[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]