing that
    Indian Country cannot wait any longer, Congress should consider this
    request as soon as possible.

        [This statement was submitted by Melinda White, Chief Executive
    Officer, Sage Memorial Hospital.]
                                     ______

      Prepared Statement of the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians
        The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians is in the Upper
    Peninsula of Michigan. The Tribe administers 23 governmental divisions
    and manages over 75 federal, State, local and tribally funded programs
    across our seven-county service area-Alger, Chippewa, Delta, Luce,
    Mackinac, Marquette and Schoolcraft counties. We have a Tribal
    membership of approximately 50,000. Our territory includes 2,800 acres
    of trust land and our ceded territories throughout Michigan where we
    exercise our Treaty reserved rights to fish, hunt and gather. For
    almost fifty years the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe has built its
    governmental capacity to provide the full range of services to its
    members including health care, education, elder services, law
    enforcement, housing, family and social services, and cultural
    programs.
        The Tribe operates 8 health clinics across our seven-county service
    area. In these clinics we offer a wide range of services including
    medical, dental, behavioral health, special diabetes, nutrition,
    pharmacy, wellness programs, and traditional medicine. We are proud of
    our work in this space, but it is time to fully fund Indian Health
    Services.
        The Tribe wants to express its deep appreciation for the Congress's
    action in providing advanced appropriations for FY 2025 for the Indian
    Health Service. Given the very uncertain fiscal times facing our
    Nation, the security in knowing that the base budget of our Indian
    health system is secure critical. This allows our programs and our
    staff to plan on how best to continue to meet the health care needs of
    our people.
                             indian health service
                      substance abuse and mental treatment
        One of the greatest threats to the future of Tribal communities is
    substance abuse and mental health conditions. Since the Heroin/Opioid
    Public Health Emergency of 2018 illicit drug use and mental health
    illnesses have only escalated to a National Emergency, particularly in
    Indian Country. With Health Care Staff Shortages, long waiting lists
    and patients in crisis, the need for Mental Health and Addiction
    Treatment Services is overwhelming. It is clear that funding and staff
    shortages continue to be primary barriers to services.
        According to 2021 National survey on Drug Use and Health, ``nearly
    half of young adults aged 18--25 in 2021 had either Any Mental Illness
    (AMI) or a Substance Use Disorder (SUD) in the past year''. American
    Indian or Alaskan Native were 11.4% higher than all other
    nationalities, (at 34.2 percent) to have had either an AMI or an SUD in
    that same time period. Illicit Drugs are the number one drug of choice
    for adults aged 18+ by Mental Health Status. Adolescents aged 12-17 who
    had both a past year Major Depressive Disorder (MDE) and a past year
    SUD (i.e., drug use disorder, alcohol use disorder, or both) were
    classified as having co-occurring MDE and SUD, greatly increasing
    instances of SMI, SUD, Overdose, and Suicide among American Indian
    communities. However, as these rates continue to climb, the access to
    necessary hospital treatments to combat the Mental and Opioid Epidemic
    Crisis continues to be non-existent. Key programs offered by IHS,
    SAMHSA, DOI, and partnering agencies provide limited respite to
    exhausted communities and health staff.
        While the Department of the Interior (Bureau of Indian Affairs),
    Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of Justice
    have been tasked with coordinating certain existing department programs
    pursuant to the Tribal Law and Order Act. However, funding to expand
    and implement successful prevention, treatment, after care programming
    is stagnant.
        The current interagency agreement calls for the development of a
    Tribal Action Plan. However, funding is limited to SAMHSA's available
    competitive funding instruments, leaving out necessary full funding of
    Tribal Action Plans that have been adopted by Tribes. Notwithstanding
    the lack of funding for the Tribal Action Plans, the Sault Ste. Marie
    Tribe of Chippewa Indians was one of the first Tribes in the Nation to
    have completed a Tribal Action Plan to combat substance abuse on
    reservations. The Tribe now needs the resources to implement this Plan.
    We would call on the Committee to provide additional funding to both
    the BIA and IHS to fund the implementation of Tribal Action Plans.
                             sanitation facilities
        Health Care facilities and sanitation program continue to be
    underfunded, given the vast need of facility space and staffing needed
    to take care of the overwhelmed health care systems in Indian Country.
    Alaskan villages are still living in third world standards when it
    comes to access to clean water. New facilities in Indian Country,
    require additional utility infrastructure from communications cabling
    to large wells and sewage systems. Residential scale water and sewage
    programming is underfunded, leaving many American Indians without
    necessary clean water sources. This was a key factor for why the
    pandemic was so devastating to Tribal communities across America.
                            bureau of indian affairs
                       tribal natural resources division
        The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians are co-managers of a
    large part of lakes Michigan, Huron, and Superior, as we hold Treaty-
    protected rights to fish in these lakes under the 1836 Treaty. We also
    hold Treaty-protected rights to fish in inland lakes, hunt, and gather
    across the 13.8 million acres of Ceded Territory. Thus, it is critical
    that Congress provide full funding for the Chippewa Ottawa Resource
    Authority to ensure proper management of the resources consistent with
    the court-approved consent decrees.
        The BIA's Natural Resources Management Endangered Species program
    is an important program, vital to the maintenance of important
    threatened and endangered species. Since 2012, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe
    of Chippewa Indians has identified several endangered species needs and
    submitted funding requests. To date, however, our funding requests have
    not been granted. This is due to the competitive nature of limited
    funds available to the Midwest region. My Tribe recommends full funding
    for the program.
        The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians has relied on the
    BIA Forestry Program for several planning and management of forestry
    projects on the Reservation and are working with the BIA Fire Program.
    While my Tribe does not have substitutive commercial forest resources,
    we do have over 2,000 acres of forest lands that are maintained, and
    are actively acquiring more forest lands to be held in trust. The
    management of, and restoration of prescribed fire on, these acres are
    dependent on the Forestry and Fire Program funds and the BIA staff that
    work on our behalf. We have a strong interest in increasing our
    capacity for forest and fire management. We see this as an opportunity
    for the Tribe to create new jobs for Tribal members and increase access
    to natural resources for subsistence harvesting. We strongly recommend
    full funding of the BIA Forestry and Fire Programs.
                             tribal court programs
        Our Tribal Court program, an integral component to our Tribe's
    sovereignty, is significantly underfunded. In fact, the Federal
    Government provides only 3.76% of base need funding necessary to
    operate a Tribal Court capable of meeting our Tribe's service
    population needs. Federal base funding for our Tribal Court program has
    only increased a total of $3,000 in the past 21 years. In the end, our
    Tribe provides additional funding necessary to meet the needs of basic
    needs of our government, but that money is taken from other
    governmental programs, such as health, education, and care for the
    elderly.
        Even with this strong Tribal support for our program, our courts
    are still lacking. Our most recent BIA assessment of our courts
    identified the need to upgrade the Court's technology and improve the
    Tribal Court building's security. We recommend Congress fully fund
    Tribal Courts base funding levels to meet the budget model provided by
    the BIA.
                           fish and wildlife service
        The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians has prioritized the
    resilience of coastal ecosystems throughout the 1836 Treaty Ceded
    Territory, with special emphasis on coastal wetlands along the St.
    Mary's River. We have relied on partnerships with, and funding from,
    the Fish and Wildlife Service to plan and implement stewardship of our
    coastal communities. We recommend increased funding for the Fish and
    Wildlife Service Coastal Program to provide more science support for
    our Tribe's coastal resilience work, with more scientists located in
    our communities and positioned to contribute to research in these
    unique ecosystems directly. We support full funding of the Wildlife Co-
    Op Unit as it provides valuable science support within the 1836 Treaty
    Ceded Territory.
        The Sault Ste. Marie Tribe applauds the USDOI efforts to increase
    staff and funding in the Great Lakes Basin and looks forward to
    increased emphasis on engaging our Tribal communities in the
    implementation of Joint Secretariat Order 3403. We have felt the
    increased presence of Tribal liaisons in our region and have
    appreciated their contributions to advancing meaningful engagement of
    Tribes in advancing treaty rights. We support increased engagement in
    the co-stewardship and co-management of Federal lands; however, this
    cannot come at the cost of our already underfunded programs. Lastly, we
    would like to see new funding tools aimed at providing adequate support
    for Tribal fish, wildlife, forestry, and fire programs to fully engage
    in co-management and co-stewardship processes.

        [This statement was submitted by Mr. Austin Lowes, Chairman, Sault
    Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians.]
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of San Francisco Bay Wildlife Society
        This testimony is being submitted on behalf of the San Francisco
    Bay Wildlife Society, a nonprofit Friends Group formed in 1987, with a
    formal agreement with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
    (USFWS) to support the San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge
    Complex in California. We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments
    on the fiscal year (FY) 2025 Interior Appropriations bill. We
    respectfully request Congress to allocate at least $602.3 million in
    funding for the National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and
    Maintenance account for the United States Fish and Wildlife Service.
        Our Friends group works at the heart of the San Francisco Bay,
    bringing children, families, college students, and a diversity of other
    groups out to learn about the abundantly diverse ecosystem in the
    middle of where they live their busy lives. It can be surprising to
    learn that such a densely populated place as the San Francisco Bay
    metropolitan region has large areas of preserved habitat (about 45,000
    acres) on the National Wildlife Refuges, important for the survival of
    millions of local and migrating birds, marine life, and other wildlife.
        Our organization is one of many that are pulling together to try to
    address the looming environmental crises threatening the San Francisco
    Bay area. The water and land that edge the bay are a thriving tidal
    habitat, with great potential to be naturally adapted to resist the
    impacts of flooding along the shoreline through appropriate restoration
    techniques. Restored marshlands and sloping levees can absorb and
    cushion the impacts of high water. Marsh habitat is also very effective
    at carbon sequestration as well. This restoration is a primary effort
    of our USFWS biologists, in their work to preserve habitat for
    endangered and threatened species.
        We know that there are many, many highly intelligent and aware
    people around us who support the preservation of nature, and who have
    the potential to be globally influential with the decisions they make
    in the tech industries and other important businesses around us. Our
    work is to help them become more aware, yet when they see the current
    state of our sites with invasive plants and decaying infrastructure--
    all I can say is it is not inspiring. What is inspiring is when we get
    them out to help and facilitate them being part of the solution. They
    love that. This is what you support for people and wildlife refuges,
    and the future of life on Earth. But without funding to be able to work
    cooperatively under the supervision of USFWS staff, we cannot operate
    as effectively, because there is such a staff shortage that they are
    unable to accommodate the extra staff and volunteers we could bring to
    them. We need your help to turn around the dire state of affairs in the
    Refuge System.
        Since 2010 the Refuge System has added 21 new refuge units and 549
    million submerged marine acres, opened 6 million acres for hunting and
    fishing, and seen visitation grow to over 68 million annual visitors-an
    increase of 47 percent since FY2011. While these additions have
    enhanced the Refuge System and benefited the communities around these
    refuges, this growth has also put more pressure on the already stressed
    and underfunded Refuge System.
        Funding for the Refuge System has only increased by 4.7% since
    FY2010 to $527 million, or $5.55 per land acre. When accounting for
    total land and water acres, the Refuge System budget is a mere 62 per
    acre. Considering the level of inflation, mandatory staff COLA raises,
    annual fixed costs, and increased needs of the Refuge System since
    FY2010, the Refuge System budget has effectively decreased
    significantly. It is also funded at a lower level than any other
    Federal public lands.
        The number of full-time employees (FTEs)-already a fraction of the
    other comparable Federal land agencies at 2,500 FTEs-has decreased by
    27% since FY2011. This has made it difficult for the Refuge System to
    manage its vast network of lands and waters and to fulfill its mission
    of conserving wildlife and habitats. The insufficient funding and
    capacity impacts are felt System-wide, impacting conservation planning,
    wildlife and habitat management, visitor services, law enforcement, and
    maintenance. No refuges are fully staffed, and more than half of
    refuges have zero staff on site. Multiple refuges have been closed to
    the public and are completely unmanaged. Many employees must manage
    multiple wildlife refuge units, sometimes traveling hundreds of miles
    per day. Many volunteer programs have also been cut back or eliminated
    due to a lack of supervision from professional FTEs or necessary
    infrastructure.
        Our own staff gives public programs at our refuge, and we have
    experienced firsthand, on a day-to-day basis, the effects of this
    severe underfunding. We see the staff and operations shortfalls
    resulting in loss of institutional knowledge, loss of infrastructure
    due to neglect, people with talent and skills doing the tasks that must
    be done at all levels beyond their focus areas and not able to do their
    own essential work, all in a time when the world is losing biodiversity
    at an alarming rate. We know we already have this great institution
    that can best address the problem of species loss and ecosystem
    imbalances, but the remaining staff is in danger of losing morale, and
    we are losing good people who could be our best hope at providing for
    the future of the diversity of life on earth.
        We urge Congress to prioritize the Refuge System and address these
    overarching funding challenges to ensure that the USFWS is equipped to
    effectively manage the wildlife, habitat, programs, and visitors that
    rely on the health and integrity of the Refuge System. Currently, the
    Refuge System needs at least $2.2 billion in annual appropriations to
    effectively fulfill its conservation mission, provide opportunities for
    wildlife-dependent recreation, and connect communities to nature. The
    President's FY2025 Budget Request of $602.3 million is an important
    step towards that goal.
        Thank you for considering our request of $602.3 million for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System in FY2025. Please feel free to contact
    me, Mary Deschene, and I can put you in touch with others at San
    Francisco Bay Wildlife Society, at: mary.deschene@sfbayws.org, or 505-
    417-2561.

        [This statement was submitted by San Francisco Bay Wildlife
    Society.]
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of Sealaska Heritage
        On behalf of the Sealaska Heritage Institute we respectfully
    request that the fiscal year 2025 appropriations bills include
    implementation funding for the Safeguard Tribal Objects of Patrimony
    (STOP) Act. The STOP Act marks a significant advancement in efforts to
    protect Tribal cultural heritage from illegal trafficking and sale.
    However, the successful implementation of this act hinges on the
    availability of adequate resources. Adequate funding will enable the
    Department of the Interior and associated agencies to:

      --Conduct comprehensive training for enforcement personnel.

      --Establish and maintain a robust database for monitoring and
            protecting cultural items.

      --Facilitate effective repatriation processes and support voluntary
            return initiatives.

      --Enhance interagency collaborations essential for the STOP Act's
            success.

        Thank you for considering our important request to include
    implementation funding for the STOP Act in the fiscal year 2025
    appropriations bills. We look forward to your positive response and are
    available to discuss this matter further at your convenience.

    Sincerely,

        [This statement was submitted by Rosita Kaahaani Worl, Ph.D.
    President.]
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Seattle Indian Health Board
        Chair Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the Senate
    Committee on Appropriations--Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and
    Related Agencies, my name is Esther Lucero. I am Dine, of Latino
    descent, the third generation in my family to be living outside of our
    reservation, and I strongly identify as an urban Indian. I serve as the
    President & Chief Executive Officer of the Seattle Indian Health Board
    (SIHB), one of 41 Indian Health Service (IHS) designated urban Indian
    organizations (UIO) nationwide designed to serve the health needs of
    the 76% of American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) people residing in
    urban areas. I am also a delegate to the Washington state American
    Indian Health Commission, a member of the King County Board of Health,
    the City of Seattle Indigenous Advisory Council, and the AstraZeneca
    Health Equity Advisory Council. I have had the privilege of serving
    SIHB for 8 years, during which time I have increased the organization's
    operating budget by $36 million. It is transformative to have provided
    testimony to this subcommittee for the past 5 years. I am honored to
    have the opportunity to submit my testimony today, including a request
    of an increase to $977.4 million to the Urban Indian Health line item,
    which continue our momentum to address the chronic underfunding of the
    Indian healthcare system.
                        secure mandatory funding for ihs
        I am thankful to the members of this subcommittee for your
    leadership to secure advance appropriations for IHS for FY 24-25. This
    historic passage has brought greater certainty, parity, and protections
    to the Indian healthcare system and protected us from the looming fear
    of government shutdowns. I implore you to work with the same urgency to
    secure mandatory funding for the IHS. Mandatory funding will lead to
    greater financial sustainability, long range planning, secured service
    delivery, and frankly, will advance the efforts toward fulfilling the
    fiduciary obligation and trust responsibility.
        In the past year, SIHB has advanced the operation of 3 clinical
    expansion projects, restructured and adapted our workforce to meet
    growing needs, and expanded critical culturally attuned health care
    services. To address the growing opioid and fentanyl crisis, we will
    re-open Thunderbird Treatment Center (TTC), our 92-bed in-patient
    residential treatment program, in February 2025. At TTC, we will
    dedicate 15 beds to serve pregnant and parenting people, where each
    person will be able to bring 2 children with them (up to the age of 5).
    This effort will help us save our next generations from being removed
    from their homes and allow families to heal from addiction together.
        SIHB has expanded to 29 different workforce development programs.
    While others in the community health center world were struggling to
    hire Medical Assistants, we started a Medical Assistant Registered
    program designed to train on the job (fully paid) and acquire clinical
    experiences necessary to pursue advanced careers in health care. The
    program was so successful it had a wait list, helping us address a
    critical gap in support services. Last year we had 6 participants in
    the program go on to medical school, nurse practitioner school, and
    nursing school. We cannot limit our vision to the current
    appropriations cycles and must actively seek mandatory funding for IHS.
            uios impacted by covid-19 supplemental funding recission
        I am frustrated by IHS' inability to effectively obligate and
    distribute $419 million in supplemental funding for the Indian
    healthcare system to continue combatting and alleviating the impacts of
    COVID-19. I am particularly disappointed in the failure to invest these
    resources in the establishment, expansion, and sustainment of a public
    health workforce at a time when it is so critical to our community's
    well-being. Throughout much of the pandemic, AI/AN communities faced
    the highest mortality rates among all racial and ethnic groups;\1\ and
    even as recently as summer 2023, we saw an uptick in deaths in AI/AN
    communities.\2\ SIHB has been resourceful and our relatives (patients)
    of all ages and the community have low barrier access to COVID-19
    vaccinations, booster vaccines, and testing at our clinics. Our Tribal
    Epidemiology Center (TEC), the Urban Indian Health Institute (UIHI),
    has sent out COVID-19 support packages to UIOs nationwide. This $419
    million shows that the large-scale investments are achievable, but this
    funding was rescinded before it could reach our most impacted
    communities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Sabo, S., and Johnson, S., Males and the Hispanic, American
    Indian and Alaska Native Populations Experienced Disproportionate
    Increases in Death During the Pandemic. United States Census. (2023).
    Retrieved from: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2023/06/covid-
    19-impacts-on-mortality-by-race-ethnicity-and-sex.html
        \2\ APM Research Lab. (2023). The Color of Coronavirus: COVID-19
    Deaths by Race and Ethnicity in the U.S. Retrieved from: https://
    www.apmresearchlab.org/covid/deaths-by-race
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     advance legislation and appropriations to expand workforce development
        To address the longstanding and worsening workforce gaps in the
    Indian healthcare system, I urge the subcommittee to introduce a
    companion bill for S. 3022--the IHS Workforce Parity Act of 2023, which
    would authorize IHS scholarship and loan recipients to meet their
    service obligations through half-time clinical practice. It would help
    AI/AN students enter the healthcare workforce, which remains
    financially inaccessible for many. I further ask that you work to amend
    the IHS Loan Repayment Program to increase administrative FTE
    allocation from .2 to .3 administrative time, to support leadership
    development and training opportunities.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \3\ Veteran Affairs Department. (2020). Authority of VA
    Professionals to Practice Health Care. Federal Register. Retrieved
    from: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/11/12/2020-24817/
    authority-of-va-professionals-to-practice-health-care
        \4\ Trost, S., Beauregard, J., Chandra, G., Njie, F., Harvey, A.,
    Berry, J., and Goodman, D. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
    (2022). Pregnancy Related Deaths Among American Indian and Alaska
    Native Persons: Data from Maternal Mortality Review Committees in 36
    States from 2017-2019. Retrieved from: https://www.cdc.gov/
    reproductivehealth/maternal-mortality/erase-mm/data-mmrc-aian.html
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Further, I request new investments in community-based and
    culturally attuned workforce training programs and the expansion of
    paid workforce development opportunities for AI/AN students across the
    healthcare and public health sectors. SIHB was the first UIO to
    establish a family medicine residency program and now operates 29
    different workforce development programs to develop the next generation
    of Native and Native serving healthcare and public health
    professionals. For 30 years, SIHB has offered one-on-one time with
    providers, dedicated training space, mentorship opportunities and a
    fully integrated cultural experience. Each year, we invest at least
    $500,000 in our medical residency program, while our residency partner
    only invests 50% of our residency site director's salary. Our other
    limited funding sources cover our internship and fellowship programs.
    For the first time in 2022, we received new funding worth $161,000 from
    a private partner, which still does not cover total program costs.
    Additionally, we began our MSW practicum program 6 years ago and today
    all our mental health providers are Native. We have a lot of pride in
    that outcome.
        Congress must authorize IHS to have cross-state credentialing,
    which would allow for the preemption of state requirements for health
    care professionals to deliver services in a State other than the health
    care professional's state of licensure, registration, certification, or
    other state requirement. This best practice modeled by Veterans Health
    Administration, was critical to ensuring veterans' health care needs
    were met throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.\5\ This administrative
    solution would increase access to and portability of mental health and
    substance use disorder (SUD) professionals across the Indian healthcare
    system.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \5\ Indian Health Service. (2020). Special Diabetes Program for
    Indians 2020 Report to Congress: Changing the Course of Diabetes:
    Charting Remarkable Progress. Retrieved from: https://
    www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK571291/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        invest in behavioral health workforce, infrastructure, and care
        Despite leveraging many funding streams, we face a $3 million
    funding shortfall that is threatening a timely opening of TTC. We look
    to our Congressional partners to ensure that all Indian behavioral
    health care providers have access to increased reimbursement rates,
    capital and operating investments, and a quality workforce. As we plan
    for our long-term services, we are among the providers nationwide
    calling for Federal investments to cover the true costs of behavioral
    healthcare.
        National Maternal Mortality Review Committee data has shown that
    mental health conditions, including deaths by suicide and overdose/
    poisoning related to SUD, was the leading underlying cause of pregnancy
    related death among AI/AN people in 36 States from 2017-2019.4 We fear
    that the fentanyl crisis will only further deepen the inequitable
    maternal and infant health outcomes AI/AN parents face. Therefore, TTC
    will offer specialty services for pregnant and parenting adults,
    integrated Traditional Health Services, and medication-assisted
    treatment (MAT), while providing wrap around care through our clinic
    services. Within our clinic, we secured $2 million, from HRSA, for our
    Indigenous birthing sovereignty project that considers the impact of
    SUD. It is necessary to ensure innovative and culturally attuned
    behavioral health models are developed to create meaningful and lasting
    change for the health and well-being of our people.
                support traditional health services innovations
        The IHS is working with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
    (CMS) on a Medicaid traditional health care practices framework, and we
    request Congressional support for the inclusion of UIOs and
    reimbursement of traditional pharmaceuticals. CMS is following
    reimbursement guidelines under title XIX of the Social Security Act
    that allows for Federal medical assistance percentage (FMAP) of 100
    percent to IHS and Tribal facilities, but it excludes UIOs. During the
    CMS consultation held on April 3, 2024, many Tribes and UIOs were in
    favor of extending FMAP to UIOs that is proposed by H.R. 6533 Urban
    Indian Health Parity Act, and a companion bill must be introduced and
    championed in the Senate. We have also requested CMS set a mandate for
    the participation of Managed Care Organizations (MCO) to further use
    across all States.
        Our Traditional Health Services have grown significantly in the
    past 8 years and our Tribal Health Practitioners are now integrated
    into our core care teams in our main clinic, expansion sites, and
    provided through home and hospital visits. We offered 1,825 traditional
    health encounters to 662 relatives between December 2021 and March
    2024. Initial evaluation reveals that traditional health services
    decreased anxiety symptoms, depressive symptoms, alcohol consumption,
    and suicidal ideation. We are among the first providers to integrate
    our traditional health services into electronic health records (EHR).
    We are establishing the framework for third-party reimbursement
    nationwide, partnering with the Community Health Plan of Washington, a
    local MCO, to pilot the system. They have agreed to pay for our
    services as a value-added benefit. Traditional Health Services
    represent the future of integrated health services that center
    culturally attuned services to complement western healthcare.
    permanently reauthorize the special diabetes program for indians (sdpi)
        I request this subcommittee support permanent reauthorization of
    the SDPI, the only culturally appropriate programming for diabetes
    proven to treat and prevent Type-2 diabetes and reduce Type-2 diabetes
    complications in AI/AN communities.\6\ Each year, UIHI conducts the
    Urban Diabetes Care and Outcomes Audit and publishes the results
    online. The audits track diabetes care and outcomes for AI/AN people
    served by UIOs. In 2023, we found that urban AI/AN patients have
    positive indicators in patient kidney health, hypertension management,
    and increased access to eye, foot, and dental examinations.\7\
    Nationally, the prevalence of diabetes among AI/AN adults has grown at
    a slower pace than other racial or ethnic groups from 2006 to 2012; in
    addition, obesity and diabetes rates have not increased among AI/AN
    youth for over a decade.\8\ After 23 years of SDPI, we have remarkable
    reductions in diabetes-related mortality, kidney failure,
    hospitalization, and diabetic eye disease rates. Now is the time to
    permanently reauthorize SDPI and protect our advancements in diabetes
    treatment and prevention.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \6\ Urban Indian Health Institute. (2023). Special Diabetes Program
    for Indian: Impact for Urban Indian Organizations. Retrieved from:
    https://www.uihi.org/projects/urban-diabetes-care-and-outcomes-audit/
        \7\ Indian Health Service. (2014). Changing the Course of Diabetes:
    Turning Hope into Reality. Retrieved from: https://www.ihs.gov//sites/
    newsroom/themes/responsive2017/display_objects/documents/RepCong_2016/
    SDPI_2014_Report_to_Congress.pdf
        \8\ Bullock A, Burrows NR, Narva AS, Sheff K, Hora I, Lekiachvili
    A, & Espey D. Vital signs: Decrease in incidence of diabetes-related
    end- stage renal disease among American Indians/Alaska Natives--United
    States, 1996-2013. MMWR. 2017; Morbidity and mortality weekly report,
    66(1), 26-32. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6601e
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Thank you for allowing me to offer some insights into the day-to-
    day of service and I look forward to continued partnership to
    strengthen healing within our communities. I hope you join us in our
    unwavering passion to serve, ``for the love of Indian people''.

