[House Hearing, 114 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED
AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2017
_______________________________________________________________________
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
______________
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
TOM COLE, Oklahoma CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio DEREK KILMER, Washington
CHRIS STEWART, Utah STEVE ISRAEL, New York
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full
Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
Dave LesStrang, Darren Benjamin, Jason Gray,
Betsy Bina, Jaclyn Kilroy, and Kristin Richmond,
Staff Assistants
_________________
PART 6
Page
U.S. Forest Service Budget Oversight
Hearing.................................
1
Indian Health Service Budget Oversight
Hearing.................................
59
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian
Relocation Budget Oversight Hearing.....
125
Department of the Interior Budget
Oversight Hearing.......................
149
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement Budget Oversight Hearing
289
Bureau of Land Management.............
331
______________________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
________________________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-042 WASHINGTON: 2016
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
----------
HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman
RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey NITA M. LOWEY, New York
ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
KAY GRANGER, Texas PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
KEN CALVERT, California SAM FARR, California
TOM COLE, Oklahoma CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania
MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida SANFORD D. BISHOP, Jr., Georgia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BARBARA LEE, California
TOM GRAVES, Georgia MICHAEL M. HONDA, California
KEVIN YODER, Kansas BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas STEVE ISRAEL, New York
JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska TIM RYAN, Ohio
THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine
DAVID G. VALADAO, California MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
ANDY HARRIS, Maryland DEREK KILMER, Washington
MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada
CHRIS STEWART, Utah
E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia
DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida
DAVID YOUNG, Iowa
EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia
STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi
William E. Smith, Clerk and Staff Director
(ii)
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2017
----------
Wednesday, February 24, 2016.
UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE
WITNESSES
TOM TIDWELL, CHIEF, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE
TONY DIXON, BUDGET DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE
Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert
Mr. Calvert. Good morning. The subcommittee will come to
order. I would like to extend a warm welcome to my colleagues,
our witness, and the audience as we begin the Fiscal Year 2017
appropriations process. Today is the Interior and Environment
Subcommittee's first oversight hearing of the year.
Chief Tidwell and Mr. Dixon, I would like to welcome you
back to the subcommittee. We are pleased to be able to hear
from you regarding the Fiscal Year 2017 budget request for the
United States Forest Service.
Similar to last year, the President requests a total of
$4.9 billion in discretionary funding for the Forest Service
for Fiscal Year 2017. This is $150 million less than Fiscal
Year 2016 enacted. A total of $2.5 billion was requested for
wildland fire management. This represents nearly 50 percent of
the entire Forest Service budget. In addition, a budget cap
adjustment of $864 million is requested.
This subcommittee continues to be concerned about the cost
of fighting wildfires and the effects it has on the Forest
Service's budgets, programs, and management. Technically, the
2015 fire season is considered below normal at 93 percent of
the 10-year average for the number of wildfires reported.
However, the statistic belies a devastating reality. In 2015,
more than 68,000 fires burned more than 10 million acres,
causing an agonizing loss of life, destroying more than 4,600
homes and other properties, and devastating local and regional
landscapes and communities.
The toll on our firefighters and supporting staff was also
severe. According to the National Interagency Coordination
Center, the request for firefighting resources were right at or
exceeded the 10-year average, and the requests for air support
were fulfilled or exceeded their averages.
So I would like to thank you, Chief Tidwell, for the
Administration's efforts to change the way we budget for
wildfires. I would also like to thank Congressman Simpson with
his dramatic entrance----
[Laughter.]
Mr. Calvert [continuing]. For keeping the pressure on
Congress to address the issue. As of yesterday, I understand
Mr. Simpson has convinced 145 of our colleagues to co-sponsor
his bill, including every member of this subcommittee.
While the issue of how to fund firefighting costs seems to
dominate most discussions about the Forest Service, there are
numerous other issues, including air asset management, law
enforcement, land acquisition, and basic budgeting and program
management, among others, that need to be attended to. The
Forest Service must demonstrate that it is accountable,
transparent, and able to improve the condition of its forests
while managing unpredictable fire seasons.