        [This statement was submitted by Esther Lucero, MPP, President &
    CEO, Seattle Indian Health Board.]
                                     ______

    Prepared Statement of Self-Governance Communication & Education Tribal
                                   Consortium
        On behalf of SGCETC, I submit this written statement regarding
    funding priorities for the FY 2025 budgets for the Departments of the
    Interior's (DOI) Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Health and Human
    Services' (HHS) Indian Health Service (IHS) and Environmental
    Protection Agency (EPA).
        The fiduciary responsibilities of the United States to Tribal
    Nations arise from commitments made in treaties and agreements, in
    exchange for which Indians relinquished vast tracks of homelands and
    resources.\1\ More than 380 Tribal Nations have entered into Self-
    Governance agreements with the DOI and/or IHS to transfer Federal
    resources and programs from Federal to Tribal administration to better
    serve the needs of their citizens and communities. Tribal Nations that
    elect to administer Federal programs through Self-Governance agreements
    know that increased Tribal control and decision-making authority
    results in improved social and economic well-being at the local level.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ 1Pub. L. No. 114-178, Sec. 101, 130 Stat. 432 (2016) (codified
    at 25 USC Sec. 5601).
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Tribal Nations assuming administration over programs once
    administered by Federal agencies, do so knowing that this does not
    abrogate the Federal Government's treaty and trust obligations. It
    empowers Tribal governments as sovereign nations to best determine the
    needs of their citizens and communities while bolstering Tribal
    economies and job creation for Indian country and surrounding non-
    Native communities. As such, we offer the following recommendations:
      increase base budgets and recurring funding for indian programs and
                        reduce reliance on grant funding
        Across the board, Federal Indian programs are significantly
    underfunded. The lack of adequate funding puts the lives of Tribal
    citizens at risk and limits the services provided by Tribal
    governments. Increases in base budgets for Indian programs will allow
    Tribes to fund core Tribal government programs and will provide an
    opportunity for additional Tribal Nations to participate in Self-
    Governance.
        SGCETC supports the growing sentiment expressed by Tribal Nations
    that we do not want our funding sources to be increasingly supplemented
    by grants. Short-term competitive grants hinder Self-Governance because
    it creates uncertainty in planning, imposes extensive regulations and
    reporting requirements, and restricts the use of indirect costs. Tribal
    Nations are not non-profit organizations and should not be treated as
    such. The signers of the over 400 treaties between Tribal Nations and
    the United States did not sign with the intent of being dependent on
    grants. Lives were not lost, nor land ceded for our needs to be
    dependent on the review of a grant application package.
             reclassify section 105(l) costs as mandatory spending
        Pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
    Act (ISDEAA), most Tribal Nations now administer programs that were
    previously administered by the Federal Government, which results in the
    need for Tribal facilities to house these programs. Section 105(l) of
    the ISDEAA, 25 USC Sec. 5324(l), provides that the Secretaries of DOI
    and HHS must enter into leases with an Indian Tribe or Tribal
    organization for the administration and delivery of services under the
    ISDEAA. Section 105(l) requires both Secretaries to compensate each
    Indian Tribe or Tribal organization for infrastructure costs, including
    rent, depreciation, operation and maintenance, and other reasonable
    expenses. Tribal Nations across the country are successfully entering
    into Section 105(l) agreements with both DOI and HHS to be compensated
    for the use of Tribal facilities that are needed to fulfill Federal
    responsibilities.
        Tribal Nations commend Congress in recognizing the Federal
    Government's obligation to fully fund 105(l) leases. The next step in
    fostering this progress is by reclassifying Section 105(l) lease
    funding from discretionary to mandatory spending.
         reclassify contract support costs (csc) as mandatory spending
        Contract Support Costs (CSC) are legally required pursuant to the
    Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and Supreme
    Court decisions, but they are currently paid for under discretionary
    spending caps. Inclusion of the CSC account that is mandatory in nature
    under discretionary spending caps has resulted in a net reduction on
    the amount of funding provided for Tribal programs. Immediately moving
    CSC to mandatory is good risk management for the United States because
    the amount is already mandatory in nature and there is a mechanism for
    controlling costs. Since the amount is already mandatory in nature,
    there is nothing added to the mandatory budget by moving this authority
    to the mandatory side of the Federal ledger.
            advance appropriations for tribal programs and services
        We are grateful that Congress enacted Advanced Appropriations for
    the Indian Health Service for FY2024; however, we now urge Congress to
    extend advanced appropriations to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the
    Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). Providing appropriations 1 year in
    advance for the BIA and BIE will mitigate the adverse financial effects
    of Federal budgetary uncertainties and allow Tribal Nations to engage
    in more effective strategic planning, spend funds more efficiently,
    grow our Tribal economies and businesses and increase the quality of
    care and well-being of our Tribal citizens and communities.
    encourage ihs to open a new round of applications for the joint venture
                              construction program
        The IHS Joint Venture Construction (JVC) Program represents a
    collaborative approach to healthcare infrastructure development. Tribal
    governments alleviate the upfront burden on IHS by taking on
    construction, expansion, or renovation costs, and IHS provides staffing
    funds for the facility over a 20-year span. The program has proven
    successful. Among other benefits, the JVC program leads to the
    development of modern healthcare facilities closer to Tribal
    communities-reducing travel time and improving access to essential
    medical services. In addition, the JVC program stimulates Tribal
    economies by creating job opportunities and boosting economic activity
    through expanded healthcare positions and construction-related
    spending. Lastly, by partnering with Tribal governments in the planning
    and construction of healthcare facilities, the program empowers Tribal
    communities to take control of their healthcare infrastructure,
    aligning with principles of Self-Governance, sovereignty, and Tribal
    culture.
        Thank you for the opportunity to share our recommendations with the
    subcommittee.

        [This statement was submitted by W. Ron Allen, President, Board of
    Directors, (SGCETC) and Tribal Chairman/CEO, Jamestown S'Klallam
    Tribe.]
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe
                                recommendations
        1. Support expedient passage of H.R. 7859, the Tribal Environmental
    Resiliency Resources Act (TERRA Act).

        2. Increase funding for Tribal environmental resilience and related
    programs in FY 2025, including those supporting Tribal community-driven
    relocation efforts.

        3. Support full, mandatory, and continued advance appropriations
    for the IHS.

        4. Fully fund critical infrastructure investments for the Indian
    health system.

        5. Support mandatory funding for Contract Support Costs and 105(l)
    leases.

        Thank you, Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members
    of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to share our funding
    priorities for the FY 2025 Federal budget. My name is Quintin Swanson,
    and I am the Chairman of the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe. We are
    located 2,800 miles west-by-northwest of Washington, D.C., on the
    beautiful north shore of Willapa Bay in Washington State, on the
    Pacific Ocean. Like most coastal Tribes, we are stewards of the great
    ocean.
        As Tribal Chairman and lifelong resident of Tokeland, Washington, I
    have learned firsthand that vibrant and successful Tribal communities
    are not possible without first attending to the human health of
    community members and ensuring a healthy environment. I appreciate that
    the subcommittee is responsible for those same priorities, and it is in
    that shared spirit of community responsibility that I speak to you
    today. The following testimony provides information about our
    community's urgent efforts to move to a safer elevation protected from
    the environmental hazards of erosion, rising sea levels, and tsunamis,
    and the need for additional funding to support Tribal environmental
    resiliency programs. This testimony also outlines priorities for the FY
    2025 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget.
        We appreciate the subcommittee's continuing steps to support Tribal
    environmental resiliency, such as the recognition in House Report 118-
    155 that some coastal Tribes ``experience severe weather-related
    conditions that jeopardize public safety and health.'' We are
    disheartened, however, that the subcommittee approved FY 2024
    limitations on Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funding for purposes such
    as housing improvement, land acquisition, and road maintenance, as well
    as cuts to many environmental justice and resilience programs. These
    and other opportunities are essential for complex community relocation
    projects like ours, and for the variety of environment- and disaster-
    driven problems facing Tribal communities nationwide. Overcoming these
    challenges will require substantial investments, and the consequences
    of failing to invest now will be devastating. We therefore urge the
    subcommittee to consider the Federal trust responsibility to Tribal
    Nations and support significantly increased funding for Tribal
    environmental resilience and related programs in FY 2025.
            shoalwater bay indian tribe and environmental resiliency
        Tribal communities are uniquely impacted by our changing
    environment due to a deep connection to our ancestral homelands.
    Environmental instability threatens our people, our land, and our
    culture. For Shoalwater, a Pacific Northwest coastal Tribe, all
    existing homes and infrastructure are just barely above sea level. For
    the last century, we have been losing 100-130 feet of land per year,
    adding up to a loss of about 2 miles of land. Estimates suggest that a
    sea level rise of just 2 more feet would put Tokeland underwater.
    Meanwhile, a single tsunami event would take out our homes, our
    government, our economic development opportunities, and what defines us
    as Shoalwater people. Right now, we are protected only by an eroding
    embankment constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which will
    be increasingly expensive to rebuild and maintain and is not a long-
    term solution. Our Reservation will soon be gone as relentless erosion,
    bolstered by intensifying winter storms and rising sea waters,
    continues.
        Still, what we face is both a challenge and an opportunity to
    rebuild our community with long-term resilience. A few years ago, we
    used Tribal funding to purchase 1,200 acres of land adjacent to our
    Reservation at 250 feet above sea level for our new community location.
    The land was completely raw and undeveloped, however, meaning we must
    attend to the most basic needs, like clearing trees and building access
    roads, before we can even begin to work on vertical development. We
    have been tapping out our Tribal reserves to coordinate and plan this
    upland relocation and to implement the early phases, while still
    maintaining the delivery of essential services to our Tribal citizens.
        The upland relocation project is currently estimated to cost about
    $450 million in total, including expenses for roads and utilities,
    housing, and government buildings. We must rely primarily on Federal
    funding for this effort. Among other resources, we have been able to
    gather congressionally directed spending (CDS) in FY 2023 and FY 2024,
    a substantial RAISE grant from the Department of Transportation (DOT),
    and a Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Indian Housing
    Block Grant Competitive award for various planning and early
    development aspects of the upland relocation project. However, it is
    not always easy to access these funds or to use them efficiently when
    differing agencies and restrictions are involved. And still, these
    amounts combined are a drop in the bucket compared to our remaining
    needs.
        The cost of not being able to obtain the necessary resources to
    relocate our village is the highest cost any community can pay-erosion
    sea level rise will mean the annihilation of our Tribal community. The
    more days that go by, the closer we are to vanishing off the coast.
    Even physical survival scattered away from our homelands, will mean the
    erasure of our Tribal culture. The failure to dedicate adequate
    resources to these efforts is tantamount to being complicit in the
    disappearance of our lands, our people, and our ways of life.
         the tribal environmental resiliency resources act (terra act)
        We ask the subcommittee to support prompt passage of the TERRA Act,
    H.R. 7859, legislation designed to solve many of the problems we have
    encountered in undertaking our upland relocation project. Modeled on
    the Public Law 102-477 program, the TERRA Act would create a hub in the
    Department of the Interior (DOI) to improve the accessibility and
    efficiency of existing resources, such as those named above, by
    allowing Tribes to integrate them into individual, comprehensive plan
    tailored to their environmental resiliency needs.
        This means all the funds and resources necessary to achieve a
    Tribe's resiliency goals can reach the Tribe at the same time, while
    the interagency framework fosters relationships between the Tribe, DOI,
    and affected agencies. Plans may also include waivers of restrictive
    statutory or regulatory requirements to cut through red tape so the
    programs can function together in an effective and efficient manner.
    The TERRA Act fills existing gaps and eliminates barriers, such as that
    noted by the Government Accountability Office in a 2020 report
    identifying ``[u]nclear Federal leadership'' as ``the key challenge to
    climate migration as a resilience strategy'' because ``no Federal
    agency has the authority to lead Federal assistance for climate
    migration.'' \1\ The same is true for other resilience efforts.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Gov't Accountability Off. (GAO), GAO-20-488, A Climate
    Migration Pilot Program Could Enhance the Nation's Resilience and
    Reduce Federal Fiscal Exposure (July 2020), https://www.gao.gov/
    products/gao-20-488.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Without a program like TERRA, we have had to manage our upland
    community relocation project piece by piece, little by little, as we go
    from agency to agency and appeal to our Congressional Delegation to
    string resources together. This has resulted in a long, drawn-out
    requiring large amounts of staffing capacity, time, and financial
    resources that we simply do not have. The problem is not that the
    resources do not exist, but that they are siloed and strewn across the
    Federal Government, with restrictive or conflicting timelines and
    requirements. With TERRA in place, Tribes would be able to go to one
    place to identify and access all available resources, then decide for
    themselves how they best fit together to serve their communities.
        The TERRA Act would also help solve other problems Shoalwater has
    faced, by improving interagency coordination and facilitating the
    ability of Tribes to put land into trust for community-driven
    relocation purposes. Our experience with DOT provides an example, at
    the agency will often not release emergency funding for road
    infrastructure until an existing road completely fails. If that occurs
    with State Route 105, which runs through our Reservation, it will cut
    our Tribal community off from its schools, banks, closest groceries,
    and will cut off many Tribal employees from their homes. The TERRA Act
    could assist with waiving these and other restrictive requirements.
    Additionally, Congress can and should change these rules to allow for
    substantial road replacement funding in advance of an existing route
    becoming impassable. Any funding of this nature should be non-
    competitive and provided directly to Tribal governments without
    matching fund requirements.
        Shoalwater's application to put the upland relocation land into
    trust is still languishing at the Department of the Interior. Without
    trust status, we are unable to take advantage of many Federal benefits
    and programs that would otherwise be available. Further, we still do
    not have the land base to support the Tribal community indefinitely; we
    will need to acquire additional land to survive. For Shoalwater and
    most Tribes, these types of acquisitions by definition will be off-
    reservation and subject to higher scrutiny under existing regulations.
    The TERRA Act provides expedited mandatory and discretionary trust
    acquisition processes for Tribes needing land for community-driven
    relocation. This is sorely needed to ensure that Tribes do not endure a
    lengthy and expensive fee-to-trust process when moving their
    communities to safety.
        The TERRA Act was introduced with bipartisan support in the U.S.
    House of Representatives on April 2, 2024, as H.R. 7859. It has
    widespread support from Tribal Nations and organizations, including
    NCAI, USET, NIHB, ATNI, and ANHB. The bill is now before the
    subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs of the House Natural
    Resources Committee. The importance of the TERRA Act to all of Indian
    Country cannot be overstated. We urge the Members of the subcommittee
    to support the TERRA Act by cosponsoring the bill, supporting efforts
    to move it forward, and seeing it through to full passage before the
    end of this Congressional session.
                        indian health service priorities
        In addition to critical community and environment needs, we also
    strongly support increasing the IHS budget. We thank the subcommittee
    for its bipartisan effort to protect Indian Country from cuts during
    the 2024 appropriations process. However, Congress must do more to
    fully honor its trust and treaty responsibilities to Tribal Nations. We
    remind the subcommittee that these obligations exist irrespective of
    any self-imposed budgetary caps. The IHS Tribal Budget Workgroup
    calculates this need at $53.9 billion. We support fully funding this
    amount in FY 2025.
        Support Full, Mandatory, and Continued Advance Appropriations: We
    appreciate the subcommittee's words in House Report 117-400,
    accompanying the FY 2023 Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA) (Pub.
    Law No. 117-328), which acknowledged the Administration's proposal to
    provide mandatory funding for IHS in FY 2023. The Federal trust
    responsibility for health is a mandatory obligation and should be
    treated as such. We encourage the subcommittee to advocate with your
    colleagues, on a bipartisan basis, to move IHS to full, mandatory
    funding for FY 2025 and beyond.
        However, if full, mandatory appropriations cannot be achieved for
    FY 2025, we continue to support IHS advance appropriations in the short
    term. We greatly appreciate the subcommittee's continued commitment to
    support advance appropriations for the IHS.
        Fully Fund Critical Infrastructure Investments: We were
    disappointed that the subcommittee approved cuts to Health Care
    Facilities Construction and Sanitation Facilities Construction in FY
    2024. Significant investments in Tribal health facilities construction
    must be a priority. With an average age of 40 years, IHS and Tribal
    health facilities are some of the oldest in the Nation and have
    insufficient capacity to effectively serve their patients. We recommend
    at least $2.5 billion for Health Care Facility Construction and
    associated costs in FY 2025.
        Support Mandatory Funding for Contract Support Costs (CSC) and
    105(l) Leases: If Congress cannot enact full mandatory funding for IHS
    this year, we continue to support mandatory funding for CSC and 105(l)
    leases at a minimum. We are disappointed by the absence of subcommittee
    language in House Report 118-155 advocating for this. Last year, in
    House Report 117-400, the subcommittee acknowledged that ``obligations
    of this nature are typically addressed through mandatory spending'' and
    that failing to do so impacts all other programs funded under the
    subcommittee. We ask the subcommittee to return to its advocacy stance
    and work with your colleagues on authorizing committees to enact
    mandatory appropriations for CSC and 105(l) leases for FY 2025 and
    future years.
                                   conclusion
        I want to thank you for your time and attention, and I invite you
    to come visit us at Shoalwater. Our doors are open and we look forward
    to sharing with you our continued strength and resilience as a
    sovereign Tribal Nation.

        [This statement was submitted by Quintin Swanson, Chairman,
    Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe.]
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of the Southcentral Foundation
        My name is Dr. Donna Galbreath, and I am the Senior Medical
    Director of Quality Assurance of Southcentral Foundation (SCF) and an
    enrolled Mentasta Traditional Council member.
        SCF is the Alaska Native Tribal health organization under the
    Tribal authority of Cook Inlet Region, Inc. and designated by 11
    federally-recognized Tribes--the Aleut Community of St. Paul Island,
    Igiugig, Iliamna, Kokhanok, McGrath, Newhalen, Nikolai, Nondalton,
    Pedro Bay, Telida, and Takotna--to provide health care services. SCF is
    a model of the benefits of self-determination and the importance of
    allowing Alaska Native peoples to chart their own health care journey.
    SCF is a two-time recipient of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality
    Award for health (2011 and 2017) and one of the largest employers in
    Alaska.
        SCF, through over 2,700 employees, provides critical health
    services, for the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual wellness
    of 70,000 Alaska Native and American Indian people. This includes
    55,000 people living in the Municipality of Anchorage and the
    Matanuska-Susitna Borough, and 15,000 residents of 55 rural
    communities. SCF offers over 85 programs including primary care,
    dental, behavioral health, and addiction treatment. It co-owns and co-
    manages the Alaska Native Medical Center with the Alaska Native Tribal
    Health Consortium (ANTHC). SCF's service area encompasses over 100,000
    square miles, an area the size of Wyoming.
        Thank you to the subcommittee for the opportunity to address the
    ongoing funding needs of Southcentral Foundation once again. It is
    truly historic that Congress takes this time to listen to Tribal
    leaders from around the country about our funding needs.
        In my testimony today, I would like to briefly raise six issues:
    advance appropriation is critical to the stability of the tribal health
                             care delivery system.
        SCF appreciates the Appropriations Committee for providing advanced
    appropriations for the Indian Health Service for FY 2025. The Committee
    should do so permanently until mandatory funding for the Indian Health
    Service can be secured. However, in addition to providing advance
    appropriations, sufficient funding to account for the cost of medical
    inflation and population growth in Tribal communities should also be
    considered by the committee. Failure to do so would eventually result
    in a decrease in access to care.
    mandatory appropriations and exemption from sequestration would help to
           meet the trust responsibilities of the federal government.
        The administration's proposal to begin moving the entire IHS budget
    to a mandatory appropriation structure is commendable. Moving away from
    a discretionary appropriation toward mandatory funding would help to
    demonstrate the Federal Government's commitment to the health and well-
    being of Alaska Native and American Indian people across the United
    States. Combined with increases in funding amounts, it will help to
    meet the Trust responsibilities the Federal Government owes to Tribes
    and Tribal members.
        In addition, to alleviate additional pressures on the IHS budget
    and the budgets of Tribal entities that contract and compact with the
    IHS, the appropriations for the agency should be exempted from
    sequestration. The IHS is the only major Federal health program that is
    not exempt from sequestration cuts. The possibility of these cuts, even
    if not realized, leads to uncertainty in budgeting for the agency and
    the Tribes that it works with.
            section 105(l) lease payments and contract support costs
        The committee's careful attention to the issue of 105(l) leases is
    appreciated. SCF strongly supports that these costs remain an
    indefinite appropriation, but with the goal to make sure these costs
    (along with contract support costs) are made mandatory costs so they do
    not continue to stress the limited funding allocation the subcommittee
    receives.
        Regarding Contract Support Costs, there is concern that the Indian
    Health Service is seeking to undermine its obligation, which has now
    been confirmed twice by the U.S. Supreme Court, to pay full contract
    support costs, by categorizing certain necessary costs/activities as
    secretarial activities, and refusing to pay contract support costs for
    these activities. These are and have always been considered contract
    support cost activities for which Tribes have received CSC payment. SCF
    requests the committee include language in its appropriations bill that
    would require the Indian Health Service to compute FY 2025 CSC
    consistent with computations undertaken in FY 2021.
                          health workforce development
        The pandemic highlighted the drastic shortage of health care
    workers in America. The need is at every clinical level from doctors,
    nurses, dentists, mental health specialists, to medical assistants, and
    other medical technicians. Further, the pandemic has resulted in
    widespread professional burnout among health care workers throughout
    America. Solving this workforce crisis is a mission-critical priority
    and SCF is exploring all avenues for recruiting talent and developing
    our own employees.
        SCF has worked to build systems that recruit, train, and develop
    not only clinical staff but executive staff as well. But additional
    support from the Federal Government is needed. While we appreciate that
    the funding for Indian Health Professions has minimally increased the
    past few years, more must be done to recruit and retain health care
    professionals to serve in Tribal communities. This includes increases
    in scholarships and increases in hiring and retention bonuses for
    individuals serving in Tribal communities.
        A key factor in being able to recruit and retain health
    professionals in rural Alaska is the lack of housing. The IHS should do
    a needs assessment of the professional housing needs in Alaska, and
    then seek funding to address this need.
                           behavioral health programs
        Congress must increase available funds for behavioral health.
    Alaska Native and American Indian people are disproportionately
    represented in substance misuse, especially opioid addiction, and
    suicide statistics. According to the Centers for Disease Control and
    Prevention (CDC), drug overdose death rates for Alaska Native and
    American Indian people increased by 39% between 2019 and 2020. The CDC
    also found the suicide rate among Alaska Native people is almost three
    times the U.S. general population rate and at least six times the
    National average in some parts of Alaska.
        While SCF has, for decades, worked to grow behavioral health
    integration and specialty services, dramatic increases in funding are
    needed in order to truly meet the needs of the communities in our
    region. This funding should be appropriated and then distributed across
    Tribal health programs through formulas, rather than grant processes.
                  the impact of build america, buy america act
        The intent of the Build America, Buy America Act is appreciated.
    Ensuring jobs and economic development in the United States is a
    worthwhile endeavor. However, the impact of the restrictions on Federal
    financial assistance to Tribes and Tribal organizations is large. In a
    State like Alaska, which already has some of the highest construction
    costs in the country, BABA can make entire projects infeasible. While
    there are possibilities of receiving a waiver of BABA rules, in
    practice this leads to lengthy delays in projects beginning, sometimes
    missing entire construction seasons in rural areas.
        SCF encourages the committee and Congress to consider a narrow
    Tribal exemption from BABA. This will allow limited dollars meant to
    meet the Trust responsibility to go a bit further and help to meet that
    principle of the government-to-government relationship.
                                   conclusion
        SCF is a successful story of the benefits of self-determination.
    SCF is a customer-owned health care system that is driven by the voice
    of Alaska Native peoples. The organization has grown over the past few
    decades into an internationally known system of primary and behavioral
    health care. In closing, SCF suggests that the committees of
    jurisdiction consider moving beyond the IHS when it comes to
    contracting and compacting for the care and well-being of Alaska Native
    and American Indian people. The initial steps the Administration is
    taking in this vein are appreciated. However, more can be done to allow
    for Indigenous people to chart their own health care path.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf
    of Southcentral Foundation and the 70,000 people we partner with on
    their journey of health and wellness.