This is a difficult challenge. I realize it is not entirely
in your hands. Congress must provide the financial resources
and address policy matters that limit the Agency's ability to
manage the Nation's forests. But some parts are in your hands,
especially accounting, budgeting, and program management. I
look forward to talking to you more about them today as we
prepare the House bill for Fiscal Year 2017.
Chief, you and the entire Forest Service staff deserve our
appreciation for your work on behalf of the American people and
our Nation's forests. We know you all care deeply for our
forests and the communities that depend on them. So I thank
you.
And now, I am happy to yield to the gentlelady from
Minnesota, Ms. McCollum, for any opening remarks she might
make.
Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and good morning,
Chief Tidwell and Mr. Dixon. Thank you for being with us.
The U.S. Forest Service is charged with sustaining the
health, diversity, and productivity of our Nation's forests and
grasslands, and that is no small deed. The responsibilities
associated with managing 193 million acres of national Forest
Service lands are significant. The Forest Service has
established itself as a leader in natural resource conservation
and recreation management.
With these responsibilities in mind, the Fiscal Year 2017
budget request is very conservative. The costs associated with
fighting wildland fires continues to rise, and, frankly, I am
concerned that those costs are being met at the expense of
other important programs. For example, the budget proposes to
cut the Invasive Species Research Program. Invasive species are
a major threat to our lands.
I will just give one example. We are watching emerald ash
borer decimate American forests, killing 99 percent of the
trees it affects. That infestation is a wake-up call to the
devastation invasive species can reap. We need to be investing
more and not less in such programs. And how do we do more?
President Obama's budget gives us a way forward in reforming
the way we fund wildfire costs, and I support that proposal. We
need a more reliable way of funding wildfires that does not
continually threaten other important Forest Service programs.
Last year, as the Chairman has pointed out, wildland fire
costs made up more than 50 percent of the Forest Service
budget--50 percent of the Forest Service budget. Experts
predict that if we do not take action to address these
problems, it will exceed 67 percent by the year 2025. This
imbalance would translate to nearly a $700 million reduction to
non-fire programs.
Every member of this subcommittee is a co-sponsor of our
colleague, Chairman Simpson's, wildfire disaster funding bill,
and the last Senate appropriations mark included reforms that
are called for in the Simpson bill. I have to say that I am
particularly disappointed that the final omnibus did not
include emergency or disaster cap adjustments. I hope we can
work together, through the authorizers or on this committee, to
solve this problem. If we continue down the path of
underfunding programs to manage wildfires, we jeopardize the
health and the long history that we have had of having great
American national forests.
Chief Tidwell, at the Forest Service, you face difficult
challenges to fulfill your mission in this time of limited
budgets. I look forward to your testimony and discussing how
the Agency is going to cope with these challenges, and I thank
you once again for being here today. Thank you for the courtesy
of the remarks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. And, Chief, you are recognized for
your statement.
Opening Remarks of Chief Tidwell
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member McCollum, members
of the subcommittee, thank you again for the opportunity to
discuss our Fiscal Year 2017 budget request. As you both
mentioned, this is basically a similar request to last year's
budget request, which forces us to make some very hard choices
about where to spend the limited resources.
It does allow us to continue to increase our pace and scale
of restoring the Nation's forests. This budget request will
allow us to treat 2.9 million acres to restore forest health
and watershed conditions. It allows us to decommission 2,000
roads that are no longer needed and are just contributing soil
into our streams. It also allows us to restore 3,450 miles of
stream to address those aquatic needs and to improve the
fisheries, and also will produce $3.2 billion board feet of
timber.
We do this by maintaining our 23 collaborative forest
landscape restoration projects, and then being able to expand
our work through the stewardship contracting authority that you
provided a few years ago, and also with the farm bill
authorities when it comes to insects and disease. We are making
good progress with the States around the Good Neighbor
Authority. These are the things that are allowing us to be able
to continue to move forward and be able to get more work done
every year, even though today we have 30 percent fewer
employees than we did the last time we ever harvested board
feet.
It also allows us to treat 1.6 million acres of the
highest-priority areas in our wildland urban interface, plus
another 400,000 acres of areas outside that we need to address
hazardous fuels. Our State and private programs are taking an
approach to use more of a landscape-scale restoration approach
where we can do a better job to work with our State foresters
to be able to address issues on private forested lands, but
across much larger landscapes.
With our research, which is just essential that we be able
to maintain our Research and Development (R&D) operations, but
we are focusing on insects and disease, invasives, fire
behavior, and then also to be able to expand and develop new
and more markets for wood. If we do not find markets for the
biomass that needs to be removed off our national forests, it
is going to be more and more expensive for us to be able to
restore these forests.
We are also asking for an increase in law enforcement, and
this is focused on helping us to reduce and clean up the
marijuana growths. The data that we have shows that if you just
get in there and stop the growth, there is a high likelihood
you are going to be back in there in a few years, versus if you
can get in there and clean out everything and take away all the
infrastructure, et cetera, that there is less likelihood they
are going to come back. So our request would allow us to be
able to do a better job to clean up those sites.
This budget provides the suppression resources that we
need. It provides the air tankers. It provides the helicopters.
We have 21 large air tankers on contract. We have over 300
helicopters, over a thousand engines, and our Type 1 crews that
are necessary to respond not only to our fires, but to fires
across the landscape in other Federal jurisdictions and also
with our State and local partners.
I appreciate the support from this subcommittee and from
Mr. Simpson when it comes to finding a way to reform how we pay
for fire suppression. I appreciate the additional funding you
provided in the Fiscal Year 2016 budget into the FLAME account,
but I think we are all aware of the history that FLAME is not
the answer. We have to find a way to be able to move past this.
You understand the issues. We have got to find an
alternative to the 10-year average costs. We need to find a way
so that we never have to deal with transferring funds, shutting
down operations, putting people out of work every year. This
takes away your discretion, for you to be able to meet the
public's needs with the limited resources we have today. It
takes away your discretion, that all you can do is really, pay
for fire.
One statistic that I want you to be thinking about from
Fiscal Year 2015 to Fiscal Year 2017 with our 10-year average.
That 10-year average calculation will go up $237 million. And
we still have 2 more years in the 10-year average that are the
less expensive years, less than a billion dollars. So there are
going to be 2 more years that are still going to hit that 10-
year average mark.
So I just point that out to first of all reinforce the good
work you are doing, and also to thank you. I tell you, we are
committed to do everything we can to work with you to be able
to find a way to be able to reform this so that it really
provides, I think, the answer to a lot of the other problems
that we are dealing with.
So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time you have given us
this morning to be able to address the subcommittee, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The statement of Chief Tidwell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, we are going to start with Mr.
Stewart out of courtesy. He has a hearing he needs to attend,
so I am going to recognize him first. Thank you.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You are very
generous. And to the other members, thank you for your
consideration. Chief, thank you. We have had many
conversations. We appreciate what you do. I recognize you have
got a tough job, but I hope that we can, through this
conversation and through these hearings, come to a meeting of
the minds on some issues that are incredibly important to me
and to my district.
I represent the 2nd District in Utah. Nearly 80 percent of
my district is Federal land, 4 million acres of Forest Service
lands. To say that tension is simmering in my district would be
a gracious understatement, as I know you know. Some of the
things that have made those tensions rise are things that I
think we could have avoided and should have avoided. They deal
with three things, and I want to talk about them very quickly.
The first one would really be just kind of yes/no, and that is
this issue with the labor rule and overtime for outfitters and
guides. The second, more deeply felt, are the grazing and the
water rights.
LABOR RULE AND OVERTIME FOR OUTFITTERS AND GUIDES
So let me ask specifically the first one, and that is, and
I know you know the background on this, so I will just be very
quick. Do you agree that the intention of Congress on that was
very clear and that the Forest Service would not proceed with
implementation of the labor rule?
Mr. Tidwell. I understand the intent. For me it is clear.
We are having discussions with our attorneys on that, but I
definitely understand your intention.
Mr. Stewart. Okay. And I appreciate you saying that for you
it is clear, that we agree on that, and I think that we do
agree. Hopefully we can get others to recognize that as well.