        [This statement was submitted by Dr. Donna Galbreath, Southcentral
    Foundation.]
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Society for American Archaeology
        The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) is pleased to once again
    present its recommendations to the subcommittee regarding fiscal year
    2025 (FY 2025) appropriations for the Department of the Interior's
    (DoI) cultural resources preservation programs. I am Dr. Daniel H.
    Sandweiss, president of the SAA.
        The SAA is an international organization that, since its founding
    in 1934, has been dedicated to research about and interpretation and
    protection of the archaeological heritage of the Americas. With more
    than 5,500 The upcoming fiscal year will make for a good first
    installment in this effort members, the SAA represents professional and
    avocational archaeologists, archaeology students in colleges and
    universities, and archaeologists working at Tribal agencies, museums,
    government agencies, and the private sector. The SAA has members
    throughout the United States, as well as in many nations around the
    world.
        The members of the SAA understand the fiscal difficulties facing
    Congress. The lengthy delay in completing the FY 2024 spending
    legislation only added to the complications that appropriators had to
    face. Given these realities, we appreciate the fact that the final
    agreement maintained many accounts at level funding. Nevertheless, we
    must make two important points. First, the need for more Federal
    archaeologists and funding to support cultural resources preservation
    is great and continues to increase, thanks in large part to the growth
    in workloads from the infrastructure bills of 2021 and 2022. Second,
    the recent revisions to the regulations implementing the Native
    American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) will create
    substantial new compliance burdens on agencies that are not adequately
    met by either existing appropriations or those called for in the
    administration's FY 2025 budget request.
        The Federal and federally funded historic and cultural preservation
    programs created under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA),
    the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and other preservation
    statutes, and the activities that they support, comprise the principal
    means of preserving and protecting our Nation's irreplaceable historic,
    archaeological, and cultural treasures. It is imperative that Congress
    supply Federal agencies with the staff and the means necessary to
    effectively carry out these functions. This is especially true given
    that so many of the renewable energy infrastructure projects authorized
    by legislation in 2021 and 2022 have reached the permitting and
    construction phases.
        As we stated in last year's testimony, Federal archaeologists
    perform a huge number of mission-critical tasks, and their numbers are
    inadequate given the scale of the mission, which is immense and
    growing. The following table shows the number of acres overseen by the
    top land-managing agencies versus the number of archaeologists each
    agency employs to carry out reviews under Section 106 of the NHPA for
    Federal projects:

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Agency                              Acreage     Archaeologists    Acres/ Archaeologist
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    BLM....................................................     244 million             217                1,124,424
    USFS...................................................     191 million             462                  413,420
    USFWS..................................................      89 million              22                4,045,455
    NPS....................................................      80 million             268                  298,507
    DoD....................................................    9 million\*\             305                   29,508
        Total..............................................     613 million           1,274                  481,162
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \*\  Domestic acreage only

        If the Section 106 process is to function effectively and federally
    sponsored undertakings are to be delivered in a timely manner, the NPS,
    BLM, and other agencies need still more archaeologists to satisfy the
    statutorily required program responsibilities.
      national park service-national recreation and preservation cultural
                             programs: $50 million
        NPS National Recreation and Preservation Cultural Programs provide
    vital technical assistance and other support for resource protection
    within National Parks and for other Federal agencies. In particular,
    the archaeological program identifies, documents, and inventories
    archaeological resources in parks; produces archaeological technical
    and programmatic publications; implements regulations for protecting
    archaeological resources; and assists other agencies through program
    development and training. The SAA greatly appreciates the
    administration's budget request for $44.1 million for FY 2024, of which
    $3 million of the requested increase for FY 2024 would go to fund the
    new African American Burial Ground Network program and the balance to
    pay increases. The SAA believes, however, that more is needed and
    requests another $6 million to fill vacant archaeologist positions
    within the NPS. The increase will also allow the NPS to continue to
    apply its National Archaeology Database information to the NAGPRA
    compliance efforts of the NPS and other agencies. As pointed out in the
    National Parks Conservation Association's report of April 2024, the NPS
    will need $250 million over the next 5 years ``to help the National
    Park Service protect, restore, and archive our country's diverse
    history.'' The upcoming fiscal year would make for a good first
    installment in this effort.
                national park service-hpf funding: $225 million
        The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) provides crucial support to
    State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic
    Preservation Offices (THPOs) and matching grants to nonprofits and
    local governments to preserve and document historic resources. The HPF
    (among other programs) plays a crucial role in the ability of States
    and local municipalities to comply with the preservation system
    established by the NHPA, particularly with regard to Section 106
    consultations. SHPOs and THPOs remain the ``front line'' in the effort
    to preserve our cultural heritage, and just as Federal archaeologists
    are dealing with substantial workload increases, so are SHPOs and
    THPOs, the latter of whom face an even more difficult situation, given
    the average funding per office. There are now 221 offices and the
    average THPO receives just $104,000 per year. The increases for the HPF
    in the omnibus FY 2023 appropriations legislation were badly needed.
    Unfortunately, the president's request for static SHPO and THPO funding
    levels is insufficient to handle the increased workload. The SAA
    recommends an overall amount of $225 million for the HPF, of which $70
    million would go to SHPOs and $34 million to THPOs.
      bureau of land management-cultural resources management: $30 million
        The BLM manages 245 million acres, which makes the agency the
    largest land manager in the United States. These lands contain an
    enormous number of known and as-yet-undiscovered cultural resources,
    many of which are in remote locations, while others are in areas with
    high visitation rates. Patrolling, inventorying, and monitoring of
    cultural heritage sites is essential to their protection. The 217
    archaeologists on staff, along with the small number of other cultural
    resources specialists and law enforcement officers, are simply not
    enough to accomplish the mission when each archaeologist is responsible
    for over 1 million acres. The reduction of more than $800,000 in the
    final FY 2024 spending package is exacerbating the problem,
    particularly in light of recent salary increases. On top of that,
    complying with the new NAGPRA regulations is going to place a
    substantial new demands on BLM personnel that existing funding and
    staff levels cannot possibly meet. The administration's request for an
    additional $250,000 and a new full-time employee is completely
    inadequate. In order to bring BLM's cultural resources personnel and
    funding up to sufficient levels, we request an increase of $10.78
    million, $5 million of which should be dedicated toward NAGPRA
    regulatory work.
      bureau of land management-national conservation lands: $65.8 million
        The National Conservation Lands (NCL), first established in 2000
    and authorized by Congress in 2009, contains more than 37 million acres
    that are home to an extensive and diverse array of the Nation's
    archaeological and cultural resources. The FY 2023 omnibus
    appropriations bill contained $61.5 million for the NCL. Unfortunately,
    the FY 2024 budget agreement reduced that amount by $2.46 million. In
    order to secure the gains made to stewardship of these lands and the
    cultural resources they contain, we support the administration's
    request of $65.8 million for FY 2025, an increase of $6.67 million.
        forest service recreation, heritage and wilderness: $55 million
        USFS heritage activities focus on Section 106 compliance on Federal
    forest land, a task it is struggling to carry out, given the enormous
    increase in workload thanks to the passage of the infrastructure bills.
    While the USFS hired new archaeologists in FY 2023 to deal with the
    situation, most National Forests still remain understaffed. This
    situation will be exacerbated by the fact that many of the projects
    authorized by the Inflation Reduction Act and other measures are now
    ready to proceed. The $10 million reduction in the FY 2024 budget for
    the Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness account makes this reality even
    worse. In order to fulfill its preservation obligations and comply with
    the new NAGPRA regulations, we recommend the Recreation, Heritage and
    Wilderness account be allocated $55 million.
    fish and wildlife service historic preservation: increase of $4 million
        The US Fish and Wildlife Service is tasked with identifying and
    caring for the historic properties located within the lands and waters
    under its management. This includes nearly 17,000 recorded
    archaeological and paleontological sites, as well as millions of
    objects under its control in museums and collections facilities. As we
    noted above, there are only 22 archaeologists on staff in the USFWS.
    This number is wholly inadequate if the Service is to carry out its
    congressionally mandated historic preservation responsibilities.
    Increasing the number of archaeologists will help clear the way for
    other projects in the refuges to move forward but also builds
    relationships with local communities, including many Indigenous
    peoples. As with other agencies, the work necessary for compliance with
    the new NAGPRA regulations will place an additional burden on the
    already-overworked archaeological staff. Though the USFWS historic
    preservation program does not receive a line item allocation, we
    recommend that the subcommittee specify an increase of $4 million for
    the program in FY 2025. This new funding will allow the USFWS to
    increase its archaeological staff to 40 and enable the Service to
    comply with its new NAGPRA responsibilities.
     department of defense (dod) legacy resource management program: $1.5
                                    million
        The Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program is
    partnering with the National Preservation Institute (NPI) to carry out
    survey projects under Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation
    Act. These projects identify and evaluate historic properties under the
    DoD's stewardship. About 51% of the Department's land holdings remain
    to be surveyed, and this initiative will make a significant
    contribution toward reducing that number. While the DoD has allocated
    $13.5 million over 5 years to the Legacy Resource Management Program,
    and the NPI will support the effort with $1.25 million this year, the
    SAA believes that Congress could strengthen and accelerate the effort
    with another $1.5 million.
      native american graves protection and repatriation act grants: $12
                                    million
        Compliance with the new NAGPRA rule will require a great deal of
    time and money from covered institutions. Consultation between Tribes
    and museum and curation facilities, and the disposition of remains and
    cultural objects, is an intensive and often expensive process but one
    that must be done correctly to ensure that objects are returned to the
    correct lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, and Native Hawaiian
    organizations, if that is the desired outcome of stakeholders. The
    NAGPRA Grants Program serves an invaluable role in facilitating these
    activities, but it will require far greater resources than are
    currently available in order to meet the increased demand expected to
    be created by the revised regulations. The SAA requests that the NAGPRA
    Grants Program receive $12 million in FY 2025.
        Cumulatively, these appropriations fund the bedrock of the
    protection and ongoing identification of archaeological sites in
    America. Preserving this fragile knowledge is crucial for today and for
    tomorrow. The SAA greatly appreciates your time and consideration of
    these important issues. Please contact us if you have any questions or
    concerns.

        [This statement was submitted by Daniel H. Sandweiss, President of
    the Society for American Archaeology.]
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of Sonoma Land Trust
        This testimony is being submitted on behalf of Sonoma Land Trust.
    We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments on the fiscal year
    (FY) 2025 Interior Appropriations bill. We request Congress to allocate
    $602.3 million in funding for National Wildlife Refuge System
    Operations and Maintenance account under the United States Fish and
    Wildlife Service (USFWS).
        We partner closely with the San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge
    (NWR) on many projects, including land acquisition, restoration, and
    conservation for the benefit of fish and wildlife and their habitats in
    San Francisco Bay. Our collaboration has been critical to the
    successful restoration of thousands of acres of diked baylands to
    wetland habitats. We have purchased, restored, and transferred several
    parcels to the San Pablo Bay NWR, including Sears Point and Haire
    Ranch.
        The Service worked closely with us on the development of the Sonoma
    Creek Baylands Strategy, an integrated plan for landscape-scale habitat
    restoration, flood reduction, and public access in the Sonoma Creek
    watershed. The planning area encompasses several units of the San Pablo
    Bay NWR. We are now working with the Refuge and our partners on
    implementing the restoration of this former tidal marsh ecosystem,
    starting with Phase One of the Sonoma Creek Baylands Restoration
    Project. The San Pablo Bay NWR needs additional funding and increased
    capacity to continue to collaborate with us to achieve the restoration,
    public access, and habitat goals of the Sonoma Creek Baylands Strategy
    and other regional plans.
        Since 2010 the Refuge System has added 21 new refuge units and 549
    million submerged marine acres, opened 6 million acres for hunting and
    fishing, and seen visitation grow to over 68 million annual visitors-an
    increase of 47 percent since FY2011. While these additions have
    enhanced the Refuge System and benefited the communities around these
    refuges, this growth has also put more pressure on the already stressed
    and underfunded Refuge System.
        Funding for the Refuge System has only increased by 4.7% since
    FY2010 to $527 million, or $5.55 per land acre. When accounting for
    total land and water acres, the Refuge System budget is a mere .62 per
    acre. Considering the level of inflation, annual fixed costs, and
    increased needs of the Refuge System since FY2010, the Refuge System
    budget has effectively decreased.
        The number of full-time employees (FTEs)-already a fraction of the
    other comparable Federal land agencies at 2,500 FTEs-has decreased by
    27% since FY2011. This has made it difficult for the Refuge System to
    manage its vast network of lands and waters and to fulfill its mission
    of conserving wildlife and habitats. The insufficient funding and
    capacity impacts are felt system-wide, impacting conservation planning,
    wildlife and habitat management, visitor services, law enforcement, and
    maintenance. No refuges are fully staffed, and more than half of
    refuges have zero staff on site. Multiple refuges have been closed to
    the public and are completely unmanaged. Many employees must manage
    multiple wildlife refuge units, sometimes traveling hundreds of miles
    per day. Many volunteer programs have also been cut back or eliminated
    due to a lack of supervision from professional FTEs or necessary
    infrastructure.
        We urge Congress to prioritize the Refuge System and address these
    overarching funding challenges to ensure that the USFWS is equipped to
    effectively manage the wildlife, habitat, programs, and visitorship
    that rely on the health and integrity of the Refuge System. Ultimately,
    the Refuge System needs at least $2.2 billion in annual appropriations
    to effectively fulfill its conservation mission, provide opportunities
    for wildlife-dependent recreation, and connect communities to nature.
    The President's FY2025 Budget Request of $602.3 million is an important
    step towards that goal.
        Thank you for considering our request of $602.3 million for the
    National Wildlife Refuge System in FY2025. Please feel free to contact
    Ariana Rickard, Public Policy and Funding Program Manager for Sonoma
    Land Trust at ariana@sonomalandtrust.org.

        [This statement was submitted by Ariana Rickard, Public Policy and
    Funding Program Manager, Sonoma Land Trust.]
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium
        My name is Michael E. Douglas. I am a member of the Haida Indian
    Tribe of Alaska, enrolled with the Central Council Tlingit & Haida
    Indian Tribes of Alaska, and I am Senior Vice President, Chief Legal
    Officer for the Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium (SEARHC).
    Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding FY 2025
    appropriations for the Indian Health Service (IHS).
     fund the mt. edgecumbe medical center joint venture staffing package.
        SEARHC is a Tribal consortium comprised of 15 federally-recognized
    Tribes that provides health care services to Alaska Natives, American
    Indians and other residents throughout Southeast Alaska through a
    comprehensive network of community clinics, behavioral health
    facilities, administrative facilities, and the Mt. Edgecumbe Medical
    Center (MEMC), a major hospital located in Sitka, Alaska that serves
    much of Southeast Alaska. MEMC is a 25-bed critical access hospital
    that offers a broad range of medical care services, including acute
    care, critical care, obstetrics, surgery, perioperative care, as well
    as outpatient primary and emergency service. The Emergency Department
    at MEMC is a Level IV Trauma Center staffed 24 hours a day, seven days
    a week by board-certified physicians, physician assistants, nurse
    practitioners and registered nurses who specialize in care for patients
    with serious illnesses and injuries. As SEARHC has often testified to
    Congress-and this subcommittee-MEMC has long been in dire need of
    replacement.
        Working together with IHS through the Joint Venture Program, and
    Congress-through critical land transfer legislation for parcels that
    will house the new facilities-SEARHC is constructing a new 234,000
    square foot healthcare facility that will be complete in 2025. The
    administration's FY 2025 Budget includes $47.75 million for the
    staffing and operations cost package for the new facility. This
    staffing package is a critical near-final step in a multi-year effort
    that has required deep coordination between SEARHC, the Federal
    Executive and Legislative branches, Tribal governments, and the State
    of Alaska. The result will be significantly improved access to
    healthcare at state-of-the-art facilities for the people of Southeast
    Alaska.
        SEARHC urges the subcommittee to support the Administration's
    request for Staffing and Operating Costs for Newly-Constructed
    Healthcare Facilities, including the requested funding the Mt.
    Edgecumbe Medical Center.
             continue providing advance appropriations for the ihs.
        SEARHC wishes to express its continued appreciation for providing
    advanced appropriations for the Indian Health Service. The Committee
    should do so again for FY 2025 and for every year until mandatory
    funding for the Indian Health Service can be secured. It is critical,
    however, that the advance appropriations funding level accounts for the
    cost of medical inflation and population growth in Tribal communities.
    In the current environment, flat funding or nominal increases could
    result in a decrease in access to care.
      move the ihs budget to mandatory appropriations and exempt it from
                                 sequestration.
        The administration proposes to begin moving the entire IHS budget
    to a mandatory appropriation structure. SEARHC supports this proposal
    and urges the Committee to do so as well. Movin the IHS budget to
    mandatory funding is in line with the United States' Trust and Treaty
    obligations to Alaska Native and American Indian Tribes and people, and
    will provide an additional measure of stability and support for our
    healthcare programs.
        Similarly, the Committee should protect the IHS budget, as well as
    the budgets of Tribes and Tribal Organizations that contract or compact
    with the IHS pursuant to the Indian Self Determination and Educational
    Assistance Act, by exempting them from sequestration. The IHS is the
    only major Federal healthcare program that is not exempt from
    sequestration, and the possibility of these cuts undermines the
    stability and certainty that is needed for planning and operating our
    programs.
                                   conclusion
        SEARHC appreciates the hard work of the Committee in upholding the
    United States' obligations to Alaska Native and American Indian Tribes
    and people, even in a difficult fiscal climate. With your steadfast
    support, Tribal healthcare providers have been making major strides in
    improving access to high-quality healthcare in high-quality facilities.
    Supporting the IHS budget, including the Joint Venture staffing
    package, will continue this legacy.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf
    of SEARHC. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

        [This statement was submitted by Michael E. Douglas, on behalf
    Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium.]
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Squaxin Island Tribal Leadership
        On behalf of the Squaxin Island Tribal Leadership and citizens, it
    is an honor to provide our priority funding requests and
    recommendations for the FY 2025 Budgets for the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (BIA), Indian Health Service (IHS) and Environmental Protection
    Agency. We applaud the Committees' work to include advance
    appropriations for the IHS in the FY 2023 omnibus spending package and
    we will work with Congress to also include the BIA and BIE. We will
    also continue to advocate and urge Congress to shift funding for all
    Tribal programs to mandatory direct appropriations. Overall, we urge
    Congress to exempt Tribal program funding from sequestrations,
    rescissions, and disproportionate cuts.
                     squaxin island tribe specific requests

        1. +$3.7 Million Retention Ponds Upgrade--EPA

      2. +$20 Million Deschutes Estuary Restoration--Phase I

      3. +$1.8 Million--Northwest Indian Treatment Center (NWITC)
            Residential Program in IHS

        A. +$1.5 million--Medicine Building

        B. +$300,000--Sustain Operations

      4. +$900,000 Shellfish Management Program--BIA

        SUPPORT NATIONAL and REGIONAL FY 2025 BUDGET Requests and
    Recommendations by the National Congress of American Indians, National
    Indian Health Board, National Indian Education Association, Affiliated
    Tribes of Northwest Indians and the Northwest Indian Fisheries
    Commission
                        squaxin island tribe background
        We are native people of South Puget Sound and descendants of the
    maritime people who lived and prospered along these shores for untold
    centuries. We are known as the People of the Water because of our
    strong cultural connection to the natural beauty and bounty of Puget
    Sound going back hundreds of years. The Squaxin Island Indian
    Reservation is in southeastern Mason County, Washington and the Tribe
    is a signatory to the 1854 Medicine Creek Treaty. Our treaty-designated
    reservation is approximately 2.2 square miles of uninhabited forested
    land, surrounded by the bays and inlets of southern Puget Sound. The
    Tribe has a current enrollment of 1,123 and an on-reservation
    population of 426 living in 141 homes. Squaxin has an estimated service
    area population of 2,747; a growth rate of about 10%, and an
    unemployment rate of about 30%.
             squaxin island tribe specific requests/justifications
       +$3.7 million--squaxin island retention ponds upgrade (epa stag--
                     congressional direct spending request)
        Our water conservation plan includes the use of retention ponds to
    store reclaimed water from our Membrane Bioreactor for irrigation. The
    purpose of the retention ponds is to control the outflow of reclaimed
    water for infiltration into the earth, improve water quality and
    support a healthy ecosystem. The use of reclaimed water conserves cold
    clean water for human consumption as well as salmon habitat and can
    satisfy most water demands, because it is highly treated to ensure
    water quality appropriate for most uses except for drinking. The
    current retention pond storage capacity is twenty-three million
    gallons. An additional twenty-three million gallons of reclaimed water
    storage is needed to limit winter infiltration needs and to have enough
    summer irrigation water. Efforts to build the additional storage were
    delayed by the COVID outbreak, but the urgency and need for these
    upgrades have escalated.
        Reclaimed water retention ponds are man-made, sloped ponds that
    collect reclaimed water and some stormwater. The water undergoes
    additional treatment in the retention pond in the form of filtering and
    settling of sediments and released very slowly in the winter season,
    and rapidly in the summer season. The soil and rock matrix of the earth
    serves as a natural filter and treatment medium for the reclaimed
    water. Without the retention ponds, release of reclaimed water could
    not be controlled, and it would result in some discharge to local
    streams.
        The Salish Cliffs Golf Course serves an important purpose of
    receiving, filtering, and infiltrating the Tribe's reclaimed wastewater
    into the earth. Without the golf course, the Tribe would have to
    discharge to Skookum Creek or Little Skookum Inlet. Discharging surface
    water would affect aquatic life and limit the opportunities of Tribal
    members and the public to recreate and to consume shellfish from
    Skookum Inlet. Two components of the reclaimed water disposal system
    need upgrades:
        Replace liner of current reclaimed water retention pond. The liner
    is reaching the end of its useful life.
        Build additional reclaimed water storage in the form of a second
    retention pond. The need for a second retention pond comes from the
    fact that the golf course cannot store enough reclaimed water in the
    winter to hold for summer irrigation. Golf course operators still must
    apply reclaimed water to the golf course during the rainy season
    because they cannot store enough. In the dry season, they use up all of
    the stored reclaimed water.
    +$20 million deschutes estuary restoration project--design & permitting
                            phase i (epa and usfws)
        The Restoration Project will improve ecological conditions, achieve
    state water quality standards, improve climate resilience, and restore
    recreational boating and fishing in the waterbody. In addition to the
    removal of the 5th Avenue Dam, an approximate 500-foot-wide opening
    will be created to reintroduce tidal flows to the project area and
    restore 260 acres of estuarine conditions and salt marsh habitat at the
    mouth of the Deschutes River.
        Capitol Lake was part of the Deschutes Estuary, where freshwater
    from the Deschutes River would mix with saltwater over expansive tide
    flats. The Deschutes Estuary has long-standing cultural and spiritual
    significance to local Tribes, particularly the Squaxin Island Tribe. An
    estimated 35,000 cubic yards of sediment is transported by the
    Deschutes River (and Percival Creek) into the Capitol Lake Basin each
    year, shallowing the Lake and resulting in conditions that are visibly
    altered. Following construction of the 5th Avenue Dam, construction
    sediment accumulation reached up to 13 feet thick in some areas. Water
    quality monitoring began in the 1970s in response to excessive growth
    of aquatic plants, dense algal mats, and reduced water clarity, which
    are caused by high nutrient levels.
        In the late 1980s, management strategies were implemented to
    address aquatic invasive species which currently consists of more than
    a dozen different plant and animal species in Capitol Lake. In 2009,
    the presence of the invasive New Zealand mudsnail resulted in official
    closure of the waterbody to all public uses. This includes restricted
    access by the Squaxin Island Tribe to their usual and accustomed
    fishing grounds and stations.
        In October 2022, a final Environmental Impact Statement was issued,
    and the Estuary Alternative was identified as preferred for long-term
    management of Capitol Lake because it will achieve project goals and
    has the greatest ability for long-term support. Some benefits of the
    project will include:

      --Provide productive habitat for shellfish, salmon, and other
            anadromous species, including aquatic species listed as
            threatened under the Endangered Species Act;

      --Serve as a key step in restoring productive migratory fisheries in
            south Puget Sound and advancing Orca recovery;

      --Address chronic water quality violations by improving dissolved
            oxygen conditions in Budd Inlet;

      --Increase climate resiliency across downtown Olympia by reducing
            maximum flood elevations by one foot compared to conditions
            with the 5th Avenue Dam in place;

      --Produce habitat that will better sequester carbon than existing
            conditions; and,

      --Celebrate the Pacific Northwest through native plantings,
            interpretive signs, and Tribal art installations.
    . + $1.8 million increase for northwest indian treatment center (nwitc)
      residential program--h"d3wxbi palil'' meaning ``returning from the
                     dark, deep waters to the light'' (ihs)
        The Squaxin Island Tribe's Northwest Indian Treatment Center, D3f
    bi Pa lil, is a residential treatment facility that serves Native
    Americans with chronic substance abuse patterns related to unresolved
    grief and complex trauma, including generational trauma. NWITC is
    accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Rehabilitation
    Facilities (CARF International) and is a recognized national model of
    treatment for trauma in the presence of addiction, uniquely integrating
    the best practice of Dialectical Behavioral Therapy (DBT) with Plant
    Medicines. This culturally infused best practice, based on the NWITC
    program, has been adapted in many Tribal communities since its
    development. DBT is a model of treatment with good research results for
    the treatment of substance abuse and mental health conditions. NWITC
    has these urgent needs:
        Medicine Building--this project is shovel ready with cost estimated
    at +$1.5 million--This building will support and expand the reach of
    the activities of the DBT/Plant Medicine program. It will be a place of
    medicine making, but also have video capacity linking this program to
    other Tribal medicine programs and creating a library available to
    Tribal behavioral health programs and NWITC alumni. The result will be
    better support for alumni, but also will help build capacity virtually
    in Tribal communities in the Northwest.
        NWITC Recovery Support Team and Outreach--+$300,000--The pandemic
    attributed to a high relapse rate in Tribal communities served by
    NWITC. Even though the NWITC has a Recovery Support Team who actively
    supports alumni for 1-year post treatment, in the current environment
    this is insufficient. NWITC requires a staff position to provide the
    DBT/Plant Medicine training/coaching in the Tribal communities in which
    alumni live. Costs include an FTE position, accommodation expenses for
    alumni to participate. In past events, NWITC has verified this as the
    most successful approach for teaching/coaching alumni.
        +$900,000--shellfish management (bia--fish hatchery maintenance
                                    program)
        The Squaxin Island Tribe faces an ongoing budget deficit to
    maintain and operate the shellfish program at its current level of
    operation-a level that leaves 20% of treaty-designated state lands and
    80-90% of private tidelands unharvested due to the lack of funding. To
    address this shortfall and enable effective growth and development of
    the program, an annual minimum increase of $900,000 is requested.
    Shellfish have been a mainstay for the Squaxin Island people for
    thousands of years--for subsistence, economically and for ceremonial
    purposes. The Tribe's right to harvest shellfish is guaranteed by the
    1854 Medicine Creek Treaty. Today, we are unable to fully exercise our
    treaty rights due to the lack of Federal support for our shellfish
    management program.

        [This statement was submitted by Kristopher K. Peters, Chairman,
    Squaxin Island Tribe.]
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of the State of New Mexico Office of the State
                                    Engineer
        Congress authorized the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
    Program (Program) through the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act
    (Act) in 1974 to offset increased damages caused by development and use
    of the waters of the Colorado River. Congress has directed the
    Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to implement a comprehensive
    program for minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from
    lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). BLM has
    funded these efforts as directed by Congress through its Aquatic
    Resources Program. A funding level of $2.0 million for salinity
    specific projects in 2025 is requested to comply with this direction.
        The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has identified that
    more than 60 percent of the salt load of the Colorado River comes from
    natural sources. Most of the land within the Colorado River Basin is
    federally owned, and much of it is administered by BLM. In authorizing
    Program, Congress recognized that most of the salts in the Colorado
    River originate from federally owned lands.
        Reclamation estimates that damages costing about $350 million per
    year are caused by excess salinity in the Lower Basin of the Colorado
    River. The salinity of the River increases about 15-fold from its
    headwaters in the mountains of Colorado to the Lower Basin near Yuma.
    Modeling by Reclamation indicates that the quantifiable damages would
    rise to approximately $447 million by the year 2040 without
    continuation of the Program. These damages occur in the form of:

      --reduced ability to reclaim and reuse water for drinking or
            irrigation,

      --reduced yield of salt sensitive crops,

      --increased use of imported water and cost of desalination,

      --reduced useful life of water pipe systems and household appliances,

      --increased cost of cooling operations and water softening,

      --increased use of water and cost of water treatment,

      --decreased lifespan of treatment facilities, and difficulty in
            meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply with
            Federal laws

        New Mexico is a member of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control
    Forum and voted in favor of adopting a Plan of Implementation developed
    to control the salinity levels in the Colorado River. The level of
    appropriation ($2 million) requested in this testimony is in keeping
    with this same Plan. New Mexico stands in support of Congress
    allocating this money to the BLM.

        [This statement was submitted by Mike A. Hamman, PE, New Mexico
    State Engineer.]
                                     ______

                 Prepared Statement of the Surfrider Foundation
        The Surfrider Foundation (``Surfrider'') strongly supports the
    appropriations of $15 million to the Beaches Environmental Assessment
    and Coastal Health (``BEACH'') Act Grants Program and $100 million to
    the U.S./Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Grant Program
    (Infrastructure Assistance: Mexico Border State and Tribal Assistance
    Grants) administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'')
    to protect public health and beach water quality in the Fiscal Year
    (FY) 2025 Federal budget.
        The EPA BEACH Act Grants Program provides critical funding to 35
    States and territories to conduct beach water quality testing, publish
    results on public notification programs, and post signage when elevated
    bacteria levels are measured. Many States rely completely on this
    funding to administer their beach water quality testing and public
    notification programs which are essential for protecting public health
    and coastal tourism economies. However, years of funding this program
    at less than a third of its authorized level has resulted in piecemeal
    water testing across the Nation, where local agencies are forced to
    reduce testing frequency, test only at certain beaches, and test only
    during a portion of the year, leaving many beaches and communities in
    the dark regarding the status of their local water quality. According
    to the EPA, of the 5,089 EPA BEACH Act ``program beaches'', only 3,560
    beaches were monitored in 2023,\1\ with many of which monitored less
    than once a week and only during ``beach season''.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ https://ordspub.epa.gov/ords/beacon2/f?p=BEACON2:DNR
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The nation's $138 billion coastal tourism and recreation industry
    supports nearly 2.5 million jobs,\2\ but it is dependent upon clean
    water and healthy beaches. Sadly, coastal water quality is constantly
    at risk of impairments from untreated and undertreated sewage due to
    outdated and inadequately maintained wastewater infrastructure,
    resulting in combined sewer overflows, sewage spills and diversions,
    backups and cracks of sewage distribution pipes, and more. Over 850
    billion gallons of raw sewage are released into U.S. waterways each
    year from sewer overflows alone.\3\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ https://www.oceaneconomics.org/ocean_econ/ocean_econ.html
        \3\ https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-10/documents/
    csossortc2004_full.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Additionally, many outdated decentralized wastewater systems
    provide no treatment before releasing sewage polluted wastewater into
    the environment. Approximately 25 percent of U.S. households are still
    serviced by septic and cesspool systems,\4\ with up to 50 percent of
    households serviced by septic and cesspool systems in certain
    States.\5\ For instance, there are nearly 88,000 cesspools in Hawaii
    that discharge 53 million gallons of sewage into coastal waters every
    day.\6\ On the East End of Long Island, New York, there are
    approximately 360,000 on-site sewage disposal systems of which 250,000
    are cesspools.\7\ Sewage polluted wastewater often makes it into
    stormwater runoff, which continues to be the main cause of beach
    closures nationwide. There is an estimated 10 trillion gallons of
    untreated stormwater runoff threatening our coastlines and local
    waterways each year.\8\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \4\ https://www.epa.gov/septic/about-septic-systems
        \5\ www.nepm.org/regional-news/2017-12-22/in-new-england-gone-are-
    the-days-when-septic-can-be-out-of-sight-out-of-mind#stream/0
        \6\ https://health.hawaii.gov/wastewater/home/cesspools/
        \7\ www.suffolkcountyny.gov/news/artmid/583/articleid/2725/suffolk-
    health-officials-outline-changes-to-wastewater-practices-to-take-
    effect-on-july-1-2019
        \8\ https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/rooftopstoriversII-
    update.pdf
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Exposure to untreated and undertreated sewage poses a significant
    public health threat. Sewage contains bacteria, viruses and parasites
    that can make people sick with gastrointestinal symptoms, rashes, and
    eye infections, as well as more serious conditions including hepatitis,
    acute respiratory disease, cholera, giardia, methicillin-resistant
    staph infections (MRSA), and even flesh eating bacteria from V.
    vulnificus, among others. A 2018 study estimated that each year, 90
    million illnesses are caused by recreating in sewage-polluted waters,
    which costs the U.S. economy up to $3.7 billion annually.\9\ For this
    study, the primary exposure route was through dermal contact and
    accidental ingestion of polluted water during water recreation.
    However, bacteria and industrial chemicals in areas chronically
    polluted with high levels of sewage and industrial discharges, such as
    coastal waters near the Tijuana River Watershed at the U.S./Mexico
    border, can become aerosolized in sea spray, reducing air quality and
    causing an additional exposure route through inhalation, further
    threatening public health.\10\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \9\ https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-
    017-0347-9
        \10\ https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.2c02312?ref=pdf%20
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This area of chronic coastal pollution in South San Diego County
    along the U.S./Mexico border is important for our second ask of
    elevated funding for the Border Water Infrastructure Grant Program
    managed by the EPA. Binational flows of polluted water, in part due to
    the insufficient treatment capacity, mechanical failures and neglected
    maintenance of the South Bay International Wastewater Treatment Plant,
    are wreaking havoc on the local community, economy, and environment.
    Since October 2018, the U.S. International Boundary and Water
    Commission has documented the entry of over 148 billion gallons of
    toxic effluent into the United States through the Tijuana River,\11\
    with 28.2 billion gallons of polluted flows crossing the international
    border since the start of this year.\12\ The southernmost beach in San
    Diego County has been closed for 882 consecutive days and counting.
    Nearby, Imperial Beach has been closed 100 percent of 2024 to date,
    with Silver Strand Beach closed for 96 percent of this year, and world-
    renowned Coronado Beach closed for 74 percent of this year as a result
    of these flows.\13\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \11\ Email exchange with IBWC Area Operations Manager, February 6
    2024
        \12\ Email exchange with IBWC Area Operations Manager, May 2 2024
        \13\ Email exchange with San Diego County Environmental Health
    Specialist, May 2 2024
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Not only do polluted flows threaten the public health of
    surrounding communities, the Tijuana River pollution crisis undermines
    U.S. national security, affecting Navy SEAL training programs and the
    ability of Border Patrol agents to do their jobs. According to a House
    Report of the Committee on Armed Services that outlines impacts on Navy
    readiness and training, pollution from the Tijuana River caused over
    250 in-water canceled training events in FY2020.\14\ Additionally,
    Border Patrol agents have experienced illnesses from exposure to toxic
    water while performing job duties, including flesh-eating bacteria.\15\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \14\ https://docs.house.gov/billsthisweek/20210920/CRPT-
    117hrpt118.pdf (see page 108)
        \15\ https://www.surfrider.org/news/the-impact-of-toxic-border-
    pollution-on-us-border-patrol
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Local businesses and economies have also been hit hard and continue
    to suffer due to increasing water and air contamination. The County of
    San Diego, with assistance from the San Diego Regional Chamber of
    Commerce, recently conducted an economic impact study to measure the
    impacts of border pollution on local businesses. Preliminary results
    reveal that 74 percent of local businesses have been negatively
    impacted, 30 percent have laid off staff, 50 percent have lost more
    than $100,000 in revenue, the City of Imperial Beach has experienced
    $1-1.5 million in property tax damage, and the estimated revenue loss
    for tourism is over $500,000 annually.\16\ Some businesses have been
    forced to close, and many residents have lost their livelihoods.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \16\ Preliminary findings presented during testimony by Lauren
    Cazares, San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, to the California
    Coastal Commission on October 11 2023: https://cal-span.org/meeting/
    ccc_20231011/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        These economic and public health concerns are why the City of
    Imperial Beach, City of San Diego, and the County of San Diego maintain
    an ongoing State of Local Emergency related to the impacts of cross-
    border pollution from the binational Tijuana River. The Tijuana River
    was also recently designated as one of America's most Endangered Rivers
    \17\ due to the severe level of sewage and industrial pollution
    threatening local communities and wildlife. Yet despite national
    attention, toxic flows continue to threaten families, expose Border
    Patrol personnel and impede public access to the coast every day.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \17\ https://mostendangeredrivers.org/river/tijuana-river/
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Progress has been made with Federal funding allocated through the
    United States Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) to develop and advance
    the EPA Comprehensive Infrastructure Solution to repair and upgrade
    treatment facilities at the U.S./Mexico Border. The Comprehensive
    Infrastructure Solution is designed to both increase wastewater
    treatment plant capacity and the broader distribution system to be able
    to adequately handle wastewater flows. Once implemented, the
    Comprehensive Infrastructure Solution is estimated to decrease cross-
    border flows by 75 percent year-round and reduce beach closures by 95
    percent in summer months.\18\ However, even with the $300 million
    provided from the USMCA, recent funding allocations to the
    International Boundary and Water Commission, and contributions made by
    the Mexican government, there is a several hundred million dollar
    funding gap to fully implement the Comprehensive Infrastructure
    Solution. Funding the EPA Border Water Infrastructure Grant Program at
    the full authorized level of $100 million in FY2025, with the majority
    directed specifically for the Tijuana River Watershed, will help close
    this gap and address the severe public health crisis and military
    preparedness threat occurring at the U.S./Mexico border.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \18\ https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-water-infrastructure/usmca-
    tijuana-river-watershed
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Funding the BEACH Act Grants Program at $15 million, which is just
    half of the program's Congressionally authorized level of $30 million,
    would increase the ability of local health departments in coastal
    States and territories across the Nation to test more beaches more
    often and keep the public informed of their local beach water quality
    to prevent against unnecessary yet potentially life threatening water-
    borne illnesses. Increasing funding for this program will also help
    agencies continue to identify pollution hot spots and more
    strategically invest in infrastructure upgrade solutions to stop
    pollution at the source.
        Thank you for your consideration of elevating funding for these
    critical water quality and public health programs.

        [This statement was submitted by Katie Day, Senior Manager of
    Science and Policy, Surfrider Foundation.]
                                     ______

          Prepared Statement of the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community
        On behalf of the Swinomish Indian Tribal Community (Swinomish), I
    am pleased to provide this testimony for the subcommittee as it drafts
    its Fiscal Year 2025 spending bill.
        The Swinomish Tribe is a federally recognized Indian Tribe and
    political successor in interest to certain Tribes and bands that signed
    the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliott which, among other things, reserved
    fishing, hunting and gathering rights and established the Swinomish
    Reservation on Fidalgo Island in Skagit County, Washington. The
    Swinomish Reservation sits at the mouth of the Skagit River, the
    largest river system draining to Puget Sound and the only river in the
    Lower 48 States that still has all species of wild Pacific salmon
    spawning in its waters. Since time immemorial, the Swinomish Tribe and
    its predecessors have occupied and utilized vast areas of land and
    water in northern Puget Sound to support the Swinomish way of life.
        Fish and fish habitat are crucial to the cultural, spiritual,
    subsistence and commercial activities of the Swinomish Tribe, and the
    Tribe exercises Treaty-protected fishing rights in its usual and
    accustomed fishing areas, which include an extensive portion of the
    Salish Sea and the entirety of the Skagit River and its tributaries.
    funding increase for behavioral health to address the opioid and mental
                                 health crisis.
        As the subcommittee is aware, the National opioid epidemic
    represents one of the great public health challenges of the modern era
    and nowhere is this more evident than in Indian Country. The opioid/
    fentanyl epidemic has disproportionately impacted our community.
    American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs) in Skagit County
    experience a drug overdose mortality that is almost 3 times higher
    compared to the total population.
        In November 2017, Swinomish became one of the first-if not, the
    first-Indian Tribe in the United States to open its own unique and
    holistic opioid treatment facility. Swinomish constructed the facility
    without using any IHS funds. Swinomish is continuing to be at the
    frontlines of addressing the opioid epidemic both on-reservation and in
    the surrounding local communities. We need access to sufficient and
    flexible resources for prevention, treatment, and recovery to address
    this crisis. We urge the subcommittee to include additional
    appropriations to IHS for substance use disorder and mental health
    programs authorized through Indian Self-Determination and Education
    Assistance Act (ISDEAA) compacts and contracts.
        Swinomish supports the proposed supplemental appropriations request
    for $250 million to support funding for fentanyl and opioid abuse
    prevention, treatment, recovery services, and harm reduction
    interventions. To the extent that the Administration requests $250
    million or other amount of funding for fentanyl and opioid abuse
    prevention in another supplemental request, Swinomish recommends the
    subcommittee to support it, authorize funding through ISDEAA compacts
    and contracts, and urge its enactment into law.
        Swinomish supports the FY 2025 Budget request for a $10 million
    increase to the IHS Alcohol and Substance Abuse Opioid Grant program.
    Although we believe the amount for the Alcohol and Substance Abuse
    appropriations should closer to $50 million to reflect the magnitude of
    the crisis in Indian Country. These grants are intended to support a
    comprehensive response to the opioid epidemic with a specific focus to
    integrate primary care and substance use prevention and treatment
    activities, as well as establish or enhance community-based support
    services.
        We are concerned that distributing the funds through a competitive
    grant process will leave many Tribal communities out. Competitive
    grants are not a long-term solution, and they divert scarce staff
    resources from their regular program duties. This is especially true
    for Tribes like Swinomish that have made significant investments in
    treatment facilities and other infrastructure to combat the opioid
    epidemic. Behavioral health funding must be authorized through ISDEAA
    compacts and contracts to ensure sufficient, recurring, and sustainable
    funding.
      reclassification of funding for contract support costs and section
            105(l) leases from discretionary spending to mandatory.
        All Federal Indian agencies and programs should be classified as
    mandatory funding to meet the Federal treaty and trust responsibility,
    while decreasing the chronic underfunding and inequity. Both contract
    support costs (CSC) and Section 105(l) leases are vital appropriations
    in addressing historical underfunding of facility and administrative
    costs. Separate indefinite funding for CSC and Section 105(l) leases
    has contributed to the lack of unintended program funding increases and
    reductions. Swinomish urges the subcommittee to include the FY 2025
    Budget request for reclassification of CSC and Section 105(l) leases
    from discretionary to mandatory spending.
     $2 million for the swinomish and skagit valley college dental therapy
                               education program
        Our dental therapists have broken the cycle of historically poor,
    traumatic dental care provided by part-time traveling dentists who
    would drill and extract in a broken-down and unsanitary trailer that
    became known for pain and suffering. In September 2022, Swinomish, in
    partnership with Skagit Valley College developed the first Dental
    Therapy Education Program in Washington accredited by the Commission on
    Dental Accreditation. The Dental Therapy Education program will address
    the on-going oral health workforce disparities among American Indian
    and Alaska Native communities across the country. Swinomish requests
    the subcommittee to increase funding under IHS for $2 million to the
    Swinomish and Skagit Valley College Dental Therapy Education Program.
                        federal power compliance program
        Swinomish strongly supports the Bureau of Indian Affairs' (BIA)
    Federal Power Compliance program (FCP), which is within the Resource
    Management Construction section of the BIA's FY 2025 detailed budget
    justifications. The FCP provides resources to federally recognized
    Indian Tribes to ensure that impacts to Tribal interests and resources
    are sufficiently mitigated in any hydropower license issued by the
    Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).
        For years, Swinomish has been an active participant in the City of
    Seattle's FERC relicensing proceeding involving Seattle City Light,
    which is seeking to relicense the Skagit River Hydroelectric Project.
    The Project is a series of three dams that provide approximately 20
    percent of the City of Seattle's power. The proposed license term is
    40-50 years, and the dams will generate billions of dollars of
    electricity value over that timeframe.
        Swinomish has had cultural and natural resources in the Skagit
    River since time immemorial and possesses treaty rights in the entire
    Skagit watershed. Swinomish is working to ensure that any new FERC
    license will provide a substantial financial investment in the Skagit
    River to address the 100 years of cumulative harm that the dams have
    had on the ecology and fishing in the Skagit watershed. Funding from
    the FCP has assisted Swinomish in its ongoing efforts to participate in
    the multi-year Federal relicensing process.
        The FY 2025 Budget Request seeks a modest increase to the FCP, with
    a total proposed budget for the program of $687,000. Given the
    magnitude of the Seattle City Light relicensing proceeding, Swinomish
    urges the subcommittee to fund the FCP at the $1 million level in FY
    2025, which would allow for more resources for Tribes to protect their
    interests in FERC proceedings.
                                law enforcement
        Like most Indian Tribes, Swinomish needs additional resources to
    assist with the recruitment and retention of experienced law
    enforcement officers, especially in a time when fentanyl-related
    activity is epidemic in many Tribal communities. Swinomish experienced
    challenges retaining officers and officer turnover because neighboring
    jurisdictions offer more competitive pay and benefits. This competition
    has been amplified by the shortage of officers in Washington state and
    the recruiting efforts of neighboring jurisdictions.
        In FY 2024, most BIA law enforcement programs received level
    funding compared to the FY 2023 enacted levels. The FY 2025 Budget
    Request seeks a $45.5 million increase in Criminal Investigations and
    Police Services, with $33.5 million specifically allocated to increase
    the number of officers and investigators in Indian Country. Swinomish
    requests that the subcommittee fund the Criminal Investigations and
    Police Services account to at least the FY 2025 requested levels.
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide our recommendations on the
    subcommittee's FY 2025 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    spending bill. Please feel free to contact me with any questions.

        [This statement was submitted by Steve Edwards, Chairman, Swinomish
    Indian Senate, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community.]
                                     ______

               Prepared Statement of Theatre Communications Group
        Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, Theatre
    Communications Group-the national service organization for the American
    theatre-is grateful for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf
    of our over 500 not-for-profit member theatres across the country and
    the approximately 10.4 million audience members that the not-for-profit
    theatre community served in 2022. We urge you to support the National
    Endowment for the Arts (NEA) appropriations in the FY 2025 Interior
    Appropriations bill to no less than $211 million, in order to broaden
    access to the cultural, educational, and economic benefits of the arts
    and to advance creativity and innovation in communities across the
    United States.
        The entire not-for-profit arts industry has a history of
    stimulating the economy, creating jobs, and attracting tourism dollars.
    Prior to the pandemic, the not-for-profit arts generated $166.3 billion
    annually in economic activity, supported 4.6 million jobs, and returned
    $27.5 billion in government revenue.
        The arts sector is an economic engine which uplifts, engages,
    educates, and innovates. The NEA can help leverage the arts sector to
    play a key role in the work to contribute to the American economy. The
    arts sector is also a powerful conduit for bridging and healing deep
    divisions. The NEA has a role in redressing systemic injustice-
    including long-time inequities in arts funding, as well as a lack of
    appreciation for creativity from all cultures. The NEA's role is to
    make sure all Americans have access to the arts no matter where they
    live. Among the NEA's accomplishments is the growth of arts activity in
    areas of the Nation that have been under-resourced, especially in rural
    and inner-city communities. In many communities, NEA grants support
    free performances, as well as reduced ticket prices for those who
    cannot afford to buy a ticket. A significant percentage of grants
    benefit those who have fewer opportunities to participate in the arts.
        Federal funding for the arts creates a significant return,
    generating nine dollars in matching funds for each Federal dollar
    awarded, and is clearly an investment in the economic health of
    America. At this time of financial stress and economic uncertainty,
    increased Federal funding is essential. The not-for-profit sector will
    need sustained support to recover, rebuild, and be able to fully return
    to serving communities.
        Our country's not-for-profit theatres present new and classical
    works and serve as catalysts for economic growth in their local
    communities. These theatres also nurture and provide artistic homes for
    the development of the current and future generations of acclaimed
    writers, actors, directors, and designers working in regional theatre,
    on Broadway, and in the film and television industries. Our theatres
    develop innovative educational activities and outreach programs, and
    before the pandemic provided millions of young people, including ``at-
    risk'' youth, with important skills for the future by expanding their
    creativity and developing problem-solving, reasoning, and communication
    abilities-preparing today's students to become tomorrow's citizens. At
    the same time, theatres have become increasingly responsive to their
    communities, serving as healing forces in difficult times and producing
    work that reflects and celebrates the strength of our Nation's
    diversity.

        Here are some recent examples of NEA grants and their community
    impact:

        Arizona Theatre Company in Tucson, AZ received a $15,000 grant to
    support staff salaries and artist fees for a playwrights festival.
    Intended to serve Latine playwrights, the festival will serve as an
    incubator for new theatrical works. Playwrights will have opportunities
    to workshop new scripts with directors, dramaturgs, and actors. Each
    play will receive staged readings for public audiences. The festival
    will benefit theatre artists and audiences in Arizona.
        Perseverance Theatre in Alaska received a $40,000 NEA grant to
    support the development and world premiere production of Cold Case by
    Cathy Tagnak Rexford. Exploring the issue of missing and murdered
    Indigenous women in Alaska, prior to the production, the play will
    receive a workshop focusing on translation, pronunciation, and use of
    the Inupiatun language in the play. The production will serve theatre
    artists and audiences in Douglas, Alaska, while the Nationwide theatre
    field will benefit from the creation of new work.
        Portland Playhouse in Portland, Oregon, received a $30,000 grant to
    support the production of Notes from the Field by Anna Deavere Smith
    and related engagement activities. Based on interviews Deavere Smith
    conducted with students, parents, and teachers, the play explores
    school disciplinary practices that drive children into the juvenile and
    criminal justice systems, instances of police brutality, economic
    despair, and the history of the civil rights movement. The playhouse
    also will program conversations about the play's themes facilitated by
    community partners who work with school districts, courts, and prisons.
    The project will serve theatre artists and audiences in the greater
    Portland, Oregon area.
        Trinity Repertory Company in Providence, RI, received a $15,000 NEA
    grant to support the world premiere production of La Broa' (Broad
    Street) by Orlando Hernandez, based on the book Nuestras Raices by
    Marta V. Martinez. Martinez's book turns a collection of oral histories
    into a fascinating story of the birth of Rhode Island's vibrant Latino
    community. The play will map the past, present, and future of Latino
    communities, showing how places transform over time through the
    circumstances and decisions of people often left out of history books.
    During the production, audiences will be invited into an immersive
    environment where the actors and musicians will perform all around
    them. The production will serve theatre artists and audiences across
    Rhode Island.
        These are only a handful of examples of the kinds of extraordinary
    programs supported by the National Endowment for the Arts. In terms of
    pre-pandemic annual appropriations, the Endowment's Theatre Program was
    able to fund only 60% of the applications it receives, so 40% of
    applying theatres were typically turned away-in part because available
    funds have remained insufficient. Indeed, the NEA was able to fund only
    7% of the eligible applicants through its American Rescue Plan program,
    further illustrating the unmet need for Endowment funding. Theatres
    were among the first to close and the last to reopen, and the financial
    consequences have been severe. The need across the arts field remains
    drastic.
        The arts infrastructure of the United States is critical to the
    Nation's well-being and economic vitality. Restaurants and hotels,
    along with other businesses, often depend upon the theatres and other
    arts organizations in their communities and the success of these
    sectors is intertwined. The arts community is supported by a remarkable
    combination of government, business, foundation, and individual donors
    and represents a striking example of federal/state/private partnership.
    Federal support for the arts provides a measure of stability for arts
    programs nationwide and is critical at a time when other sources of
    funding are diminished.
        Theatres work hard to serve their communities and maintain
    connection with audiences through performances and education offerings.
    Audiences have still not returned to pre-pandemic levels and costs
    continue to rise dramatically, and so theatres are still trying to
    manage the financial consequences of the impact of COVID-19 which we
    anticipate will be felt for several more years.
        The NEA's FY 2024 budget is $207 million. We thank the subcommittee
    for its leadership in supporting the work of the NEA. Theatre
    Communications Group urges you to support the largest possible increase
    for FY25 for the NEA, at no less than $211 million to maintain citizen
    access to the cultural, educational, and economic benefits of the arts;
    to advance creativity and innovation in communities across the United
    States; to restore the theatre sector beyond disaster relief, and
    toward ongoing recovery and service to communities. Please invest in
    the arts at a level that reflects the significant role the arts play in
    our society.
        Thank you for considering this request.

        [This statement was submitted by Laurie Baskin, Director of
    Advocacy, Theatre Communications Group.]
                                     ______

       Prepared Statement of Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership
        The following is written testimony submitted by Alexander Funk,
    Director of Water Resources, with the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
    Partnership. The testimony is for the subcommittee on Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies. The testimony regards an FY25
    appropriations request for the Bureau of Land Management's Aquatic
    Resources Program.
        The undersigned organizations support increased funding for the
    Bureau of Land Management's Aquatic Resources Program as part of the
    FY25 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations
    legislation. Specifically, our organizations request $65 million for
    FY25 to increase the pace and scale of watershed restoration and
    conservation efforts to increase drought and wildfire resilience,
    support local communities, and secure reliable water supplies on
    America's public lands. Such investments will help these landscapes
    more reliably yield benefits in water residency times, water quality,
    habitat for terrestrial and aquatic species, recreation, rangeland
    health and forage, and carbon sequestration.
        The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) plays a critical role in
    stewarding the Nation's water resources. The agency manages over
    250,000 miles of streams and rivers, which provide drinking water to
    one in 10 Americans in the West. Its aquatic resources are among the
    Nation's most important and diverse, providing sustained value to the
    American public. Increasing support for BLM's aquatic resource
    management efforts is critical to providing reliable water supplies and
    conserving the economic benefits communities rely upon.
        A key focus of the BLM's Aquatic Resources Program is to conserve
    and restore watershed health. Unfortunately, in many watersheds with
    BLM-managed lands, stream channels are carved into deep trenches and/or
    disconnected from their floodplains, diminishing the benefits described
    above and ultimately creating landscapes and communities that are even
    more vulnerable to drought and other negative impacts of climate
    change. Through strategic restoration investments, we can reconnect
    streams to their floodplains to restore many of the benefits that have
    been lost over time. Such investments can raise the groundwater table
    and refill aquifers. This can maintain green vegetation later in the
    year, reducing wildfire burn severity and increasing late-season water
    availability for both wildlife and water users. Within arid and semi-
    arid landscapes, restored wet meadows provide essential food and cover
    for wildlife such as sage grouse, elk, mule deer, and pronghorn. These
    areas can also provide forage for livestock. Protected and restored
    streams and their wetlands have also been shown to serve as fire breaks
    and filter out ash and sediment after fires thus protecting downstream
    water infrastructure.
        In addition to enhancing the benefits of our watersheds, BLM's
    Aquatic Resources Program supports other important initiatives such as
    restoring fish passage, preventing and controlling the spread of
    aquatic invasive species and managing some of the country's best
    remaining healthy rivers, including many that are designated Wild and
    Scenic Rivers. Finally, BLM's Aquatic Resources Program supports
    education and outreach through programs such as Project Healing Waters
    Fly Fishing, which seeks to rehabilitate the physical and emotional
    well-being of disabled veterans and underrepresented communities.
                            report language request
        We recommend in the Committee's report associated with the bill
    making appropriations for the Department of the Interior, environment,
    and related agencies that the following language be included in the
    ``Department of the Interior'' title under the ``Bureau of Land
    Management'' header, for the ``Management of Lands and Resources''
    account:
        ``Aquatic Resources.--The Committee recognizes that the Bureau of
    Land Management plays a critical role in stewarding the Nation's water
    resources. Aquatic resources on public lands managed by the Bureau of
    Land Management are among the most important, productive, and diverse
    resources in the Nation, providing sustained value to the American
    public. The Committee recommends $65,000,000, which includes program
    increases of $6,700,000 for building capacity and supporting
    partnerships with Tribes, States, and local governments to advance
    natural and cultural resource conservation and protection, and
    $2,383,000 for improving water resources. Of the amount allocated to
    build capacity, the Committee recommends $3,000,000 be used to hire
    aquatic restoration staff and at least one fisheries biologist or
    hydrologist in each Bureau District and Field Office to support the
    protection, management, and restoration of freshwater resources for
    drought, wildfire, and flood resilience; $1,500,000 be used to train
    Bureau staff and partners to manage, protect, and restore freshwater
    resources and build a restoration workforce; and $2,200,000 be used to
    support project implementation.''
        Bolstering the Aquatic Resources Program's annual budget will
    provide critical resources to support the BLM Aquatic Resources Program
    in the following ways:

      --Increase capacity, including resources to hire at least one
            fisheries biologist and hydrologist in each BLM field office to
            support the development and implementation of watershed
            restoration and conservation efforts and support the
            integration of aquatic restoration efforts across other BLM
            programs, including wildland fire management.

      --Develop and offer training and workshops to build their capacity
            and that of their partners to increase drought, wildfire, and
            flood resilience.

        Overall, supporting the BLM's Aquatic Resources Program is a sound
    investment in enhancing our Nation's resilience to drought and wildfire
    while supporting fish and wildlife. Our organizations thank you for
    your consideration and are happy to answer any questions regarding
    these requests.