GRAZING
The more prickly issues, and I will not be the first one
who talks about this I am sure. But I could give you examples
of people sitting in this room who are here today who have had
firsthand experiences. For example: a family operation that had
been accused by really a very aggressive environmental group of
over-grazing. They voluntarily gave up half of their allotment.
They requested a hearing with the Forest Service. They were
given 15 minutes to present their case. The Forest Service then
spent an hour and a half behind closed doors with this
environmental group and left them in a very, very precarious
situation. This is not a huge corporate farm. This is a family
farm, as I grew up, ranching.
Help me understand what I can go back and tell my
constituents to assure them that the Forest Service is not out
and tipping the scales in favor of radical environmental groups
against family farms and ranches.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, my response is simply that grazing is
part of multiple use. And we believe it is not only a
legitimate use, but it helps to maintain our communities, and
it also helps to maintain the wildlife habitat and to maintain
open space. When we lose the ranching community, we lose a lot
of benefits that the public takes for granted.
So what I would like you to share is that we are the
strongest supporters that they have when it comes to grazing.
If we need to do a better job to make sure that we are very
transparent in being able to deal with these issues, then we
want to take that on.
Mr. Stewart. And, Chief, I have to say, not you perhaps
individually, but your organization does need to do a better
job at that because there is a very broad perception that the
scales are tilted against them. And, again, if you want to come
talk to people who are very, very angry right now, come to my
district. We have got to find a way to defuse that. We have
already seen the outcome of that, and it is not going to get
better as long as they feel like the Federal government has a
boot on the throat of these family ranches.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, also the governor's office has extended
his staff to be able to work with us, to be able to sit down
and actually have the governor's office be able to kind of
bring people together, to maybe tamp down some of the tension
and have the dialogues and discussions we really need. So I
appreciate the governor's staff, the governor being able to
step up and help in this situation.
So I am looking forward to that so we can move forward. I
did meet with several of your county commissioners this past
weekend, and we had similar discussions about some ideas about,
okay, how can we just change this so that it is very clear that
we, of course, need to listen to everyone, but at the same time
we need to do this in a transparent process. And our intent
without any question is to maintain livestock grazing.
Mr. Stewart. We appreciate that, and you are right, the
governor has been active. We actually held hearings down there
about a month ago through Chairman Bishop and the Resources
Committee, and those things make a difference. It gives the
people that are impacted by this the feeling that at least they
are being heard and that they are not being ignored, and they
are not given 15 minutes, and then an environmental group is
given an hour and a half, again, behind closed doors.
The third thing if I could, and I do not see a clock. I am
not sure how much time we have.
Mr. Calvert. I am the clock. [Laughter.]
GRAZING AND WATER RIGHTS
Mr. Stewart. I will go quickly. The same perception not
only about grazing rights, but about water rights as well, and
individuals being told that in order to renew their grazing,
they have got to give up some of their water allocations. And
my heavens, you do that in the West, and that is like giving up
your lifeblood. You cannot survive without those water
allocations.
I know some individuals, some sitting here in this room,
tell me firsthand knowledge of them being told we will
reallocate your grazing, but you have got to work with us on
your water rights. Please tell me that that is not a policy
that the Forest Service would defend.
Mr. Tidwell. We have had a policy. This policy has been
around for decades. It is there as kind of a security if there
is a potential threat of the water being taken away from the
land so we could not continue grazing. So this is an issue that
we want to work with folks to find a better solution because
our intent is one thing. That is to be able to keep the water
with the land because when you take the water, we are no longer
grazing.
So that is our sole intent. We ought to be able to keep the
water there so we can continue grazing. So I think this is an
opportunity, we have to be able to move forward together
because when I talk to ranchers they agree with me. They've got
to keep the water there because if you take the water they
cannot use the land.
I think this is one of those issues where I think there is
agreement on it. We just need to get to work to be able to make
some changes so that we are together like this. I think in your
State we may have even some additional benefit because of some
of the State laws that are in place. It actually may be very
helpful.
Mr. Stewart. Well, Chief, thank you. And, Chairman, again,
thank you for letting me kind of jump ahead of the line. And I
will just conclude by saying I grew up ranching, and this is
not like most other jobs in the country. There is a deep, deep
culture that means more. This is not just a job. And if we do
not make some progress in helping these folks feel like they
are not being ignored and, in fact, being abused by the Federal
government, then we are going to have situations out there that
just become worse. So thank you for working with us on those,
Chief.
Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Thank you. Ms. McCollum.
ABANDONED MINE LANDS
Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Before I begin my questions, I
want to revisit quickly a topic that we discussed last year.
This is controversial mining proposals that the Forest Service
are dealing with across the country. In northern Minnesota,
copper-nickel sulfide mining poses a threat to the water
quality of Voyageurs National Park, and the Boundary Waters
Canoes Wilderness Area.
I understand the Forest Service is working closely with the
Bureau of Land Management on these issues, and I appreciate the
work that you and your staff at the Forest Service are doing to
protect these treasures in our park system that all of America
enjoys, and the Boundary Waters and Voyageurs National Park.
It is imperative that we find a way to better balance the
cost of fire suppression with the resources needed for other
programs that also help you protect, as I said earlier, what we
expect you to be able to do in the Forest Service. However,
your budget warns that the shift is eroding our ability to
serve Americans in a myriad of ways, such as delivering clean
air and clean water.
I am troubled by this statement because 180 million
Americans depend on drinking water that flows through our
national forests, and that accounts for 20 percent of the
Nation's clean water supply. It is an estimated value of $7.2
billion a year. Your budget request states that currently 48
percent of the watersheds in the national forest and grasslands
are not functioning properly, and that goes to the discussion
that you were having with my colleague, Mr. Stewart.
Along that line, our country has a legacy of abandoned mine
lands that pose safety risks to public health, with pollutants
that contaminate water--39,000 abandoned mine sites on our
national forest lands. Over a third of them produce minerals
like arsenic and lead that could have significant impacts on
human health and the environment.
The budget proposes to increase the funding to mitigate
safety risks of abandoned mines by $4 million. Additionally,
the budget requests another $4 million to increase managing
environmental restoration of these abandoned mines. I am
pleased that the Administration is requesting these increases,
but as you know, we need to do more.
The timeline for your environmental restoration is even
more disarming. According to the budget request, with what you
have been able to request, only 150 sites have been cleaned up
since 1998. This rate is just unacceptable, Chief. What steps
are the Forest Service taking to create a path forward that
will accelerate the mitigation and restoration so that we do
not leave abandoned mines to be a burden for the next
generations to pay for, quite frankly, with their tax dollars
and which will put their drinking water at risk?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, you stated the inventory. That was our
first step is for us to have an accurate inventory about just
how many that we have. Then also what is the risk so that we
can actually prioritize where is the top place we need to spend
our limited resources to address this problem. Yes, we need to
be doing more. We are also working with partners. We are
working with the States on these issues because they too share
the concern of the contamination of both surface water and
ground water from these.
The other thing that we have done is we put in place a
direction that from now on we are going to make sure that we
require enough funding to make sure we can clean up these
properties after the mining has been done. That has been one of
the problems that created this backlog. In the past, we never
fully understood the complications of some of these mining
operations, and so we did not have the funds in place. We did
not have the bond, an adequate bond, in place so that when
these mines were abandoned, there was never enough money to
clean it up.
From now into the future, we are going to require that
there is enough funding available to be able to take care of
these problems, even if it is over the next hundred years, so
we should not be adding more to it. So that is the first thing.
But then going back, this is just another example of the things
that the public is demanding. We need to be able to do this,
and we have to find a way to be able to expand getting more of
this work done.
I feel good about what we are doing. I feel good about the
inventory, but there is no question we need to be doing more.
So it is just another example, but I wish I could be here next
year and be able to talk to you about how we fixed the fire
reform issue, and the fire suppression funding. We are on a
different track there. We have some flexibility now that we can
talk about where we need to make some strategic investments,
and to be able to address these issues.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Chief Tidwell. Thank you, Mr.
Chair.