    Sincerely,

    Alexander Funk
    Director of Water Resources
    Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

    Sara Porterfield
    Western Water Policy Advisor
    Trout Unlimited

    Fay Hartman
    Conservation Director, Southwest Region
    American Rivers

    Tom Cors
    Senior Director Legislative Affairs
    The Nature Conservancy

    Alicia Marrs
    Director of Western Water
    National Wildlife Federation

    Amy McNamara
    Freshwater Ecosystems Strategist
    Natural Resources Defense Council

    Zachary Wurtzebach
    U.S. Program Director
    Center for Large Landscape Conservation

        [This statement was submitted by Alexander Funk, Director of Water
    Resources, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation.]
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of United South and Eastern Tribes
        Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski, and members of the
    subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify regarding our
    funding priorities for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025. The testimony of United
    South and Eastern Tribes (USET SPF) will focus on funding for Federal
    Indian agencies and programs at the Department of the Interior (DOI),
    the Indian Health Service (IHS), and beyond. We appreciate the
    opportunity to provide our views on the President's Request. This is an
    important oversight opportunity for appropriators to ensure that budget
    proposals reflect Tribal expectations and objectives.
        USET SPF is a non-profit, inter-Tribal organization advocating on
    behalf of thirty-three (33) federally recognized Tribal Nations from
    the Northeastern Woodlands to the Everglades and across the Gulf of
    Mexico. USET SPF member Tribal Nations are within the Eastern Region
    and Southern Plains Region of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and
    the Nashville Area of the Indian Health Service (IHS), covering a large
    expanse of land compared to other regions. Due, in part, to this large
    geographic area, USET SPF Tribal Nations have great diversity in
    cultural traditions, land holdings, and resources.
        Chronic Underfunding of Existing Obligations. We provide this
    testimony on the heels of yet another infusion of nearly $100 billion
    in Federal funding to several allies overseas. Since February of 2022,
    Ukraine, alone, has received over $135 billion while Tribal Nations
    have received far less. Though USET SPF does not dispute the necessity
    of this aid, it is a frustrating reminder that when Congress feels
    compelled to do so, it can direct substantial government resources
    toward other units of government--both foreign and domestic. And yet,
    Tribal Nations must appear before Congress year after year to advocate
    for U.S. payment on debt that we are due-only to receive minor
    ``increases'' that fail to address the chronic underfunding of trust
    and treaty obligations and, often, fail to keep pace even with
    inflation.
        USET SPF, our partner organizations, Federal entities, and various
    research bodies have consistently provided data necessary for the U.S.
    to understand its own shortfalls in delivering upon its obligations to
    Tribal Nations, with little action taken in response. For example, the
    most recent annual Tribal Law and Order Act Report to Congress, for FY
    2021, revealed the total obligation of BIA for public safety and
    justice funding is $3.5 billion--over one billion more than the entire
    BIA budget. And yet, in FY 2024, Congress allocated a total of just
    $556 million to the BIA's public safety and justice lines-a decrease
    from FY 2023 enacted. It is no wonder, then, that in its 2018 Broken
    Promises Report, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights concluded that the
    funding of Federal trust and treaty obligations remains ``grossly
    inadequate'' and a ``barely perceptible and decreasing percentage of
    agency budgets.'' The report confirms what we in Indian Country already
    know-with the exception of some minor improvements, the U.S. continues
    to neglect to meet its ``most basic'' obligations to Tribal Nations.
    Though these chronic failures have persisted throughout changes in
    Administration and Congress, it is time that both branches confront and
    correct them.
        As the subcommittee is well aware, Native people have endured many
    injustices as a result of Federal law and policy, including Federal
    actions that sought to terminate Tribal Nations, assimilate our people,
    and erode Tribal territories, learning, and cultures. This story
    involves the cession of vast land holdings and natural resources,
    oftentimes by force, to the U.S., out of which grew an obligation to
    provide benefits and services to Tribal Nations-promises made that
    exist in perpetuity. These resources are the very foundation of this
    nation, allowing the U.S. to become the wealthiest and strongest world
    power in history, with each U.S. citizen a direct beneficiary of this
    exchange. Federal funding and services to Tribal Nations and Native
    people are simply a repayment on this perpetual debt. Regrettably,
    funding allocated to Indian Country represents a tiny fraction of the
    annual value that the U.S. enjoys from the lands and natural resources
    which once belonged to us. USET SPF has consistently called upon the
    U.S. to fulfill its sacred promises to Tribal Nations and to act with
    honor and integrity in its dealings with Indian Country.
        While we take a firm position that all members of Congress have an
    obligation to Tribal Nations, this subcommittee has a greater role in
    working toward fulfillment of trust and treaty obligations. As leaders
    who have consistently demonstrated a deeper understanding of our sacred
    relationship, we urge you to lead the change within Congress to improve
    how the U.S. views, honors, and fulfills its promises to Indian
    Country. The Federal budget is a reflection of this commitment. We ask
    that you always remember this nation's first promise to its First
    People-the promise that resulted in an exchange responsible for the
    vast wealth, power, and influence of this country. This is especially
    critical as we recognize you are working with statutory spending caps
    in FY 2025 in order to reduce our $34 trillion national debt. However,
    as we have stated repeatedly before this subcommittee and others,
    deficit reduction must never be accomplished to the detriment of
    Federal trust and treaty obligations owed to Tribal Nations.
        Executive Order (EO) 14112. USET SPF is encouraged by the issuance
    of this EO and underscores its importance, as it seeks to address many
    centuries of broken promises through long-sought reforms to the ways in
    which funding is delivered to Tribal Nations and quantify Federal
    failures to provide full funding in fulfillment of trust and treaty
    obligations. USET SPF and the Administration are committed to the
    success of this EO, but Congress also has a role to play. This body, in
    particular, should be invested in seeing the E.O. deliver meaningful,
    actionable information regarding unmet funding obligations, so that
    they may be addressed. Congress should also be prepared to exercise its
    oversight responsibilities in holding Federal agencies accountable to
    the mandates of this EO. Congress should ensure immediate action is
    taken to streamline and create funding flexibilities where barriers are
    administrative or regulatory, and that agencies support Tribal Nations
    in seeking legislative change where barriers are statutory. As we
    continue to face chronic underfunding, these flexibilities are critical
    opportunities to improve services to our people, including expansion of
    477 and self-governance authorities.
        Additionally, Congress should be appropriating necessary resources
    to Federal agencies and exploring opportunities for legislative change,
    in order facilitate compliance with the EO's directives.
        Mandatory Funding for the Indian Health Service and Binding
    Obligations. USET SPF continues to express its gratitude for the
    historic achievement of advance appropriations for IHS. For the very
    first time, the agency's clinical services have experienced budgetary
    certainty in the face of several continuing resolutions. It is our
    expectation that the subcommittee will continue to include language
    providing advance appropriations for IHS beyond FY 2025 and work to
    expand this mechanism through the IHS and into other Federal Indian
    agencies and programs. Despite its importance, however, we continue to
    view advance appropriations as a temporary funding mechanism in our
    overall advocacy for the full delivery of trust and treaty obligations.
        Above all, payments on debt to Indian Country should not be
    vulnerable to year to year ``discretionary'' decisions by
    appropriators. Since FY 2023, the Biden Administration has consistently
    proposed a shift in funding for the IHS to the mandatory side of the
    Federal budget, including a 10-year plan to close funding gaps and an
    exemption from sequestration. While we firmly believe all Indian
    Country funding should be fully funded today, we continue to strongly
    support this proposal, recognizing that additional detail and planning
    is necessary to provide a fully developed plan to fund IHS on a full
    and mandatory basis. This includes ensuring that it reflects the full
    depth of unmet funding obligations as uncovered by E.O. 14112. We look
    forward to working with IHS to draft legislation that reflects our
    guidance for implementing these changes and urge this subcommittee to
    ensure that IHS is working swiftly with Tribal Nations to develop this
    proposal.
        The FY 2025 Request also proposes mandatory funding for Contract
    Support Costs and 105(l) leases-binding obligations-at IHS, BIA and the
    Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) beginning in FY 2026. While we contend
    that all Federal Indian agencies and programs should be subject to
    mandatory funding, we continue to support the immediate transfer of
    these lines. This will ensure that funding increases are able to be
    allocated to service delivery, as opposed to the Federal Government's
    legal obligations.
        Indian Health Service (IHS). In addition to supporting full and
    mandatory funding for IHS, Nashville Area Tribal Nations identified the
    following top six priority line items for increases in FY 2025:

    1. Purchased/Referred Care

    2. Hospitals & Health Clinics

    3. Mental Health

    4. Alcohol & Substance Abuse

    5. Dental Health

    6. Health Care Facilities Construction

        Nashville Area priorities also include funding for Facilities
    Construction and Environmental Health, special initiative funding for
    newly recognized Tribal Nations, increases for Urban Indian Health
    programs, telehealth resources, recurring funding for Public Health
    Education, impacts of COVID-19 on user population and workload data,
    funding for Substance Use Disorder aftercare and housing programs,
    funding to reduce Hepatitis C, continued funding for Community Health
    Representatives, modernizing health IT, parity when sponsoring patients
    on insurance plans, funding for long-term care services and supports,
    and provider/staffing recruitment and retention.
        Special Behavioral Health Program. Despite the disproportionate
    impact opioid and other substance use has had in Indian Country, Tribal
    Nations continue to lack access to sufficient resources to address the
    damaging effects of substance abuse disorder in our communities. We
    continue to support legislative proposals that would establish a
    Special Behavioral Health Program for Indians at IHS, with dollars
    eligible for receipt through self- governance compacting and self-
    determination contracting.
        Department of the Interior (DOI). Working in partnership with
    Indian Affairs, the yearly budget formulation process now offers a much
    more comprehensive look at the priorities of Tribal Nations across the
    many lines found within the BIA and BIE budgets. However, we remain
    focused on the addition of a component outlining BIA's unfunded
    obligations in order to measure how well the U.S. is honoring its
    promises, on which Indian Affairs recently agreed to collaborate. This
    body should also want to know the full extent of DOI's unmet funding
    obligations to Indian Country. In addition, we offer the Eastern
    Region's top priorities for FY 2025 in eight different strategic
    funding categories:

      --Strengthening Tribal Communities: Social Services (TPA)

      --Trust-Natural Resources Management: Natural Resources (TPA)

      --Trust-Land & Water Rights Management: Trust Services (TPA)

      --Public Safety & Justice: Tribal Courts (TPA)

      --Economic Development: Economic Development (TPA)

      --Education: Scholarships & Adult Education (TPA)

      --Construction: Education Facilities Improvement and Repair

      --Resource Management Construction: Federal Power Compliance (FERC)

        Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT). In addition to the above
    priorities, USET SPF remains focused on the restoration of Tribal
    homelands as a top priority and would like to reiterate a funding
    request that we believe will increase the amount of land going into
    trust for Tribal Nations. Since 1977, the DOI has issued billions in
    PILT to local governments that help offset losses in property taxes due
    to the nontaxable Federal lands within their boundaries. However, while
    PILT payments are made for lands administered by numerous other DOI
    Bureaus, Federal water projects, and some military installations, lands
    held in trust for Tribal Nations are not currently eligible. USET SPF
    believes that PILT for lands put into trust could remove barriers to
    the restoration of Tribal homelands while also easing the perceived
    impacts to local government as a result of lost tax revenue. We urge
    the subcommittee to consider working with the Administration to provide
    funding for this purpose in FY 2025.
        Land and Water Conservation Fund (LCWF) Program for Tribal Nations.
    The FY 2025 Request proposes $8 million for the establishment of a
    permanent LCWF Tribal Land Acquisition program. This will ensure that
    Tribal Nations have direct access to the LCWF for the first time,
    supporting Tribal self-determination and the restoration of our
    homelands. Though we urge that the level of funding be increased, we
    strongly support this proposal.
        Funding for Tribal Historic Preservation. Due to chronic
    underfunding, many Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs) are
    currently operating without the necessary personnel to conduct National
    Historic Preservation Act Section 106 and other cultural reviews. THPOs
    are the protectors of irreplaceable resources: our cultures and
    spirituality. The explosion in infrastructure development funded by
    recent infrastructure laws is overwhelming THPO capacity. We urge this
    subcommittee to provide increased resources for THPOs, so that we may
    protect our cultural and sacred sites.
        DOI Tribal Resiliency Continuity Program. Due to the structural
    barriers limiting our access to the Homeland Security Grant, we
    strongly urge Congress to appropriate $207 million to establish a
    Tribal Resiliency Continuity Program that is non-competitive, without a
    cost share, and streamlined at DOI to empower all Tribal Nations to
    build core emergency management, homeland security, and emergency
    services capacities and capabilities.
        Preservation of Structural Gains. Several advancements have been
    made during this Administration that must be institutionalized and
    supported in order to continue their progress. USET SPF is requesting
    permanency and dedicated funding for OMB's Tribal Affairs Advisor, as
    well as Treasury's Office of Tribal and Native Affairs. In addition,
    this Administration has once again prioritized the work of the White
    House Council on Native American Affairs (WHCNAA). In order to build
    upon its progress and provide necessary resources to coordinate the
    implementation of EO 14112, WHCNAA requires dedicated funding. USET SPF
    supports the Tribal Interior Budget Council (TIBC) request of $5
    million for WHCNAA.
        Improving the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Crosscut. OMB
    asserts that over $30 billion in Federal dollars is appropriated to
    Indian Country annually. This number seems to be widely inflated, with
    far less actually reaching Tribal Nations and Tribal citizens. Both
    USET SPF and TIBC have asked OMB for a full, detailed accounting of
    Federal funding distributed to Indian Country. While OMB is working to
    refine its Native American Crosscut, we have not yet seen the level of
    detail we are seeking. This information is essential to the measurement
    of the Federal Government's own success in meeting its obligations to
    us, as well as developing accountability mechanisms for instances where
    States fail to provide pass-through funding to Tribal Nations. In order
    to increase accountability, States must be required to detail actual
    dollars passed through to Tribal Nations, with accordant consequences
    for failure to provide us with funding to which we are entitled.
        Invest in and Rebuild Tribal Infrastructure-A Marshall Plan for
    Tribal Nations. For generations, the Federal Government--despite
    abiding trust and treaty obligations--has substantially under-invested
    in Indian Country's infrastructure and engaged in hostile actions
    against Tribal Nations. While the United States faces infrastructure
    issues nationally, Indian Country frequently lacks even basic
    infrastructure. Much like the U.S. investment in the rebuilding
    European nations following World War II via the Marshall Plan, the
    legislative and executive branches should commit to the same level of
    responsibility to rebuilding Tribal Nations, as our current
    circumstances are, in large part, directly attributable to the shameful
    acts and policies of the U.S. In the same way the Marshall Plan
    acknowledged America's debt to European sovereigns and was utilized to
    strengthen our relationships and security abroad, the U.S. should make
    this strategic investment domestically.
        Other Selected Lines and Programs. Though not an exhaustive list,
    USET SPF strongly supports increases for the following lines and
    programs: Good Health and Wellness in Indian Country (CDC), Rural
    Community Facilities (ACF), Tribal Opioid Response Grants (SAMHSA),
    Community Development Financial Institutions Fund grants, the Indian
    Community Development Block Grant, USDA Rural Business Development
    grants, EPA state and Tribal assistance grants, BIA Tribal Climate
    Science Centers, the Crime Victims 's Tribal set aside, and Native
    American Housing Block Grants. Finally, we support an increase to $207
    million for the Tribal Homeland Security Grant program.
                                     ______

             Prepared Statement of the Water Environment Federation
       fy25 budget recommendations from the water environment federation
        Thank you for the opportunity for the Water Environment Federation
    (WEF) to provide this letter of funding priorities for the FY25
    Interior & Environment Appropriations bill and the FY25 Labor, Health &
    Human Services, and Educations Appropriations bill. WEF\1\ is the
    educational and technical association for over 34,000 water municipal
    wastewater and stormwater professionals, maintaining and improving
    water quality and public health in communities across the country and
    around the world. The FY25 Budget helps address WEF's top policy
    priorities to increase funding for water infrastructure, address water
    workforce development needs, improve resilience to climate change,
    increase system sustainability, protect communities from emerging
    public health concerns, and improve environmental equity for all
    Americans.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The Water Environment Federation (WEF) is a global nonprofit
    organization of water quality professionals. For more than 90 years,
    WEF has provided premier education and the latest technical expertise
    to the water sector. WEF pursues solutions to today's critical water
    sector challenges, including infrastructure funding, water
    affordability, and workforce sustainability and diversity. WEF advances
    innovation and technology and promotes the circular economy through
    water reuse, nutrient recovery, and energy conservation and generation.
    With worldwide members and partners, WEF supports the United Nations
    (UN) Sustainable Development Goals and is a proud partner of UN Water.
    Each year WEF organizes WEFTEC, the world's largest annual water
    quality exhibition and conference. To learn more, visit www.wef.org.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       fy25 interior and environment appropriations bill recommendations
        It's critical for Congress to include in the FY25 Budget full
    funding for the programs authorized in Infrastructure Investment & Jobs
    Act (IIJA), as well as several additional existing programs. Without
    this funding, communities will struggle to make progress on the local
    water infrastructure investments that are critically needed to protect
    public health and the environment, as well as ensure continued local
    economic prosperity. WEF strongly urges Congress to include in the FY25
    Budget funding for the following programs:

      --$3.25 billion for Clean Water State Revolving Fund (IIJA Sect.
            50210)

      --$3.25 billion for Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (IIJA Sect.
            50102)

      --$80 million for Water Infrastructure Finance & Innovation Act
            (WIFIA) (IIJA Sect. 50215)

      --$280 million for Sewer Overflow and Stormwater Reuse Municipal
            Grants (OSG) program (IIJA Sect. 50204)

      --$1.6 billion for direct loans under USDA Rural Utilities Service
            Rural Water and Waste Disposal Program Account (Consolidated
            Farm and Rural Development Act Sects. 306 & 381E(d)(2))

      --$670 million for grants under USDA Rural Utilities Service Rural
            Water and Waste Disposal Program Account (Consolidated Farm and
            Rural Development Act Sects. 306, 306A, 306C, 306D, 306E, 310B,
            306C(a)(2), 306D, 306E, and 381E(d)(2)

      --$25 million for Clean Water Infrastructure Resiliency and
            Sustainability Grants (IIJA Sect. 50205)

      --$20 million for Wastewater Energy Efficiency Grant Pilot Program
            (IIJA Sect. 50202)

      --$40 million for Connection Publicly Owned Treatment Works Grant
            Program (IIJA Sect. 50209)

      --$10 million for the Small & Medium POTW Circuit Riders Technical
            Assistance (IIJA Sect. 50206)

      --$5 million for 5 Centers of Excellence for Stormwater Control
            Infrastructure Technologies (CESCITs) (IIJA Sect. 50217)

      --$10 million for community planning and implementation grants for
            stormwater or watershed-based planning investments (IIJA Sect.
            50217)

      --$25 million for the Alternative Source Water Pilot program (IIJA
            Sect. 50203)

      --$20 million for the Title XVI-WIIN Water Reuse Grants Program

      --$6 million for Water Infrastructure and Workforce Investment Grant
            Program (IIJA Sect. 50211)

      --Funding to establish the Small Publicly Owned Treatment Works
            Efficiency Grant Program (IIJA Sect. 50207)

      --$2 million for EPA's Integrated Planning (IP) (33 U.S. Code, Sect.
            1342(6)(s))
    fy25 labor, health & human services, and education appropriations bill
                                recommendations
        WEF supports the inclusion of additional Emerging Infectious
    Disease funding to support Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's
    (CDC) wastewater surveillance activities. As the President notes in his
    FY25 Budget proposal the Congress, wastewater surveillance demonstrated
    its value as a public health tool during the COVID-19 pandemic by
    providing timely, cost-effective, and unbiased information about
    community disease transmission.
        Since its establishment in September 2020 by CDC, the National
    Wastewater Surveillance System (NWSS) has grown to more than 1,400
    testing sites across 50 States, covering 1 in 3 people in the U.S.
    Through NWSS, CDC weaves together a network of independent, local
    wastewater efforts into a robust national system that has already
    expanded to include mpox virus surveillance. With funding and support
    from CDC, State and local health departments across the U.S. have used
    NWSS SARS-CoV-2 and mpox wastewater information to fill in clinical
    case data gaps, confirm trends observed in other public health
    surveillance datasets, prioritize vaccine distribution, alert
    healthcare providers about expected increases in community
    transmission, and communicate with the public. Many of these health
    departments are already analyzing wastewater for other emerging and re-
    emerging health threats, such as antibiotic resistance genes, Candida
    auris, measles virus, and poliovirus. The CDC and state public health
    departments have now begun using NWSS wastewater data to monitor for
    avian influenza A (H5N1) in communities nationwide.
        Securing new base funding for wastewater surveillance will enable
    CDC to ensure equitable application of this tool, sustaining the NWSS
    network as a resilient and adaptable platform for addressing emerging
    infectious diseases in the U.S. To protect the tremendous progress in
    establishing this efficient public health surveillance system, we
    recommend including an additional $130 million annually in Emerging
    Infectious Disease funding to CDC for wastewater surveillance.
      --$130 million for the National Wastewater Surveillance System (NWSS)
            administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
        Thank you for your support of infrastructure funding and public
    health protection priorities, and we look forward to continuing to work
    with Congress on the FY25 Budget.

    Thank you,
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Senior Director, Government Affairs
    Water Environment Federation
                                     ______

           Prepared Statement of the Water Source Protection Program
        As you and your colleagues begin work on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025
    appropriations bills, we respectfully request that you insert the
    following explicit report language that robustly funds the Water Source
    Protection Program (WSPP) in the Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies bill. The WSPP provides the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) a key
    tool for watershed protection and restoration projects on National
    Forest System (NFS) land.

                    ``Vegetation and Watershed Management.--The Committee
                    directs the USFS to utilize not less than $10 million
                    of the Vegetation and Watershed Management budget
                    towards the development and implementation of USFS
                    Water Source Protection Program projects. The Committee
                    recognizes that wildfire risk mitigation and aquatic
                    restoration efforts are critical to protecting the
                    quantity and quality of source water in National Forest
                    System lands that provides drinking water and
                    agricultural use while benefitting fish and wildlife.
                    The Forest Service should maximize its use of provided
                    authorities and funding to protect and restore source
                    watersheds. The Committee encourages the Forest Service
                    to conduct additional outreach to water users to
                    utilize existing vegetation and watershed management
                    funding to demonstrate the value of restoring aquatic
                    ecosystems to build resilience to natural hazards in
                    source watersheds. The Water Source Protection Program
                    provides an important opportunity to increase the pace
                    and scale of source water restoration efforts.''

        NFS lands supply drinking water for nearly 20 percent of the U.S.
    population, and in the Western U.S., 29.5 million people (40 percent of
    the total population) derive more than 50 percent of their surface
    drinking water supply from NFS and adjacent forested lands. Ensuring
    the management of NFS lands and adjacent forests to protect and enhance
    drinking and agricultural water sources is a critical responsibility of
    the USFS, and one that complements USFS priorities of wildfire risk
    reduction and fish and wildlife habitat restoration.
        While the USFS has various programs that may tangentially benefit
    source waters, the WSPP is the sole USFS program that specifically
    focuses on restoring source watersheds relied upon by millions of
    people. WSPP was initially authorized in the 2018 Farm Bill and
    authorized the USFS to enter into partnerships with end-users (e.g.,
    municipalities, irrigation districts, and non-governmental
    organizations) to develop and implement source water management plans.
    Despite the critical need for addressing watersheds restoration on NFS
    lands across the country, the WSPP has been underutilized due to lack
    of dedicated funding.
        As your subcommittees make funding decisions for FY 2025, we urge
    you to consider the tremendous benefits of these efforts and public-
    private partnerships, such as the WSPP.

        [This statement was submitted by Alexander Funk, Director of Water
    Resources, Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.]
                                     ______

                Prepared Statement of the WateReuse Association
        Thank you for the opportunity to present our FY 2025 funding
    requests for programs administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency (EPA). The WateReuse Association (WateReuse) urges you to
    include $25 million for the Pilot Program for Alternative Water Source
    Grants, Section 220 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33
    U.S.C. 1300), in FY 2025 appropriations legislation.
        WateReuse is a not-for-profit trade association for water
    utilities, businesses, industrial and commercial enterprises, non-
    profit organizations, and research entities that engage in and on water
    reuse. WateReuse and its state and regional sections represent more
    than 200 water utilities serving over 60 million customers, and over
    300 businesses and organizations across the country. Our mission is to
    advance safe and sustainable water supplies, to promote acceptance and
    support of recycled water, and to advocate for policies and funding
    that increase water reuse.
        In recent years, droughts have brought severe conditions including
    wildfires, heat waves, severely depleted water sources, and reduced
    crop production across the country. Despite rain events, in the West,
    conditions were recently at their driest point in 1,200 years and will
    almost certainly worsen. In parts of Pennsylvania, Illinois, New
    England, and other regions across the country, communities have faced
    significant and even extreme drought conditions.
        As water supply and water quality challenges intensify, the Nation
    must invest in water recycling to build resilience, manage energy
    demands, support public and environmental health, and ensure America's
    economic prosperity. Investments in water recycling ensure reliable and
    resilient community water supplies, support sustainable economic
    development, and help protect our rivers, lakes, streams, aquifers and
    wetlands.
        Water reuse is a long-standing practice in supply-constrained areas
    in the West. However, water reuse is also now common practice in other
    parts of the country, where communities are turning to reuse to
    recharge strained aquifers and meet other needs. The drivers for water
    reuse are many, including stringent discharge regulations and a need to
    reduce pollutant loads to receiving waters. Communities are also
    turning to reuse to manage a range of stormwater challenges.
        To help communities build resilient supplies and protect water
    quality, Congress authorized the Pilot Program for Alternative Water
    Source Grants as part of the recently enacted Infrastructure Investment
    and Jobs Act of 2021. Through the program, EPA will make competitive
    grants to state, interstate, and intrastate water resource development
    agencies to engineer, design, construct, and test alternative water
    source systems, including water reuse systems.
        By investing in the Pilot Program for Alternative Water Source
    Grants, Congress can begin to give communities in all 50 States plus
    the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico the tools and resources they
    need to protect public health and the environment, support economic
    development, and create long-term solutions for future generations.
              examples of water recycling from around the country
        In Virginia's tidewater region, Hampton Roads Sanitation District
    is pursuing a multi-benefit water reuse program called the Sustainable
    Water Initiative for Tomorrow (SWIFT). HRSD's SWIFT project treats
    wastewater effluent to drinking water standards and reuses it to
    recharge the regional aquifer. The investment of $1.1 billion in
    capital outlays provides critical public health, environmental and
    economic benefits by replenishing the overdrawn Potomac Aquifer,
    recharging 100 million gallons per day (MGD) of fresh water at full
    implementation, providing a reliable safe water supply to support the
    region's population and the Nation's critical military assets, and
    generating nutrient credits that HRSD can trade--providing an estimated
    savings of $1.5 billion for 11 counties across the region.
        In Florida's Tampa Bay Region, Hillsborough County's Saltwater
    Intrusion and Aquifer Recharge Program (SHARP) is creating a hydraulic
    barrier to saltwater intrusion between the Bay and the region's
    drinking water aquifer. At a cost of $20 million, SHARP is yielding
    significant climate-resiliency benefits by protecting the region's
    freshwater aquifer from sea level rise and saltwater intrusion,
    reducing pumping costs and energy use by raising groundwater levels and
    increasing pressure in the potable freshwater aquifer, generating water
    supply credits that offset the project's cost, and supporting seagrass
    and fishery recovery efforts by reducing nutrient and other effluent
    loadings.
        In Texas, El Paso Water is using water recycling and saline
    groundwater desalination to produce a drought-resilient, cost-
    effective, and reliable water supply to support a vibrant local
    economy. Compared to the next best alternative (importing groundwater),
    El Paso's water reuse program is reducing energy use by 3.6 million MWH
    over the planning period and addressing affordability challenges
    related to imported water by saving more than $1.2 billion, or 74
    percent.
        In California's Chino Basin, local leaders developed the Optimum
    Basin Management Program (OBMP) to address the region's water
    challenges. The OBMP generates energy savings in excess of 5.8 Billion
    kWh over 30 years by relying on local resources rather than energy
    intensive water imports, saves ratepayers an estimated $2.4 billion in
    water supply costs, and restores instream flows and water quality in
    the Santa Ana River, returning a surface water supply and replenishing
    and improving water quality in the Chino Groundwater Basin.

        [This statement was submitted by Greg Fogel, WateReuse
    Association.]
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of the Western Governors' Association
        Chair Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of the
    subcommittee, the Western Governors' Association (WGA) appreciates the
    opportunity to provide written testimony on the appropriations and
    activities of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and
    Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Forest
    Service (USFS), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the
    Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). WGA is an independent organization
    representing the Governors of the 22 westernmost States and
    territories. The Association is an instrument of the Governors for
    bipartisan policy development and collective action on issues of
    critical importance to the western United States.
        The agencies within the subcommittee's jurisdiction wield
    significant influence over vast areas of the American West. Ninety-four
    percent of all Federal lands are located in the western States, and the
    Federal Government owns over 46 percent of the land within WGA States
    and territories. This subcommittee's work is vitally important to
    Western Governors, as it affects public lands management and Federal
    agency interaction with other levels of government and the public.
        There is a natural tension between State and Federal Governments
    that is embedded in the U.S. Constitution. These sovereign governments
    must have a close and productive working relationship to promote
    efficiency and maximize returns on taxpayer investments. Improving the
    partnership between States and territories and the Federal Government
    is central to WGA's mission and is reflected in WGA Policy Resolution
    2024-01, Strengthening the State-Federal Relationship.
        Western Governors were encouraged by past Committee report language
    directing Federal agencies to provide appropriate feedback and decision
    rationale related to Tribal input received via meaningful consultation
    in their decision-making processes. Similar direction to Federal
    agencies for government-to-government consultation with States and
    territories, which is required pursuant to Executive Order 13132,
    Federalism, would improve the co-sovereign relationship between States,
    territories, and the Federal Government.
        Federal agencies should provide state, territorial, local, and
    Tribal government officials with accessible and clear information on
    available Federal resources and programs and the most effective
    utilization of those resources in disaster recovery. WGA has worked
    with Federal partners to improve interagency coordination on post-
    wildfire restoration work, including a roadmap of assistance available
    to communities affected by wildfire and identification of
    ``navigators'' to help communities prioritize post-wildfire restoration
    needs. Western Governors urge the Federal Government to prioritize the
    funding of these important needs, as they should have a positive effect
    on maximizing the value of restoration work and, more importantly,
    addressing the needs of communities affected by wildfire.
        Reducing wildfire risk also requires conducting active forest
    management at an unprecedented pace and scale. This, in turn, relies on
    a handful of enabling factors including a qualified land management
    workforce and infrastructure to transport and realize the value of
    extracted biomass. Western Governors support many of the
    recommendations in the Wildland Fire Mitigation and Management
    Commission's final report. The Commission called upon Congress to
    provide funding for Federal public health agencies to address smoke-
    related impacts of wildland fire, and the Commission also supported the
    creation of incentives for State, local, and Tribal governments to
    invest in the development of fire- and smoke-adapted communities.
    Western Governors appreciate Congress' increased attention to the issue
    as demonstrated in recent years' appropriation acts. Western Governors
    also appreciate USFS's investments in forest health as part of its ten-
    year strategy to confront the wildfire crisis, and request continued
    funding for wildfire risk reduction.
        Responsible land management can only occur when federal, State, and
    local stakeholders collaborate to improve the health and resilience of
    our lands. Likewise, proactive fish and wildlife conservation is most
    effective when leveraging the cooperative efforts of state, territorial
    and Federal officials across multiple disciplines. To this end, Western
    Governors support funding for reasonable proactive management efforts
    to conserve species, including engaging stakeholders to implement
    early, voluntary conservation measures. WGA also believes Federal
    agencies should explore revised Government Schedule criteria and use
    detail positions and shared staff between nongovernmental partners, and
    State and Federal agencies to increase interagency coordination.
        States possess primary management authority over fish and wildlife
    within their borders, and they receive economic benefits associated
    with healthy species and ecosystems. At the same time, species listings
    can dramatically affect the efforts of western States to promote
    economic development, accommodate population growth, and maintain and
    expand infrastructure. Western Governors believe that States should be
    full partners in listing, critical habitat designations, recovery
    planning, recovery efforts, and delisting decisions. State agencies
    often have the best available science, expertise, and other scientific
    and institutional resources such as mapping capabilities, biological
    inventories, biological management goals, state wildlife action plans,
    and other important data, and Federal agencies should utilize state
    expertise and resources whenever possible All listing, recovery, and
    delisting decisions made by the Federal Government should utilize
    objective, peer-reviewed scientific literature and scientific
    observations.
        Fish and wildlife migration corridors and habitat are necessary to
    maintain healthy populations of species in the West. Western Governors
    applaud the past funding for Federal agencies to advance state-
    supported programs and projects promoting voluntary migration corridor
    and habitat conservation and request that the subcommittee continue to
    appropriate these funds. The Governors note that any Federal efforts to
    identify, regulate, or conserve wildlife migration corridors through
    administrative or legislative action must involve coordination and
    consultation with States and should advance voluntary, incentive-based,
    and locally driven initiatives to conserve key wildlife corridors and
    habitat.
        Western Governors encourage the subcommittee to include full
    funding for the Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program administered by
    the Department of the Interior, and include language that addresses a
    permanent and stable funding mechanism for the program. PILT funding
    does not represent a gift to local jurisdictions; rather, it provides
    important compensation for the presence of non-taxable Federal lands in
    the West. Similarly, payments under the Secure Rural Schools and
    Community Self-Determination Act (SRS) compensate communities whose
    timber industries have been negatively affected by actions and
    acquisitions of the Federal Government. Western Governors request that
    the subcommittee continue to appropriate full funding annually for both
    PILT and SRS now and in the future.
        Western Governors support NPS in its efforts to preserve iconic
    landscapes, habitats and cultural resources. Western Governors are
    concerned, however, about the significant maintenance backlog affecting
    National Parks, especially in the context of increasing visitation
    rates. Western Governors appreciate recent investments in maintenance
    for national park infrastructure and additional actions that prevent
    future backlogs. Similarly, Western Governors urge Congress to extend
    funding for the National Parks and Public Land Legacy Restoration Fund
    beyond 2025 and examine longer term solutions to the deferred
    maintenance backlog.
        The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58) has
    been a significant piece of legislation for western States; however,
    certain provisions remain unfunded. Western Governors specifically note
    that Section 40704 authorized an abandoned hardrock mine reclamation
    program. The Governors were encouraged by the $5 million appropriation
    for the program in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 (Pub. L
    117-103), but more substantial investment is required to address the
    tens of thousands of abandoned hardrock mines that pose physical and
    environmental hazards to communities and ecosystems across the West.
    Western Governors encourage the subcommittee to ensure Federal land
    management agencies receive adequate funding for staffing so that
    environmental reviews and permitting for abandoned mine projects on
    Federal public lands can be completed in a timely manner.
        Data for water management and drought response planning is critical
    to western States. Western Governors stress the importance of funding
    for the Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program administered by
    the U.S. Geological Survey and request continued funding for the
    program at or above the FY23 level. The data generated by the program
    is integral to water supply management decisions of States, utilities,
    reservoir operators, and farmers. It is also essential for risk
    management, disaster mitigation, and drought and flood forecasting
    throughout the West.
        Infrastructure management is another crucial element of water
    resource management, and Federal investments in our Nation's aging
    water and wastewater facilities are essential to our Nation's continued
    economic prosperity and environmental protection. EPA's Clean Water and
    Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) provide necessary support
    for communities to maintain and enhance their water infrastructure. WGA
    Policy Resolution 2021-10, Water Quality in the West, encourages
    adequate funding for SRFs. Western Governors appreciate the SRF
    provisions included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act and
    previous years' appropriations acts, and encourage the subcommittee to
    continue supporting these programs. Western Governors also support the
    funding of Federal programs that promote non-federal water
    infrastructure investment, such as the Water Infrastructure Finance
    Innovation Act program. This important program provides flexible long-
    term, low-cost supplemental credit assistance for projects of national
    and regional significance.
        States have exclusive authority over the allocation and
    administration of rights to groundwater located within their borders
    and are primarily responsible for protecting, managing, and otherwise
    controlling the resource. The regulatory reach of the Federal
    Government was not intended to, and should not, be applied to the
    management and control of groundwater resources. Western Governors
    encourage Congress to include express and unambiguous language
    protecting States' authority over groundwater resources in any water-
    related legislation, as well as clear direction to administrative
    agencies to respect such authority. Federal agencies should also work
    within existing State authorities to address their groundwater-related
    needs and concerns. Western Governors urge the subcommittee to ensure
    that Federal efforts involving groundwater recognize and respect state
    primacy and comply with all statutory authorities.
        States also possess delegated authority from EPA to manage air
    quality within their borders. Congress and EPA should recognize state
    authority under the Clean Air Act (CAA) and accord States sufficient
    flexibility to create air quality and emissions programs tailored to
    individual state needs, industries, and economies. State CAA programs
    require financial support from Congress, yet funding has declined since
    the CAA's enactment. In addition, given the unique character of the
    West and the region's attainment challenges, funding should be
    appropriated for EPA to assist western States in research on
    background, interstate, and transported ozone. This is especially
    important as smoke from an increasing number of wildfires causes air
    quality to exceed the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for
    particulate matter and ozone, affecting public health, safety, and
    transportation. Western Governors' support full and consistent funding
    for Federal and State land managers to conduct prescribed fires and
    smoke management in order to protect public health alongside forest
    health.
        The Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons (MMIP) crisis continues
    to affect communities across the West. Sufficient Tribal and BIA law
    enforcement personnel ensure timely responses and adequate resources
    for MMIP cases, while victim support services provide crucial
    assistance to survivors and their families. Western Governors support
    funding to increase the number of Tribal officers and victim services
    advocates, as well as the pace of hiring officers.
        Western Governors and Federal land management agencies deal with a
    complex web of interrelated natural resource issues. It is an enormous
    challenge to judiciously balance competing needs in this environment,
    and Western Governors appreciate the difficulty of the decisions this
    subcommittee must make. The foregoing recommendations are offered in a
    spirit of cooperation and respect, and WGA is prepared to assist the
    subcommittee in discharging these critical and challenging
    responsibilities.

        [This statement was submitted by Jack Waldorf, Executive Director,
    Western Governors' Association.]
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of Wetlands Program Development Grant
        The following is written testimony submitted by Alexander Funk,
    Director of Water Resources with the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation
    Partnership, for the subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related
    Agencies. It concerns an FY25 appropriations request for the
    Environmental Protection Agency's Wetland Program Development Grant
    Program.
        On behalf of the undersigned sporting and conservation
    organizations, we urge Congress to provide robust funding for the
    Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Wetland Program Development
    Grant (WPDG) Program and encourage EPA to revisit current WPDG guidance
    restricting funding for the implementation of state, Tribal, and local
    wetland conservation programs. As such, our organizations support an
    FY25 appropriations request of $30 million for the WPDG and
    corresponding report language clarifying Congressional intent that WPDG
    funds may be used to support both the development and implementation of
    wetland conservation programs.
        Wetlands provide countless opportunities for outdoor recreation,
    from hunting and fishing, to observing wildlife. Wetlands also provide
    broad public benefits, including erosion control, flood control,
    groundwater recharge, water quality enhancement, and minimization of
    certain wildfire impacts. Recent research shows that the loss of one
    acre of would result in increases in flood insurance costs of
    approximately $800 each year, and more than $3,000 per acre in more
    developed areas. Conservation of wetlands supports economic
    development, sustains fish and wildlife, and significantly reduces
    burdens on taxpayers and communities.
                   wetlands program development grant program
        EPA's Wetland Program Development Grant Program provides critical
    funding to state, Tribal, local, and interState agencies to develop and
    refine comprehensive wetland conservation programs, including voluntary
    wetland conservation efforts. WPDG grant funding is divided among EPA's
    headquarters and 10 regional offices, according to the number of States
    and territories per region, providing important resources for capacity
    building efforts taken by State, Tribal, and local governments to
    increase the quantity and quality of wetlands. WPDG funding has been
    utilized by States and Tribes for wetland conservation and restoration
    efforts through the development of Wetland Protection Plans, which
    include wetland mapping and monitoring efforts. These plans and data
    management help inform strategic actions to increase the pace and scale
    of wetland conservation efforts. The Fremont County Soil and Water
    Conservation District in Iowa, for example, received WPDG funding to
    develop a program to support farmers and ranchers in evaluating
    financial incentives for conserving wetlands through conservation
    easements. WPDG program funding has similarly supported a wide range of
    wetland conservation efforts nationwide.
        Oregon has used WPDG funds to develop the Oregon Wetland Program
    Plan (2017 -2021) for their restoration projects and provision of
    technical assistance to landowners participating in their state
    voluntary conservation programs. The Oregon Wetland Program Plan
    provides guidance on statewide efforts to sustainably manage and
    conserve wetlands. Oregon's government agencies and non-profit
    organizations involved have participated in capacity building to
    administer these programs successfully, including developing staff
    training and monitoring protocols to improve program efforts. Oregon's
    wetland mapping efforts and development of methods and tools for site
    assessment have enabled the State's existing voluntary conservations
    programs to effectively utilize changing regulations, policy
    prioritization, and technological advances in implementing their
    mitigation activities and investments. Inter-agency discussions
    resulted in the development of clear guidelines for roles,
    responsibilities, and procedures; and collaboration resulted in
    recommend strategies and policies for salmon recovery and watershed
    restoration. The WPDG Program has also funded Oregon Tribes in their
    water conservation and wetlands restoration projects, including the
    Klamath Tribes and the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians and
    Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR).
        Maine's Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) Biological
    Monitoring Program hosts invaluable wetland resources for future
    generations and the Maine Wetland Program Plan created interagency work
    groups to identify needed regulatory, management, conservation,
    planning and research measures to address increasing environmental
    threats and cumulative impacts wetlands. WPDG funds contributed to the
    Maine State Wetlands Conservation Plan (2001), which identified
    protection goals for specific wetlands systems of statewide
    significance and allowed for monitoring and assessment efforts critical
    to the development of the Maine Wetland Program Plan 2023-2028. Through
    diverse collection of biological sampling, from locations of high
    quality to locations that were severely degraded, DEP was able to
    capture a broad spectrum of existing human impacts to wetlands. DEP
    also developed the wetland linear discriminant model (LDM) to predict
    potential impacts to wetlands, effectiveness of applicable mitigation
    measures, and ensure compliance with the State's Water Quality
    Standards program.
        The Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology), created in 1970, is
    the principal environmental management agency in Washington with the
    primary goals to prevent pollution, clean up pollution and support
    sustainable communities and natural resources. Under the State Water
    Pollution Control Act, the agency's Shorelands and Environmental
    Assistance Program plays the lead role in protecting wetlands. Ecology
    provides technical assistance and relies on partnerships with other
    government agencies and communities to facilitate the effective
    management of these resources. Ecology engages with their partners by
    reviewing development proposals to ensure proper consideration of
    potential wetland impacts, aid in developing mitigation policies to
    offset unavoidable impacts, and provide support in obtaining funding
    for wetland conservation projects. Through WPDG funding, the
    development of such tools, resources and guidance encourages
    collaboration when establishing the existence (location) and physical
    limits (size) of a wetland in accordance with federal, State, and local
    regulatory standards.
                          fy 25 appropriations request
        Funding under the WPDG program has been flat for more than a
    decade, maintained at approximately $14.5 million per year. When
    adjusted for inflation, FY23 funding levels are at a 22% reduction from
    10 years ago. Increasing funding for wetland conservation efforts can
    help reverse wetland loss trends and help meet the unmet demand for
    wetland conservation, given that all existing Federal wetland programs
    are oversubscribed without enough funding to address the backlog of
    wetland conservation projects seeking funding. Finally, States, local
    governments, and Tribes play an essential role in developing and
    implementing innovative wetland conservation strategies, such as the
    development of wetland ecosystem markets. Through these trading
    programs, wetland ecosystem markets have provided multiple benefits to
    landowners, while reducing water treatment costs for utilities.
        Table 1, EPA Wetlands Grant Programs, includes the appropriations
    enacted from FY22-FY24 and the requested funding for FY25 to allow the
    program to continue fostering collaborative approaches taken by diverse
    applicants to protect and conserve our Nation's wetlands.

                                                               TABLE 1 EPA WETLANDS GRANT PROGRAMS

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                    FY25*
                                Grant                              Statutory     Program       FY22*        FY23*        FY24*     FY25* Admin  Conservation
                                                                   Authority       Area                                              Request       Request
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Wetlands Program Development Grants.........................    FWPCA, as  Categorical      $14,192      $14,692      $14,104      $22,000       $30,000
                                                                     amended,      Grants,
                                                                  Section 104        State
                                                                       (b)(3)   and Tribal
                                                                                Assistance
                                                                                    Grants
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note: *Funding amounts have been provided in millions.
    Eligible recipients include States, Local Governments, Tribes, Interstate Organizations, InterTribal Consortia, Non-Profit Organizations to develop new
      wetland programs or enhance existing programs for the protection, management, and restoration of wetland resources.
    Source: EPA FY 2025 Congressional Justification

                            report language request
        Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency interprets WPDG
    funding to be limited to the development of wetland conservation
    programs, although authorization of the Clean Water Act provision
    section 104(b)(3) is silent on whether funds can be used for program
    implementation. Given the limited capacity and resources within state,
    Tribal, and local governments, a lack of implementation support is a
    significant challenge in transitioning from program development to on-
    the-ground results. As such, we respectfully request that the following
    report language be included in the FY25 Interior, Environment, and
    Related Agencies appropriations bill.

                    ``Categorical Grant: Wetland Program Development
                    Grant.--The Committee recognizes the importance of the
                    Wetland Program Development Grant Program in aiding
                    States, Tribes, and local governments in developing
                    efforts to protect, restore, and manage wetlands and
                    aquatic resources to mitigate the impacts of natural
                    disasters such as flooding, enhancing drinking water
                    quality, and benefiting fish and wildlife. The bill
                    clarifies Congressional intent that funding provided
                    through the Wetland Program Development Grant,
                    authorized through Section 104(b)(3) of the Clean Water
                    Act, can be used to develop new or refine existing
                    State and Tribal wetland and aquatic resource programs,
                    as well as the implementation of these programs.''

        We urge you to prioritize increased funding for wetlands programs
    in the Fiscal Year 2025 appropriations bill. Your support in this
    matter is crucial for safeguarding our wetland ecosystems for future
    generations of hunters, anglers, and conservationists. We look forward
    to discussing these recommendations in further detail in support of
    restoration and conservation funding opportunities.
        Thank you for your attention to this critical issue. Please get in
    touch with Alexander Funk, Director of Water Resources,
    (afunk@trcp.org) or Elle Benson(lbenson@trcp.org), Rio Grande Program
    Manager, at the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership with any
    questions.

    Respectfully,

    Alexander Funk
    Director of Water Resources and Senior Counsel
    Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership

    Marla Stelk
    Executive Director
    National Association of Wetland Managers

    Jim Murphy
    Senior Director of Legal Advocacy
    National Wildlife Federation

        [This statement was submitted by Alexander Funk, Director of Water
    Resources.]
                                     ______

                  Prepared Statement of the Wilderness Society
        Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony regarding the
    FY25 Senate Interior Appropriations bill and process. On behalf of our
    one million members and supporters, The Wilderness Society (TWS)
    respectfully urges Congress to sufficiently increase funding for the
    Department of the Interior (DOI) and the US Forest Service (USFS).
    Budget cuts and spending caps from the Fiscal Responsibility Act are
    hindering agency capacity to advance commitments to clean energy
    projects, environmental protections, and environmental justice for all
    our communities. When adequately funded, these agencies create jobs,
    foster climate resilience, save taxpayer money, and mitigate costly
    future harms.
        Congress should support the following priorities to address
    critical programmatic funding needs in any appropriations package/
    legislation:
                         bureau of indian affairs (bia)
    Tribal Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) FY25 Request: at least
    $8 million

        Tribal Nations and communities continue to highlight barriers to
    accessing LWCF funding with the existing program requirements to
    partner with or apply through States. To strengthen Tribal land
    management, TWS supports significant funding of at least $8 million to
    create a new Tribal LWCF land acquisition program. The new program
    would protect and conserve natural resource areas of cultural
    importance or that have significant recreational benefits for Tribal
    Nations and communities.
                        bureau of land management (blm)

    Cultural Resources Account FY25 Request: at least $25 million

        We urge the subcommittee to provide at least $25 million for BLM's
    cultural resources management account to inventory and protect cultural
    resources, manage paleontological resources, and improve government-to-
    government consultation with Tribes. We also request the subcommittee
    include $1 million specifically for the National Cultural Resources
    Information Management System (NCRIMS) to support collaboration with
    Western State Historic Preservation Officers to standardize and
    integrate cultural resources data.

    National Conservation Lands FY25 Request: at least $78 million

        The National Conservation Lands encompass more than 37 million
    acres of National Monuments, National Conservation Areas (NCAs), the
    National Trails System, and similar designations, as well as Wilderness
    and Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs). Further investment is necessary to
    ensure BLM can properly manage this system of critical landscapes,
    complete and implement resource management plans, and rebuild staffing
    needed to do this work.

    Oil & Gas Management and Oversight FY25 Request: $166.9 million,
    including inspection fees

        We support the Administration's request of $166.9 million to
    enhance capacity, perform inspections, and implement long-overdue
    reforms while enabling the continued permitting of renewable energy
    rights-of-way. TWS particularly supports the agency's proposal to
    implement inspection fees pursuant to language proposed in the FY23
    appropriations bill to cover the costs of BLM's inspection activities--
    this would better align the onshore program with the offshore program
    and shift the cost burden of these critical inspections from
    communities to industry.

    Renewable Energy Management Program FY25 Request: $53.1 million

        BLM is working to increase staffing and capacity to prioritize and
    improve permitting coordination on many utility-scale renewable energy
    projects. BLM's Renewable Energy Program has been critical to
    achieving, and exceeding, the statutory goal of permitting 25 gigawatts
    of renewable energy on public lands by 2025, and full appropriations
    are critical to meeting, and exceeding, the Administration's goal of
    carbon pollution-free by 2035.

    Resource Management Planning, Assessment, and Monitoring FY25 Request:
    $71.6 million

        BLM faces a significant backlog of conservation, restoration, and
    planning needs, and about 80% of BLM's existing resource management
    plans (RMPs) are outdated or need revision, including:
        Alaska: BLM's Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 17(d)(1) Draft
    Environmental Impact Statement highlighted substantial deficiencies in
    the 5 underlying RMPs: Kobuk/Steward, Bay, East, Bering Sea-Western
    Interior, and Ring of Fire. TWS encourages allocating sufficient
    funding and resources for BLM's Alaska Office to undertake a
    programmatic RMP process to correct deficiencies, modernize plans,
    incorporate Indigenous and traditional knowledge, and make this plan
    climate ready.
        High Divide: Idaho and Montana's High Divide is essential for
    maintaining continental-scale wildlife connectivity. With over 4
    million surface acres managed through the Upper Snake, Challis, Salmon,
    Dillon, and Butte Field Offices, this region's land use plans have
    outdated migration data and fail to address wildlife movement,
    connectivity, and landscape intactness. TWS requests $5 million
    additional planning dollars to address habitat connectivity threats and
    initiate preplanning to revise the Upper Snake and Lemhi RMPs and amend
    the Challis, Dillon, and Butte RMPs.
        Nevada: BLM's Nevada State Office needs continued funding to
    successfully modernize Nevada's 12 RMPs through a single Environmental
    Impact Statement. A recent evaluation found planning issues related to
    cultural, ecological, economic, environmental, resource, scenic, and
    social values and uses. We request $15 million be allocated through the
    appropriations process to continue and complete this effort.
                        fish and wildlife service (fws)
    National Wildlife Refuge System FY25 Request: at least $602.3 million
    for Operations and Maintenance (O&M)

        The Refuge System is the largest network of public lands and waters
    dedicated to wildlife conservation in the world. However, after a
    decade of underinvestment, inflation, and soaring visitation, $2.2
    billion is needed for O&M. Within that, we request at least $4.9
    million for the Refuge System Conservation Planning line item.
    Comprehensive Conservation Plans (CCPs) are crucial to the purposes of
    each refuge unit yet 60% of refuges lack a current CCP.
                          national park service (nps)
    Every Kid Outdoors FY25 Request: $25 million

        Every Kid Outdoors (EKO) provides fourth graders and their families
    with free access to any national park for an entire year, helping
    millions of children build lifelong relationships with their public
    lands. However, the EKO program has never been funded by Congress,
    leaving EKO unable to reach its full potential of reaching all
    families.

    Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership (ORLP) Program FY25 Request: $125
    million

        Established by Congress in 2014 and funded through LWCF's State and
    Local Assistance Program, ORLP is a national competitive grant program
    that provides funding to urban communities to create new outdoor
    recreation spaces, reinvigorate existing parks, and forge connections
    between people and the outdoors in economically underserved
    communities.

    Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program FY 24
    Request: $15 million

        The RTCA program helps local communities and public land managers
    develop or restore parks, conservation areas, rivers, and wildlife
    habitats. The program bolsters community-led conservation and
    sustainable outdoor recreation projects.
                            us forest service (usfs)
    Capital Improvement and Maintenance--Trails FY25 request: $21.5 million

        Recreational trails are the gateway to a wide range of activities
    in the National Forests System (NFS). Funding the trails program at
    this requested level will help to address the agency's significant
    trial maintenance backlog.

    Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) FY25
    request: $34 million

        The CFLRP successfully prioritizes holistic restoration at the
    landscape scale. Congress should fully fund and expand the CFLRP to
    increase essential science-based forest restoration projects on public
    lands.

    Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) FY25 request: $32.2 million for
    program; $54.9 million for salary and expenses

        The FIA's scientific knowledge on the current state of the Nation's
    forest is critical to support sound policy and forest management
    decisions. This requested increase reflects the many demands currently
    placed on the program, despite inadequate resources for implementation.

    Joint Fire Sciences Program (JFSP) FY25 request: $8 million

        The JFSP is unique among Federal research programs in its focus on
    applied fire science through interagency partnerships. Fire and land
    managers from the Administration identify, with community and
    collaborator input, the most urgent research needs around fire
    management. The JFSP competitively solicits the best proposals, and
    research findings are delivered to fire and land managers and
    practitioners through the JFSP-funded Fire Science Exchange Network.
    The JFSP, with only a modest budget, is highly efficient and effective
    at meeting the needs of fire practitioners.