FIRE TRANSFER
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Chief, I have a couple of questions
on the wildland first and the budget cap adjustment. Your
Fiscal Year 2017 budget again proposes to establish a new
budget framework for the Wildland Fire Management Program. A
total of $874 million in discretionary fund is the request for
fire suppression, and an additional $864 million is requested
through a budget cap adjustment. On that, can you share for us
any lessons you learned from this last fire season in 2015?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, the number one lesson is the burden that
was put on the agency to have to transfer the amount of money
we did in such a short period of time; it is just really
something that I am so impressed that our folks were able to be
able to do it. They were working often 24 hours a day trying to
shift money to be able to keep us from always having the funds
available to pay the bill. And I think about the millions of
dollars that were wasted from having to deal with that
transfer, and all the potential for accounting mistakes to be
made with moving money around so quickly, et cetera. So that is
one of the concerns, definitely a lesson that I learned.
The second part of it is that to predict the fire season is
very difficult. Our scientists are telling us what it is for
this coming year. We are here talking about Fiscal Year 2017.
So for Fiscal Year 2016 right now I can tell you with 90
percent confidence that this coming fire season is going to
cost somewhere between $604 million and $1.7 billion. I am 90
percent confident it is going to be there. [Laughter.]
That is for 2016, and we are talking 2017 here. The other
reality is that you just cannot budget for wildland fires. So
that is the other thing that just hit home.
Then the other part of it, even last year's fire season, it
started off a little less active than what we predicted, but
then all those drought maps showed where we had extensive
drought. Part of it was in your State. It all came true. We had
the big fires in California, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and a
lot of other places in the country.
It played out just like it was predicted, but then when
people saw how much it cost, it is like, what? How can you
spend that much money? Well, 27,000 people are responding to
our fires, and at the same time supporting the State and the
county with their fires. So I will tell you, those are some of
the lessons that I learned.
The numbers that we put forward in our budget are numbers
that would prevent any need to ever transfer funding, so we
would eliminate that wasteful practice. We are not going to
spend the money if we do not need it, and we want to be able to
show you without any question this is what it cost for each
fire. We manage those costs. We also are making very good
decisions that when we cannot be effective, we are not going to
put people in harm's way. I do not care how much people are
talking to us or directing us. We are not going to do that
because it is just wasteful.
We made some really good decisions last year, and a couple
of them--yes, we had large fires. But I trust our folks on the
ground when they say I am not going down into that canyon. We
are not going to ask them to go into that canyon. Those
professionals know when we cannot be effective because of the
drought conditions.
But we just have to have a different approach because we
will come in here with our best science, but in reality I just
cannot predict exactly how much money we need for Fiscal Year
2017. It is going to be a big range. Then the worst part of it,
if we have millions of dollars that are just sitting there when
we have a lot of other pressing needs, as a taxpayer I am not
okay with that. So those are some of the lessons that I
learned.
BUDGET CAP ADJUSTMENT
Mr. Calvert. Okay. Do you believe that a budget cap
adjustment will help improve the Nation's forests, and have you
laid that out in your budget request?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes, and it does it through a couple ways. It
stops the transfer, so that is off the table. We do not have to
worry about that anymore. We can plan on getting our work done.
It slows down the growth of the 10-year average. Also, it does
free up some constraints for the Appropriations Committee to
make a decision about how that could be used. So that is the
other way that it would also help us potentially to be
proactive to be able to make the investments.
We will be glad to provide you with a long list of all the
success that we have every year for where we get in there and
do the thinning before the fire starts. We are effective with
our suppression. We reduce the risk to our firefighters. We
have less homes that get burned and watersheds recover so fast
because we just do not have the severity.
The solution is simple. It is just large. We have to
continue to increase the number of acres. I feel good today
that between our restoration efforts and the work that we are
doing on hazardous fuels, we are treating over four and a half
million acres every year. A decade ago we were treating about
400,000. So we have made significant advances in the work that
we are doing, and we just need to be able to continue to
maintain that and increase it.
Mr. Calvert. All right, thank you. Mr. Kilmer.
COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION (CFLRP)
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, and thanks, Chief, for
being with us. It is helpful to get an understanding of your
priorities and I look forward to seeing you later today at the
celebration of the removal and restoration of the one
thousandth culvert----
Mr. Tidwell. Yeah.