    Land Management Planning, Assessment, and Monitoring FY25 request: $32
    million

        One-third of management plans are over 20 years old and cannot
    provide adequate guidance in the era of climate change and
    unprecedented biodiversity loss. The 2012 planning rule was meant to
    speed up planning, engage communities, provide land designation
    opportunities, promote species recovery, and establish robust
    monitoring programs. Monitoring is essential to enable adaptive
    management in the face of changing conditions, but the NFS rarely has
    the funds needed to conduct adequate monitoring. We ask Congress to
    include report language that ensures 25% of planning funds is devoted
    to monitoring.

    Legacy Roads and Trails (LRT) FY25 request: $100 million, including
    salaries and expenses

        The LRT program primarily addresses water quality problems caused
    by USFS' extensive road and trail network, particularly old logging
    roads. Decommissioning unneeded roads, restoring fish passage, and
    providing critically needed maintenance to roads and trails is
    essential to protecting water quality, recreational opportunities, and
    economic benefits in our National forests and adjacent communities.
    Congress should increase funding for ecologically beneficial road
    improvements and decommissioning.

    Recreation, Heritage, and Wilderness FY25 request: $94.367 million

        National Forests and Grasslands provide a great diversity of
    recreation opportunities, connecting the American public with nature in
    an unmatched variety of settings and activities. Funding at this level
    will give the agency the resources needed to continue providing these
    opportunities.

    Research and Development (R&D) Programs FY25 request: $55 million

        Restoring and maintaining healthy ecosystems across NFS lands
    depends on robust R&D to generate knowledge and technologies that will
    help protect habitat and recover at-risk species. We ask that the
    subcommittee also include report language to encourage funding to focus
    on science foundational to strategies to enhance the resilience of old-
    growth and mature forests to climate-induced changes in fire behavior.

    Watershed Condition Framework (WCF) and Water Source Protection Plans
    (WSPP) FY25 request: $30 million each

        The WCF identifies and restores priority watersheds across NFS
    lands, and the WSPP encourages watershed restoration partnerships
    between the USFS and downstream water users. Increased funding for WCF
    would allow watersheds that are degraded or at-risk to be returned to a
    properly functioning condition, while also creating well-paying rural
    jobs. USFS also lacks funding to work with willing partners, such as
    water utilities, to fund and implement projects that protect water
    supplies.
            national environmental policy act (nepa) implementation
        We ask the Appropriations Committee to provide funding to ensure
    all agencies adequate capacity to conduct environmental reviews under
    NEPA. We know that, despite widespread claims, NEPA is not the reason
    for permitting delays, and a more inclusive and meaningful
    environmental review process can save time, money, and lead to better
    decisions. It is therefore critical that agencies receive adequate
    resources to staff the positions responsible for shepherding the
    environmental review process.

        [This statement was submitted by Lydia Weiss, Senior Director,
    Government Relations.]
                                     ______

                   Prepared Statement of the Wildlife Society
        The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to provide
    testimony concerning the FY 2025 budgets for the U.S. Geological Survey
    (USGS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Bureau of Land
    Management (BLM), and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The Wildlife
    Society inspires, empowers, and enables wildlife professionals to
    sustain wildlife populations and their habitat through science-based
    management and conservation. Founded in 1937, TWS and our network of
    affiliated chapters and sections represents more than 15,000
    professional wildlife biologists, managers, and educators dedicated to
    excellence in wildlife stewardship. As leaders in wildlife science,
    management, and conservation, TWS promotes the use of science in all
    aspects of policy and decision-making. Appropriations for the following
    programs within the jurisdiction of the subcommittee on Interior,
    Environment, and Related Agencies will affect current and future status
    of wildlife and wildlife professionals in North America.

                             FY 2025 Interior Appropriations Requests--The Wildlife Society

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Agency                                   Program               FY 24 Enacted     FY 25 TWS
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    USGS..........................................  Climate Adaptation Science                63.1 M          69.3 M
                                                     Centers.
                                                    Cooperative Research Units......          28.2 M            36 M
                                                    National Wildlife Health Center.              --            66 M
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
    USFWS.........................................  National Wildlife Refuge System.           527 M         602.3 M
                                                    State and Tribal Wildlife Grants          72.4 M           100 M
                                                    Ecological Services.............         288.3 M         338.2 M
                                                    NMBCA...........................             5 M            10 M
                                                    Partners for Fish and Wildlife..            59 M          68.1 M
                                                    Migratory Bird Joint Ventures...          16.8 M            25 M
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
    BLM...........................................  Wildlife Habitat Management.....           143 M         153.4 M
                                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------
    USFS..........................................  Research and Development                    300M         315.6 M
                                                     programs.
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

             u.s. geological survey (usgs)--ecosystems mission area
        The Climate Adaptation Science Centers program addresses evolving
    challenges posed by climate change on regional wildlife, ecosystems,
    and community-based stakeholders. Modest budget increases in recent
    fiscal periods have bolstered the program's ability to swiftly respond
    to demands and expand its capacity, facilitating proactive engagement
    of Tribal communities in project design and resource allocation.
    Nevertheless, funding levels have failed to match identified needs,
    especially in equipping USGS with adequate resources to effectively
    convey scientific insights to stakeholders for actionable decision-
    making based on project outcomes. For FY 2025, we recommend the full
    realization of the Administration's proposal, reaching no less than
    $69.3 million.
        Located in Madison, WI, the Survey-wide National Wildlife Health
    Center is the sole Federal BSL-3 facility dedicated exclusively to
    scientific inquiry and exploration of wildlife diseases impacting
    human, animal, and environmental welfare. It is the only national
    center dedicated to wildlife disease detection, prevention, and control
    throughout the United States. TWS expresses gratitude to Congress for
    the allocation of $55 million in FY 2021 towards phase one enhancements
    at the Center. However, an estimated $135 million in no-year funding
    remains necessary for comprehensive fulfillment of the project.
    Progress towards modernization is underway at the Center, with
    contracts already awarded for architectural design and environmental
    evaluation. Construction is expected to begin in FY27, making FY25
    appropriations especially timely. TWS advocates for the appropriation
    of at least $66 million for FY 2025, available until fully expended, to
    allow continued modernization of the Center.
        The Cooperative Fish & Wildlife Research Units (CRUs) foster
    federal, state, non-government organization (NGO), and academic
    partnerships to provide actionable science tailored to the needs of
    natural resource managers. This science plays a pivotal role in the
    implementation of State and Federal management decisions. CRUs are an
    exemplary model for cooperative natural resource science programming;
    with the support of collaborators this program leverages an average of
    three dollars in outside funds for every Federal dollar invested. The
    Wildlife Society extends appreciation to appropriators for recognizing
    this critical need and for increased funding allocated in FY 2024.
    Thanks to support from Congress, Indiana was able to establish the
    Indiana Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit hosted by Purdue
    University. Despite growing interest from other States, limited Federal
    funding has constrained the expansion of units and continues to result
    in vacancies at existing units. To address this gap, The Wildlife
    Society recommends a funding increase to $36 million in FY 2025,
    enabling CRUs to capitalize on emerging partnerships and fill vacancies
    in an effort to meet long-standing commitments.
                     u.s. fish and wildlife service (usfws)
        With 850 million acres of lands and waters spanning across every
    U.S. state and territory, the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS)
    plays a key role in conservation of native species and connects
    Americans to recreation opportunities such as hunting, fishing, hiking,
    and environmental education. The current NWRS Operations and
    Maintenance (O&M) budget fails to meet the needs of native species and
    the American public. In order to effectively conserve species on NWRS
    lands and align with the multiuse goals of the Refuge System,
    significant investments in O&M programming are required. Conservation
    planning, a core O&M subactivity that deals with the creation of multi-
    stakeholder Comprehensive Conservation Plans for refuge system units,
    has been chronically underfunded. As a result, 40 percent of these
    congressionally mandated plans are either out of date or do not exist.
    The NWRS has lacked funding to meet their own identified needs in
    bringing diverse audiences into USFWS programming. The Urban Wildlife
    Program, housed under NWRS O&M, seeks to target USFWS investments to
    underserved communities to bolster recreational access and conservation
    outreach. Through the Urban Wildlife Program, and more than 100 refuges
    located less than 25 miles from a city center, NWRS is well-positioned
    to engage diverse constituencies in the conservation of our native
    species. Unfortunately, NWRS is not able to meet these needs given
    currently available funding. TWS urges Congress to consider the
    significant shortcomings of the budget of the National Wildlife Refuge
    System in FY 2025, and provide at least $602 million in funding to
    begin making inroads on adequate visitor services, habitat management
    activities, and long-term conservation planning.
        The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program (STWG) is the Nation's
    only program that encourages development and implementation of State
    Wildlife Action Plans. Collectively, STWG funds support strong
    partnerships among federal, state, Tribal, private, and nonprofit
    entities that enable wildlife professionals to implement on-the-ground
    conservation activities that benefit over 12,000 at-risk species, with
    the goal of eliminating the need to list them under the Endangered
    Species Act. In FY 2010, appropriations were at $90 million for the
    program--allowing States to complete more projects deemed necessary for
    monitoring and management of at-risk species. Subsequent budget
    reductions in STWG, however, have not allowed this highly successful
    program to reach its full potential. TWS requests that Congress
    increase funding for the program to at least $100 million annually.
        Through the Ecological Services Program (ESP), USFWS works with
    diverse public and private partners to help identify species facing
    extinction, reduce threats to their populations, and return species
    back to the public trust responsibilities of States and Tribes.
    Wildlife professionals in USFWS are working on new strategies to
    increase efficacy of ESP, though the primary impediment to
    effectiveness remains inadequate funding. To effectively move species
    through all components of the ESA listing and delisting process, TWS
    requests full implementation of the Administration's FY 2025 request of
    no less than $338.2 million for all subactivities.
        Since 2002, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA)
    has provided more than $80 million in grants to support 686 projects in
    43 countries. These grants have enabled partner entities and wildlife
    professionals to conserve approximately 400 migratory bird species
    across more than 5 million acres. Moreover, NMBCA has achieved a
    partner match ratio of nearly 4:1 despite requiring only a 3:1 match.
    The needs of U.S. migratory bird species and conservation efforts to
    keep these species common extends to landscapes far beyond U.S.
    borders. As a result, TWS recommends Congress increase funding to no
    less than $10 million in FY 2025 to achieve greater proactive
    conservation results under the NMBCA program.
        Further promoting USFWS' partnership with non-federal stakeholders
    is the Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program. This program allows
    voluntary habitat restoration goals, aligned with identified strategic
    priorities, on private lands to be achieved through cost-efficient
    financial and technical assistance. If adequately funded, this program
    has the potential to serve as a vital tool in implementing private land
    conservation efforts and proactively conserving at-risk species prior
    to reaching the point of Endangered Species Act listing. TWS supports
    an increase in Partners for Fish and Wildlife program funding to no
    less than $68.1 million in FY 2025.
        The Migratory Bird Joint Ventures (MBJV), part of USFWS' Migratory
    Bird Management program, are locally-directed partnerships that develop
    and implement science-based habitat conservation strategies for all
    species of birds across North America. These partnerships have
    leveraged Federal funds at 31:1 to enhance and conserve over 27 million
    acres of avian habitat. The MBJV's Urban Bird Treaties grant program
    supports partnerships to conserve birds in urban environments by
    conserving nearby wetlands and creating parks for local communities to
    learn about wildlife. TWS supports $25 million in FY 2025 for the
    Migratory Bird Joint Ventures to enhance and promote the program's
    highly effective and collaborative partnerships.
                        bureau of land management (blm)
        The Wildlife Habitat Management program maintains and restores
    fish, wildlife, and their habitat across a large portion of America's
    western landscapes. This includes projects to balance effects of
    multiple public land uses, such as energy development and livestock
    grazing, with the needs of native species. This program also includes
    management of approximately 300 listed species under the Endangered
    Species Act. TWS recommends Congress support the Wildlife Habitat
    Management program with no less than the Administration request of
    $153.4 million in FY 2025.
                           u.s. forest service (usfs)
        Research and Development (R&D) programs within the USFS deliver
    science and science-based products that improve the health and
    management of forests and grasslands. These programs assist land
    managers in developing climate change adaptation and resilience
    strategies, recovering from wildfire damages, and protecting watersheds
    and drinking waters. Increased funding for R&D programs is needed to
    achieve objectives such as better understanding ways to reduce
    community exposure to wildfires and improving tools to help land
    managers anticipate and manage for impacts of drought. TWS supports an
    increase in funding levels to $315.6 million for USFS R&D programs to
    ensure the continued delivery of critical new science improving the
    health and use of our Nation's forests and grasslands.

        [This statement was submitted by Ed Arnett, PhD, Chief Executive
    Officer.]
                                     ______

            Prepared Statement of Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska Tribe
    Summary of Budget Requests:

      --Bureau of Indian Affairs--Public Safety & Justice--Criminal
            Investigations and Police Services

      --Bureau of Indian Affairs--Public Safety & Justice--Detention/
            Corrections

      --Indian Health Service--Mental Health

      --Bureau of Indian Education--Tribal Colleges & Universities

      --Bureau of Indian Education--Tribal Colleges Facilities Improvement
            & Repair

        Greetings, Chair Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski, and Members of
    the subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies
    (``Subcommittee''). My name is Victoria Kitcheyan and I have the honor
    of serving as Chairwoman of the Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska
    (``Tribe''). Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony on the
    Tribe's funding priorities, within the subcommittee's jurisdiction, for
    Fiscal Year 2025 (``FY25''). My testimony will focus on the need to
    increase funding for the following programs/accounts: Bureau of Indian
    Affairs (``BIA''), Public Safety and Justice (``PS&J''); Indian Health
    Service (``IHS''), Mental Health; and Bureau of Indian Education
    (``BIE''), Tribal Colleges and Universities (``TCUs'').
                increase funding for bia public safety & justice
        Everyone deserves to feel safe in their community, but that is not
    the case on many reservations throughout Indian Country, including the
    Winnebago Reservation. A major factor contributing to this unfortunate
    circumstance is the chronic underfunding of PS&J programs. Released in
    February 2024, the BIA's Office of Justice Services' Report to the
    Congress of Spending Staffing, and Estimated Funding Costs for PS&J
    Programs in Indian Country (``Report'') found that PS&J programs are
    funded at just under 13% of total need and that an additional 25,655
    personnel are required to adequately serve Indian country. The Report
    also stated that the 2021 unmet PS&J need for Indian country was just
    over $3 billion.
        The Tribe supports the Interior Department's request of $651.2
    million for Public Safety and Justice (PS&J) operations, which is an
    increase of $95.7 million above the 2024 enacted level. However, a
    drastic funding increase is needed to fill the vast unmet needs for
    PS&J programs.
                  criminal investigations and police services
        To counter the steady decline in policing services, the Tribe has
    been forced to expend limited Tribal resources to perform the BIA's law
    enforcement functions. The Winnebago Tribal Council is doing all we can
    to avoid having a community where criminals feel emboldened and
    Reservation residents feel vulnerable. However, the Federal Government
    must fulfill its responsibilities to the Tribe.
        The BIA law enforcement staffing shortages and the overall
    insufficient level of police services are longstanding issues on the
    Winnebago Reservation. In just the last year, there have been multiple
    times when the BIA Police Department in Winnebago was severely short-
    staffed for various reasons, such as positions being left unfilled for
    extended periods, officers detailed to other reservations, and officers
    on administrative or other leave. In September 2023, BIA District I
    detailed the current BIA Chief of Police to another jurisdiction for
    120 days, leaving the Winnebago Reservation vulnerable. There was no
    notice to the Winnebago Tribal Council regarding this decision and
    there was no communication from District I about the rationale. This
    action resulted in one of the existing officers being appointed as the
    acting Chief of Police, and no action to backfill this position.
        This situation was on the heels of the Tribe having to request that
    the acting BIA Chief of Police deputize the Tribe's conservation
    officers due to dangerously low law enforcement coverage on the
    Reservation. As a result of the BIA's failure to provide sufficient law
    enforcement staffing, the Winnebago Police Department has become overly
    reliant on Tribal police officers and Tribal conservation officers.
    These officers, as well as law enforcement support staff, are paid
    entirely from Tribal resources.
        The Tribe supports the Interior Department's request for a $41.9
    million program increase for Criminal Investigations and Police
    Services, which includes $33.5 million specifically targeted to
    increase the number of officers and investigators on the ground in
    Indian Country.
                             detention/corrections
        The lack of adult and juvenile detention facilities at Winnebago is
    further contributing to our serious public safety concerns. The closest
    adult detention facilities are located at the Omaha Tribe's
    Reservation, which is 11 miles away, and Thurston County, which is 20
    miles away. However, the BIA often does not have an active contract
    with those facilities, or those facilities do not have availability. As
    a result, detainees are sent to the closest BIA facility with
    availability. The closest one is the BIA Corrections Yankton Sioux
    Agency in Wagner, SD, which is 122 miles away, and takes over 2 hours
    to travel one way.
        Turning to juvenile detention, the BIA Chief of Police recently
    informed the Tribe that several juvenile detainees would have to be
    housed at the Tribe's Youth Crisis Intervention Center (``Center'').
    The Center is not equipped to provide housing for juveniles who require
    secure detention for extended periods. We are forced to resort to these
    measures because the closest BIA juvenile facility is 450 miles away in
    Standing Rock, North Dakota which is a 7-hour drive from Winnebago.
        The Tribe needs the BIA to do a better job of ensuring that there
    are active contracts with detention facilities near the reservation.
    Therefore, we support the Interior Department's request for a $20
    million increase for Detention and Corrections programs.
           increase funding for indian health service--mental health
        There is a mental health crisis across the Nation, and it is no
    different in Indian Country. However, Tribal members in Indian Country
    who are in crisis often face an additional burden in receiving
    necessary and life-saving treatment outside of the reservation. The
    Tribe's Twelve Clans Unity Hospital is not able to provide the
    necessary treatment for these mental health crises. Therefore, like
    many other rural hospitals and emergency departments, treatment is
    sought elsewhere at locations that are equipped to handle these
    emergency situations.
        The Tribe recently worked to enact legislation in the State of
    Nebraska (``State'') that provides for the recognition of Tribal mental
    health commitment orders and for the transportation of and commitment
    of persons civilly committed under Tribal law. This newly enacted
    Nebraska law will help facilitate critical, timely evaluation and care
    of behavioral health patients; eliminate inefficient jurisdictional
    bottlenecks when attempting to find placement and effectuate timely
    transportation to treatment facilities; and provide for cooperation
    between Tribal and non-Tribal medical facilities and law enforcement
    agencies.
        Now that the State acknowledges Tribal commitment orders, our
    Federal partners can no longer skirt their responsibility to provide
    and bear the financial cost for the healthcare of Tribal individuals as
    the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals (``Eighth Circuit'') has clearly
    laid out in White v. Califano (``Califano''). As a result of that case,
    the Great Plains Area administers an involuntary civil commitment
    program (``Califano Program'') to pay hospital charges for American
    Indians who require involuntary psychiatric hospitalization, usually
    for short stays of one week or less.
        The IHS has stated that the Califano ruling is an exception to the
    IHS policy regarding payment of involuntary commitments and that upon a
    State's request, it will pay for services provided by the state to
    involuntarily committed Indians who reside on reservations, over which
    the state has not assumed civil jurisdiction, but only in those
    midwestern States covered by the Califano decision. Although the
    Califano case applies to the entire 8th circuit, the Winnebago and
    other Tribes in Nebraska have never had access to the funding
    appropriated by Congress in response to this case.
        The Tribe urges the subcommittee to increase funding for Mental
    Health and clarify that all Tribes in the Eighth Circuit are eligible
    for the Califano Program.
                increase funding for bureau of indian education
                         tribal colleges & universities
        Little Priest Tribal College (``LPTC'') was established as an
    educational institution by the Winnebago Tribe to fulfill the goal of
    its namesake, Chief Little Priest, ``Be Strong and Educate My
    Children.'' Its major focus is to provide a 2-year associate degree and
    certification and prepare students to transfer and successfully
    complete a major at a 4-year institution. Another equally important
    part of the college's mission is to provide Ho-Chunk language and
    culture classes as well as provide training opportunities for upgrading
    job skills and improving employment opportunities.
        In the last 4 years the college's enrollment has almost doubled.
    The current spring enrollment is 209, which is the highest enrollment
    ever in a spring semester. The college also has doubled the number of
    programs from 6 to 12 in the last 4 years. Also, last year, the college
    celebrated the highest graduating group. To allow for LPTC's continued
    growth and positive impact on the community, the Tribe urges the
    subcommittee to increase funding for Tribal Colleges and Universities.
                tribal colleges facilities improvement & repair
        Many LPTC buildings are 20 to 70 years old and in need of
    improvements and/or repair. Funding for large, deferred maintenance
    projects is needed for the Library and Museum/Student Services
    Building, Food Service Building, and Administration Building, which was
    built in 1954. In addition, funding is needed to address overcrowded
    classrooms, limited housing, and lack of office space. Funding is also
    needed for LPTC to implement its Master Plan that would expand the
    campus onto an adjacent 10-acre site. Five new buildings are planned at
    an estimated total cost of $60 million. Planned buildings include
    Career & Technology Education Building, Cultural & Student Center,
    Dormitory, Wellness Center, and Day Care Center.
        LPTC is thankful for recent Facilities Improvement & Repair funds
    that have enabled the College to respond quickly to routine repairs and
    maintenance. LPTC has also been able to use Federal COVID funds to
    begin the construction of a new Science building that will provide
    modern lab facilities for the new Biology and Chemistry programs. The
    Tribe urges the subcommittee to increase funding for Tribal Colleges
    Facilities Improvement & Repair.
        The Winnebago Tribe appreciates the opportunity to share its Fiscal
    Year 2025 funding priorities with the subcommittee.

        [This statement was submitted by Victoria Kitcheyan, Winnebago
    Tribe of Nebraska.]
                                     ______

                    Prepared Statement of the Yakama Nation
        Chair Merkley, Ranking Member Murkowski and distinguished members
    of the Senate Appropriations subcommittee on the Interior, Environment
    and Related Agencies, I submit this testimony on behalf of the
    Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (``Yakama Nation'').
    The Yakama Nation is an inherently sovereign Native Nation with
    reserved rights and privileges pursuant the 1855 Treaty between the
    United States and the Yakamas (``Treaty'').\1\ A Federal treaty is
    considered the supreme Law of the Land under the U.S. Constitution.\2\
    Pursuant to its status as a sovereign Native Nation and its Treaty-
    reserved authority, Yakama Nation protects all of the natural and
    cultural resources in Yakama Nation's Treaty-territory and provides for
    the health, safety, and welfare of the more than 11,000 enrolled Yakama
    Members. The United States has a duty to provide for the services set
    forth below.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ See Treaty with the Yakamas, U.S.--Yakama Nation, June 9, 1855,
    12 Stat. 951.
        \2\ See U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       appraisal backlog--'cobell' part two for probate & leasing (bia).
        The Yakama Nation Appraisals Program lacks sufficient resources to
    effectively manage an unwieldly appraisal workload. The Yakama Nation
    Appraisals Program is a Federal trust function administered through
    Federal contracts pursuant to Public Law 93-638, Indian Self-
    Determination and Education Assistance Act (``ISDEAA''). The Federal
    Appraisal and Valuation Services Office (``AVSO''), like many ISDEAA
    contracts carried out by the Yakama Nation, is ``638ed'' for the Tribal
    government to carry-out necessary Federal functions. The 638 contracts
    typically establish an organizational framework and performance
    standards, and are supposed to provide enough funding for the
    contracted Tribal department to perform the contracted Federal
    function. There are currently around 500 individual probates pending at
    Yakama that will likely require 1,500 to 2,000 appraisals. Today,
    current funding levels only provide for a single full-time appraiser
    whose workload is driven by requests made through offices operating
    under the Bureau of Indian Affairs (``BIA'').
        Appraisals are critical to many Federal functions, including
    probate, leasing, and trust transactions. In probate, without timely
    appraisals, heirs are left to wait for years until an appraisal is
    prepared and approved for use by the court. The Yakama Nation has
    engaged with AVSO in government-to-government consultation and
    initiated the process of developing the model for standardized mass
    appraisals. Mass appraisals will accelerate the completion and approval
    of appraisals, but only to the extent there is sufficient staffing;
    success depends on funding for additional appraiser training, and
    funding for additional appraisal staff.
             in-patient treatment center (indian health services).
        On the Yakama Reservation, the opioid epidemic has had a profound
    impact, exacerbating existing social and health disparities among
    Yakama and non-Yakama Tribal members. The misuse of opioids has led to
    increased rates of addiction, substance abuse disorders, mental health
    issues, and social instability within the community. Additionally,
    barriers to accessing culturally appropriate and comprehensive
    addiction treatment services have hindered efforts to address the
    crisis effectively.
        There is a dire need for facilities in the Central Washington
    region that can ensure a safe detoxification process through medical
    supervision and withdrawal symptom management. County jails are
    becoming the de facto holding facilities to address substance addicted
    and housing-insecure populations on the Yakama Reservation and nearby
    trust lands. The Indian Health Services needs to be authorized and
    funded to implement initiatives dedicated to addressing the opioid
    epidemic and improving healthcare services on the reservation.
          necessary public safety & law enforcement funding (bia-ojs).
        The Yakama Nation has roughly a quarter of the officers needed to
    protect communities that reside withing the largest Treaty Reservation
    in Washington State. The Yakama Nation Police Department (``YNPD'') is
    638ed under the BIA Office of Justice Services (``OJS''). That 638
    contract currently funds 20 patrol officers for the 1.4-million-acre
    Yakama Reservation.
        The Yakama Nation has experienced an increase in violent crime and
    property crimes and has the highest occurrence of Missing and Murdered
    Indigenous Women/People in the region. The alarming rise in Latin
    American based gang and cartel-related drug activities is terrifying
    and the fentanyl epidemic plagues our Reservation communities. There
    are simply not enough law enforcement resources to meet our public
    safety needs. The Federal 638 contract has been flat for the past two
    decades, despite requests even for staying consistent with inflation.
        The YNPD needs more officers and more equipment. The region needs
    better public safety infrastructure to execute investigations and
    provide evidence for criminal prosecution. The OJS has their hands tied
    by budgetary constraints. The YNPD has had to figure out how to do more
    with less, year after year for decades. We need more law enforcement
    funding. We can no longer legitimately ask our People for patience when
    they reasonably demand public safety.
       treaty resources: columbia basin restoration initiative (ceq/bia).
        The Columbia River salmon fishery, Steelhead, Chinook, Sockeye, and
    Coho populations, are in jeopardy--for four decades the recovery
    funding has failed to keep pace with the required mitigation for the
    salmon lost each year to the hydroelectric system. Fishery returns have
    never come close to a Federal goal of 5 million salmon returning each
    year, the hydroelectric system continues to kill 5--11 million salmon
    per year, and the United States continues to fail its obligation to the
    Yakama Nation for 50% of the Treaty-era fishery harvest.
        The Yakama Nation's 638 contract funding levels for fish and
    wildlife programs need to increase inflation rates to ensure Treaty-
    resource protection. Salmon are experiencing additional climate change
    pressure, warmer water temperatures, and drought-level water levels in
    the rivers and streams. The Yakama Nation's tireless work cannot
    reverse the effects of the Federal hydroelectric system's annual
    unmitigated fish kill and its $1 billion backlog in unfunded fish
    mitigation infrastructure, including but not limited to: hatchery
    projects; restoration work; and fish passage on the Columbia River and
    all of its tributaries.
        The Yakama Nation's fish and wildlife programs are also facing
    human resources challenges as intergovernmental efforts with Federal
    agencies, States, and Tribes continue to grow and as regional fish
    restoration efforts expand in scope to include energy, water,
    transportation, and recreation. Yakama Nation's 638ed contract is
    inadequate to recruit additional personnel and expertise to address
    intergovernmental efforts and regional needs.
        The Council on Environmental Quality (``CEQ'') and BIA need to
    exert their authority and funding to meet regional goals including the
    Columbia Basin Restoration Initiative. The Yakama Nation requests
    appropriations for the BIA grant and litigation support programs, and
    the Pacific Salmon Treaty program funding. The Yakama Nation further
    requests allocations for fish passages at hatcheries, like the critical
    Cle Elum hatchery. Congress needs a plan to fund the billion-dollar
    backlog to keep its Treaty-promises.
                 degraded in-lieu & treaty fishing access sites
        The Federal management of In-Lieu and Treaty Fishing Access Sites
    (``Sites'') (see PL 116-99 and 25 CFR part 248) has been historically
    deplorable. More than $40 million is needed to address the list of
    repairs that must be completed across various Sites to maintain public
    safety, sanitation, and Site access. These Sites host year-round
    residents, families, and children.
        The Yakama Nation has Treaty-reserved rights to fish the banks of
    the lower Columbia River at all usual and accustomed fishing areas. The
    U.S. broke this Treaty-promise with the construction of the Bonneville
    Dam (1938), the Dalles Dam (1957), and the John Day Dam (1971), each
    inundating traditional villages and countless usual and accustomed
    fishing places. In response to these Treaty-breaches the Site
    improvements were made ``to provide access to usual and accustomed
    fishing areas and ancillary fishing facilities'' for Yakama People.
        Operation and maintenance of the 28 Sites is 638 contracted with
    the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (``CRITFC'') to address
    infrastructure repairs, sanitation and safety needs, and property
    improvements. The Sites need improvement funding from Congress to
    ongoing operation and improvement obligations.
         alternative forestry harvest equipment (depts. of interior &
                                  agriculture)
        The Yakama Reservation encompasses the eastern slopes of the
    Cascade Mountains and a 650,000-acre forest. Federal forest practices
    and climate change have worsened the risk of insects, disease, and
    catastrophic fire in the Yakama Forest. Yakama Nation maintains a
    sustainable approach to forest management that addresses the needs of
    our resources and people. Steep slope harvesting is backlogged due to
    the limited availability of logging equipment.
        Due to the complexity associated with steep slope logging in the
    Yakama forest, the Yakama Nation is pursuing the acquisition of logging
    equipment to address the Yakama Forest backlog and reduce potential
    impacts of extreme wildfire risk. One specialized yarder equipment can
    treat approximately 1,000 acres a year. Support the Yakama Nation's
    alternative forestry harvest plan and help put the Yakama forest back
    to work.
               forest mismanagement--a direct federal duty (bia)
        Last year the BIA only completed one (1) timber sale from the
    Yakama Forest. Under the National Indian Forest Resource Management Act
    and implementing regulations, express trust duties were established for
    Federal management of Indian forests. The BIA Forestry Program at the
    Yakama Agency has failed to hire many dozens of vacant forestry
    positions for more than a decade. In 2014, the BIA Director identified
    that BIA Forestry at the Yakama Agency is, in his words, ``on the verge
    of collapse.''
        The BIA is functionally abrogating its direct services obligation
    through its gross mismanagement. The Forestry program has nearly
    stopped functioning altogether, and the U.S. is forcing the Yakama
    Nation to accept lost revenue through sheer neglect. This is a dramatic
    breach of the United States' trust obligations established by Treaty,
    statute, and regulation. Congress needs to fund maintenance and
    staffing consistent with the Federal obligation.
        Forest mismanagement has put Yakama Member-owned logging companies
    out of business. The Yakama Nation's commercial mill can no longer
    sustain itself on timber harvested from the Yakama Nation's own
    forest--threatening over 200 Yakama Member-held jobs. Yakama Members
    are losing the trust revenues that they should be receiving from a
    viable timber economy. Increase the resources available to the BIA to
    ensure that Federal direct service programs are able to meet Federal
    obligations to the Yakama Nation.
                      water resources and irrigation (bia)
        The BIA has systematically decreased its support for natural
    resource management; core functions such as water measurement, crop
    reporting, and Wapato Irrigation Project (``WIP'') maintenance have
    been underfunded to the point of system failure. The gross underfunding
    over the last 100 years has resulted in a shocking breach of the
    Federal Trust responsibility.
        The Yakama Nation is committed to water management and restoration
    of instream flows on the Yakama Reservation, including a conservation
    effort of 165,000 acre-feet of water through the modernization of WIP.
    The total price tag for modernization of WIP is between $165 million
    and $200 million. Providing this and other natural resource funding is
    a step towards fulfilling the United States Government's trust
    responsibilities.
                        tribal school construction (bie)
        The Yakama Nation Tribal School is a nearly 70-year old dilapidated
    facility and is evaluated in ``poor'' condition by the BIE's Facility
    Condition Index, yet under the available and projected BIE construction
    funding, the timeline for a new school facility is waitlisted for 25--
    30 years. The Yakama Nation cannot wait decades for a safe educational
    environment. The BIE school replacement funding needs a significant
    increase to address the more than 80 Tribal schools ranked in 'poor'
    condition and authority needs to be provided so that the BIE can
    prioritize construction projects with matching funding, which will save
    money overall and redress this breach of duty faster.

        [This statement was submitted by Gerald Lewis, Chairman, Yakama
    Nation Tribal Council.]

           LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

    Alliance to Save Energy, Prepared Statement of the...............
      413............................................................
    American:
        Alliance of Museums, Prepared Statement of the...............
          414........................................................
        Battlefield Trust, Prepared Statement of the.................
          417........................................................
        Bird Conservancy, Prepared Statement of......................
          418........................................................
        Cultural Resources Association, Prepared Statement of the....
          422........................................................
        Fisheries Society, Prepared Statement of the.................
          423........................................................
        Hiking Society, Prepared Statement of........................
          425........................................................
        Institute of Biological Sciences, Prepared Statement of the..
          428........................................................
        Indian Higher Education Consortium, Prepared Statement of the
          431........................................................
        Lung Association, Prepared Statement of the..................
          433........................................................
        Nuclear Society, Prepared Statement of the...................
          435........................................................
        Psychological Association, Prepared Statement of the.........
          436........................................................
        Rivers, Prepared Statement of................................
          437........................................................
        Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Prepared
          Statement of the...........................................
          440........................................................
    AmericaView, Prepared Statement of...............................
      443............................................................
    Animal Welfare Institute, Prepared Statement of the..............
      444............................................................
    Arctic Research Program at Woodwell Climate Research Center,
      Prepared Statement of the......................................
      447............................................................
    Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water Supply System, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................
      450............................................................
    Association:
        of:
            Air Pollution Control Agencies, Prepared Statement of the
              452....................................................
            California Water Agencies, Prepared Statement of.........
              454....................................................
            Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Prepared Statement of the....
              455....................................................
            Zoos and Aquariums, Prepared Statement of the............
              459....................................................

    Backcountry Hunters & Anglers, Prepared Statement of.............
      462............................................................
    Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation, Prepared Statement of the...
      464............................................................
    Britt, Senator Katie, U.S. Senator From Alabama, Questions
      Submitted by

    Business Council for Sustainable Energy, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................
      467............................................................

    Carbon Utilization Research Council, Prepared Statement of.......
      469............................................................
    Center for Invasive Species Prevention, Prepared Statement of the
      469............................................................
    Chippewa Cree Tribe, Prepared Statement of the...................
      472............................................................
    Chugach Regional Resources Commission, Prepared Statement of the.
      478............................................................
    Coalition:
        of:
            Refuge Friends and Advocates, Prepared Statement of the..
              483....................................................
        to:
            Protect America's National Parks, Prepared Statement of..
              481....................................................
    Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program, Prepared Statement
      of the

    Confederated:
        Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation,
          Prepared Statement of the..................................
          487........................................................
        Tribes:
            Chehalis Reservation, Prepared Statement of the..........
              489....................................................
            Colville Reservation, Prepared Statement of the..........
              491....................................................
    Conservation Fund, Prepared Statement of the.....................
      476............................................................
    Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement, Prepared Statement
      of the.........................................................
      493............................................................
    Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................
      495............................................................

    Detroit International Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement of.....
      497............................................................
    Defenders of Wildlife, Prepared Statement of.....................
      500............................................................
    Detention Facility and Public Safety in Northeast Oklahoma,
      Prepared Statement of..........................................
      503............................................................
    Dine Bi Olta School Board Association, Prepared Statement of the.
      504............................................................
    ``Ding'' Darling Wildlife Society, Prepared Statement of.........
      499............................................................

    Entomological Society of America, Prepared Statement of the......
      508............................................................
    Environmental:
        Council of the States, Prepared Statement of the.............
          511........................................................
        Working Group, Prepared Statement of.........................
          513........................................................

    Federation of State Humanities Councils, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................
      514............................................................
    Fischer, Senator Deb, U.S. Senator From Nebraska, Question
      Submitted by...................................................
      364............................................................
    Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................
      517............................................................
    Fort Peck Reservation, Prepared Statement of the.................
      520............................................................
    Friends of:
        Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge Inc., Prepared Statement
          of the.....................................................
          522........................................................
        Front Range Wildlife Refuges, Prepared Statement of the......
          523........................................................
        Great Swamp National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement of..
          524........................................................
        Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement
          of.........................................................
          526........................................................
        Heinz Refuge Board of Directors, Prepared Statement of.......
          527........................................................
        Louisiana Wildlife Refuges, Inc., Prepared Statement of......
          529........................................................
        Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement of......
          531........................................................
        Mid-Columbia River National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Prepared
          Statement of the...........................................
          532........................................................
        Missisquoi National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement of...
          533........................................................
        National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, Prepared
          Statement of the...........................................
          535........................................................
        Neal Smith National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement of...
          536........................................................
        O`ahu National Wildlife Refuges, Prepared Statement of.......
          537........................................................
        Patuxent Research Refuge, Inc., Prepared Statement of........
          538........................................................
        Prime Hook, Prepared Statement of the........................
          539........................................................
        Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement of
          540........................................................
        Savannah Coastal Wildlife Refuges, Prepared Statement of the.
          542........................................................
        Seney National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement of........
          543........................................................
        Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement of the
          543........................................................
        St. Marks Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement of the.........
          545........................................................
        Tampa Bay National Wildlife Refuges, Prepared Statement of
          the........................................................
          547........................................................
        Tualatin River:
            And Wapato National Wildlife Refuges, Prepared Statement
              of the.................................................
              550....................................................
            National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Prepared Statement of
              the....................................................
              548....................................................

    Geological Society of America, Prepared Statement of.............
      551............................................................
    Grantmakers in the Arts, Prepared Statement of...................
      553............................................................
    Great Lakes:
        Coalition, Prepared Statement of the.........................
          554........................................................
        Indian Fish & Wildlife Commission, Prepared Statement of.....
          558........................................................
    GreenLatinos, Prepared Statement of..............................
      560............................................................
    Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, Prepared Statement of........
      563............................................................

    Haaland, Hon. Deb, Secretary, Department of the Interior:
        Prepared Statement of........................................
          111........................................................
        Statement of.................................................
          105........................................................
        Summary Statement of.........................................
          110........................................................
    Healthy Schools Network, Prepared Statement of...................
      566............................................................
    Heinrich, Senator Martin, U.S. Senator From New Mexico, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................
      409............................................................
    Hoeven, Senator John, U.S. Senator From North Dakota, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................
      97.............................................................
    Hualapai Tribe of Arizona, Prepared Statement of the.............
      568............................................................
    Humane Society Legislative Fund and The Humane Society of the
      United States, Prepared Statement of the.......................
      569............................................................

    Interstate Mining Compact Commission, Prepared Statement of......
      572............................................................
    InterTribal Buffalo Council, Prepared Statement of...............
      575............................................................

    Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe, Prepared Statement of the.............
      578............................................................
    Johnson County Department of Health and Environment, Prepared
      Statement of...................................................
      581............................................................

    Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, Prepared
      Statement of...................................................
      582............................................................
    League of American Orchestras, Prepared Statement of the.........
      584............................................................

    Medical Students for a Sustainable Future, Prepared Statement of.
      587............................................................
    Merkley, Senator Jeff, U.S. Senator From Oregon:
        Opening Statement of

    Metlakatla Indian Community, Prepared Statement of the...........
      588............................................................
    Moore, Hon. Randy, Chief, U.S. Forest Service:
        Prepared Statement of........................................
          6..........................................................
        Statement of.................................................
          1..........................................................
        Summary Statement of.........................................
          5..........................................................
    Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska:
        Questions Submitted by.......................................
          345........................................................
        Statement of

    National:
        Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Prepared
          Statement of...............................................
          591........................................................
        Association of:
            Abandoned Mine Land Programs, Prepared Statement of......
              595....................................................
            Clean:
                Air Agencies, Prepared Statement of..................
                  598................................................
                Water Agencies, Prepared Statement of................
                  600................................................
            State:
                Departments of Agriculture, Prepared Statement of....
                  603................................................
                Energy Officials, Prepared Statement of..............
                  604................................................
                Foresters, Prepared Statement of.....................
                  606................................................
            Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, Prepared Statement
              of.....................................................
              609....................................................
        Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, Prepared
          Statement of...............................................
          612........................................................
        Council of Urban Indian Health, Prepared Statement of........
          615........................................................
        Conservation Lands, Prepared Statement of....................
          619........................................................
        Cooperators' Coalition, Prepared Statement of................
          621........................................................
        Endowment for the Arts, Prepared Statement of

            And National Endowment for the Humanities, Prepared
              Statement of...........................................
              627....................................................
        Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Prepared Statement of the......
          628........................................................
        Humanities Alliance, Prepared Statement of the...............
          631........................................................
        Indian Health Board, Prepared Statement of the...............
          633........................................................
        Parks Conservation Association, Prepared Statement of........
          636........................................................
        Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition, Prepared Statement of
          the........................................................
          639........................................................
        Trust for Historic Preservation, Prepared Statement of the...
          641........................................................
        Wildlife Refuge Association, Prepared Statement of...........
          644........................................................
    Native:
        Village
            of:
                Eyak, Prepared Statement of..........................
                  646................................................
                Kotzebue, Prepared Statement of......................
                  649................................................
    Natural Science Collections Alliance, Prepared Statement of the..
      651............................................................
    Nature Conservancy, Prepared Statement of the....................
      653............................................................
    Newland, Hon. Bryan, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs:
        Prepared Statement of........................................
          370........................................................
        Statement of.................................................
          365........................................................
        Summary Statement of.........................................
          367........................................................
    Nez Perce Tribe, Prepared Statement of the.......................
      656............................................................
    North American Lake Management Society, Prepared Statement of the
      659............................................................
    Northwest:
        Indian Fisheries Commission, Prepared Statement of...........
          660........................................................
        Portland Area Indian Health Board, Prepared Statement of the.
          663........................................................
    Norton Sound Health Corporation, Prepared Statement of the.......
      665............................................................

    Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Prepared
      Statement of...................................................
      668............................................................
    Oncology Advocates United for Climate and Health International,
      Prepared Statement of..........................................
      670............................................................
    Oregon Water Resources Congress, Prepared Statement of the

    Outdoor Alliance, Prepared Statement of..........................
      676............................................................

    Pacific Salmon Commission, Prepared Statement of the.............
      679............................................................
    Partnership for the National Trails System, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................
      681............................................................
    Patoka River National Wildlife Refuge, Prepared Statement of.....
      684............................................................
    Physicians for Social Responsibility, Prepared Statement of......
      685............................................................
    Prairie Wetlands Learning Center, Prepared Statement of..........
      687............................................................
    Preservation Action, Prepared Statement of.......................
      689............................................................
    Public Lands Foundation, Prepared Statement of the...............
      692............................................................
    Pueblo of Acoma, Prepared Statement of...........................
      695............................................................

    Ramah Navajo School Board, Prepared Statement of.................
      698............................................................
    Rappahannock Wildlife Refuge Friends, Prepared Statement of the..
      701............................................................
    Reed, Senator Jack, U.S. Senator from Rhode Island, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................
      342............................................................
    Regan, Hon. Michael S., Administrator, Environmental Protection
      Agency:
        Prepared Statement of........................................
          58.........................................................
        Statement of.................................................
          51.........................................................
        Summary Statement of.........................................
          56.........................................................
    Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health, Inc., Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................
      702............................................................

    Sage Memorial Hospital on the Navajo Nation, Prepared Statement
      of.............................................................
      703............................................................
    San Francisco Bay Wildlife Society, Prepared Statement of........
      708............................................................
    Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Prepared Statement of
      the............................................................
      706............................................................
    Sealaska Heritage, Prepared Statement of.........................
      709............................................................
    Seattle Indian Health Board, Prepared Statement of the...........
      710............................................................
    Self-Governance Communication & Education Tribal Consortium,
      Prepared Statement of..........................................
      713............................................................
    Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe, Prepared Statement of the...........
      714............................................................
    Sinema, Senator Kyrsten, U.S. Senator From Arizona, Questions
      Submitted by

    Society for American Archaeology, Prepared Statement of the......
      719............................................................
    Sonoma Land Trust, Prepared Statement of.........................
      722............................................................
    Southcentral Foundation, Prepared Statement of the...............
      717............................................................
    Southeast Alaska Regional Health Consortium, Prepared Statement
      of.............................................................
      723............................................................
    Squaxin Island Tribal Leadership, Prepared Statement of the......
      724............................................................
    State of New Mexico Office of the State Engineer, Prepared
      Statement of the...............................................
      726............................................................
    Surfrider Foundation, Prepared Statement of the..................
      727............................................................
    Swinomish Indian Tribal Community, Prepared Statement of the.....
      729............................................................

    Theatre Communications Group, Prepared Statement of..............
      731............................................................
    Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Prepared Statement
      of.............................................................
      733............................................................
    Tso, Roselyn, Director, Indian Health Service:
        Prepared Statement of........................................
          378........................................................
        Statement of.................................................
          377........................................................
        Questions Submitted to.......................................
          409........................................................

    United South and Eastern Tribes, Prepared Statement of...........
      735............................................................

    Van Hollen, Senator Chris, U.S. Senator From Maryland, Questions
      Submitted by...................................................
      93.............................................................

    Water:
        Environment Federation, Prepared Statement of the............
          738........................................................
        Source Protection Program, Prepared Statement of the.........
          740........................................................
    WateReuse Association, Prepared Statement of the.................
      741............................................................
    Western Governors' Association, Prepared Statement of the........
      742............................................................
    Wetlands Program Development Grant, Prepared Statement of........
      744............................................................
    Wilderness Society, Prepared Statement of the....................
      747............................................................
    Wildlife Society, Prepared Statement of the......................
      750............................................................
    Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska Tribe, Prepared Statement of.........
      753............................................................

    Yakama Nation, Prepared Statement of the.........................
      755............................................................

                                 SUBJECT INDEX

                                  ----------

                          UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE

                                                                       Page

    Additional Committee Questions...................................
      47.............................................................
    Ensuring Equitable Access to and Benefits from the National
      Forest System..................................................
      8..............................................................
    Leveraging Additional Funding Authorities........................
      8..............................................................
    President's FY 2025 Budget Request for Specific Priorities, The..
      7..............................................................
                                   __________

                        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

    Achieving Clean and Safe Water for All Communities...............
      60.............................................................
    Additional Committee Questions...................................
      93.............................................................
    Continuing to Build Back Critical Capacity to Carry Out EPA's
      Mission........................................................
      62.............................................................
    Elevating Environmental Justice..................................
      58.............................................................
    Enforcing Environmental Laws.....................................
      59.............................................................
    Ensuring:........................................................
        Clean and Healthy Air for All Communities....................
          59.........................................................
        Safety of Chemicals for People and the Environment, the......
          61.........................................................
    FY 2025 President's Budget Request, The..........................
      58.............................................................
    Safeguarding and Revitalizing Communities........................
      61.............................................................
    Urgently Tackling the Climate Crisis.............................
      58.............................................................
                                   __________

                           DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

    2025 Legislative Proposals.......................................
      112............................................................
    Abandoned Mine Cleanup...........................................
      161............................................................
    Additional Committee Questions...................................
      342............................................................
    Advancing Indian Education.......................................
      114............................................................
    Addressing Climate Challenges and Building Resilience............
      115............................................................
    Ambler Road......................................................
      126............................................................
        Legal Analysis...............................................
          127........................................................
    America the Beautiful Initiative.................................
      129............................................................
    America the Beautiful and the 30X30 Initiative...................
      130............................................................
    Building:
        Agency Capacity..............................................
          123........................................................
        Resilient Communities........................................
          117........................................................
    Chesapeake Bay...................................................
      136............................................................
    Crater Lake......................................................
      146............................................................
    Creating Jobs and Meeting Energy and Environmental Challenges....
      119............................................................
    Critical Minerals................................................
      130............................................................
    Conventional Energy..............................................
      120............................................................
    Developing a Robust Clean Energy Economy.........................
      119............................................................
    Drought and Ongoing Water Challenges.............................
      116............................................................
    Energy Production on Federal Lands and Waters....................
      131............................................................
    Final Rule on the NPR-A..........................................
      148............................................................
    Fisheries Mitigation Guidance for Offshore Energy Production.....
      132............................................................
    Fuels Management--Rogue Valley--Jackson & Josephine Counties.....
      144............................................................
    Healthy Public Lands, Waters, and Wildlife.......................
      118............................................................
    Honoring Tribal Sovereignty......................................
      113............................................................
    Increasing Representation and Tribal Co-Stewardship..............
      122............................................................
    Increased Accessibility to Public Lands..........................
      127............................................................
    Interior's Workforce and Infrastructure..........................
      123............................................................
    Investing:
            Technology and Information Management....................
              123....................................................
            Tribal Communities.......................................
              114....................................................
    Klamath Fish Hatchery............................................
      139............................................................
    Management and Protection of the National Petroleum Reserve in
      Alaska.........................................................
      164............................................................
    Meeting Financial Tribal Trust Responsibilities..................
      115............................................................
    Monarchs and Other Pollinators...................................
      147............................................................
    National:
        Park:
            Service:
                Employees............................................
                  129................................................
                Seasonal Hires.......................................
                  124................................................
        Petroleum Reserve Alaska.....................................
          148........................................................
    Offshore:
        Energy.......................................................
          135........................................................
        Wind Energy in the Central Atlantic..........................
          137........................................................
    Ongoing Commitment to Diversity and Equity.......................
      122............................................................
    Pesticides on Wildlife Refuge Areas..............................
      149............................................................
    Promoting Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion of Underserved
      Communities....................................................
      122............................................................
    Reauthorization of GAOA Legacy Restoration Fund..................
      125............................................................
    Reclamation Jobs.................................................
      121............................................................
    Reclassification of Tribal Payments..............................
      146............................................................
    Renewable Energy on Tribal Lands.................................
      125............................................................
    Rule Alaska Native Tribes and ANCSA Corporation Engagement.......
      163............................................................
    Salmon Recovery..................................................
      134............................................................
    Staffing at the National Parks...................................
      134............................................................
    Strengthening Tribal Nations.....................................
      113............................................................
    Tribal:
        Engagement:
            NPRA Rule, on the........................................
              162....................................................
            Offshore Wind Leasing, of................................
              134....................................................
        Hatchery Operations..........................................
          128........................................................
        Law Enforcement Programs.....................................
          145........................................................
    Warrior Met Coal.................................................
      138............................................................
    Wildland:
        Fire:
            Management...............................................
              115....................................................
            Hazardous Fuels..........................................
              144....................................................
    Western Oregon Operating Plan....................................
      140............................................................
                                   __________

                             INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

    105(L) Leases and Contracts Support Costs........................
      395............................................................
    Additional Committee Questions...................................
      409............................................................
    Addressing the Backlog in Probate Services.......................
      404............................................................
    Advance Appropriations and Long-Term Funding Solutions...........
      379............................................................
    Build America Buy America........................................
      405............................................................
    Camp Grafton.....................................................
      392............................................................
    Challenges Impacting Tribal Communities..........................
      401............................................................
    Construction.....................................................
      373............................................................
    Contract Support Costs and 105(L) Leases.........................
      386............................................................
    Contract Support Costs and Tribal Grant Support Costs............
      373............................................................
    Construction Backlog.............................................
      396............................................................
    Economic Opportunities...........................................
      372............................................................
    Federal Boarding School Initiative...............................
      371............................................................
    Foster Tribal Student Success....................................
      374............................................................
    Funding for Tribal Colleges and Universities.....................
      390............................................................
    Future Emergency Preparedness....................................
      382............................................................
    Gallup Indian Medical Center.....................................
      388............................................................
    Health Care Staffing.............................................
      398............................................................
    Health Care Funding Needs........................................
      399............................................................
    IHS Facilities in Alaska.........................................
      406............................................................
    Impacts of Continued Lower Funding in Fiscal Year 2025...........
      383............................................................
    Implementation:
        Build America, Buy America in Indian Country, of.............
          406........................................................
        Stop Act, of the.............................................
          388........................................................
    Indian Water Rights Settlements..................................
      394............................................................
    Land and Water Claims Settlements................................
      373............................................................
    Law Enforcement Challenges

    Leadership Priorities............................................
      379............................................................
    Legislative Proposals............................................
      383............................................................
    Manage Trust Resources and Lands.................................
      372............................................................
    Mandatory vs. Discretionary Funding..............................
      387............................................................
    Missing or Murdered Indigenus People.............................
      391............................................................
    Modernizing Critical Infrastructure..............................
      381............................................................
    Payments for Tribal Leases.......................................
      373............................................................
    PILI 638 Contracts...............................................
      396............................................................
    Prioritizing High Quality Health Care............................
      380............................................................
    Progress Act Implentation........................................
      393............................................................
    Probate Backlog..................................................
      403............................................................
    Protect Indian Country...........................................
      371............................................................
    Public:
        Law
            280 States...............................................
              408....................................................
            638 Contract Payments....................................
              397....................................................
    Requests for Tribal 105(l) Leases to Interior FY 2021-FY 2025....
      387............................................................
    Rights Protection Implementation Program.........................
      392............................................................
    Strengthen Tribal Communities....................................
      371............................................................
    Support for Tibal Healthcare.....................................
      393............................................................
    Supporting Self-Determination....................................
      382............................................................
    Tribal Sovereignty Payments......................................
      384............................................................
    Trust:
    Fund Management..................................................
      374............................................................
        Natural Resource Management..................................
          372........................................................

                                      [all]