Mr. Kilmer [continuing]. Which is certainly a big deal in
our neck of the woods.
I grew up on the Olympic Peninsula, and that is the
district that I now represent. People from other parts of the
country often say I represent more trees than people when you
add up the Park Service and the Forest Service. And certainly
the presence of those forests are important both from a
recreational standpoint and really important to our economy.
And so, I guess that is the nature of the questions I want to
ask about.
The Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program I
think is a good example of how government can be a partner with
rural communities. Since 2010 you have seen the coming together
of groups that have occasionally been butting heads from the
conservation community and from industry. The result of that is
nearly 1 and a half million acres that have been treated to
reduce the risk of fire, and over 84,000 acres of new timber
sales. We have just started one of these on the Olympic
Peninsula, and it is cool to see groups that have traditionally
been arguing with each other trying to work through some of
these issues.
I guess my question is, if the Forest Service continues to
see support from the House, because I like the idea of trying
to reward good behavior, is there an opportunity to increase
investments in new collaboratives rather than just supporting
the ones that have already been launched?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes, we do have a legislative proposal to be
able to expand the CFLRP authority to be able to increase the
funding from $40 million to $80 million for future years.
Without any question, it has been hugely successful for the
points that you brought out.
Then the other thing that members that work on these
collaboratives, what they also share with me is that the other
key difference is they are able to agree on large projects.
Instead of working on a 500-acre or a thousand-acre project,
they are able to reach an agreement on treating. We need to be
looking at 10,000, 20,000, 30,000 or more acres at one time.
That is the real difference, and it is just simply, it comes
down to trust. You provide the opportunity for people to come
together to be able to share their concerns, express their
values where people then hear that, and they can build trust.
Then we are able to move forward.
When I look at the amount of acres that we are treating
today versus what we were a few years ago, one of the biggest
changes is that we have been able to build trust across the
board from all the different diverse interests to the point
that they recognize this is what the land needs, and yes it
creates a lot of economic benefits, jobs, and biomass that is
produced, but it is driven simply by what the land needs. When
you are focused on that, a lot of the controversy goes away.
Mr. Kilmer. Yeah, that is certainly. We are still early
going, so we are trying to work through a lot of these things,
and it is a bunch of people taking time out to help, so I
appreciate that.
FOREST ROADS
I also wanted to ask about forest roads. This past winter
we just had some very large storm events that, again, blew out
culverts and washed out roads. The concern is not just in terms
of public access for recreational purposes. We also have folks
who live in these areas, and this just makes it hard for them
to get to and from their homes.
We have seen preliminary damage estimates submitted to the
Emergency Relief for Federally Owned Roads Program, over $6
million. In an era where we are seeing more intense storms, how
does the Agency think about proactively addressing this issue
so that we are investing in infrastructure to deal with these
severe weather events on the front end, rather than seeing a
bunch of people cut off both in terms of recreational access
and in terms of being able to get to their home?
Mr. Tidwell. On each of our forests, we have done a
vulnerability assessment to understand with the changing
climate, what do we need to expect especially with large rain
events, especially rain on snow events, which we get in your
country quite often now. So that allows us to be able to
identify that we need in some places to increase the size of
these culverts, other places be able to remove the culvert and
use a crossing or something like that. So those are the things
where we have been proactive.
I appreciate you being a co-sponsor of the event this
evening to be able to celebrate that level of success, but
those are things that we can point to where we are making a
difference. We are reducing the amount of erosion. We are
improving fisheries. More important or as important, we are
maintaining public access by being out in front of this.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks. I've got plenty more questions, but I
want to defer to the rest of the committee. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Cole.
FEDERAL LANDS
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Chief. I appreciate the testimony. I have exactly the opposite
problem of Mr. Kilmer. I have more people than trees.
[Laughter.]
And probably more cows than people, so it is a very
different kind of landscape. We see 5 trees together, and we
define that as a forest in Oklahoma. [Laughter.]
But we have very little Federal lands. We have got Indian
trust land, and it is, frankly, well managed by the tribes that
hold it. We have got some military installations that are
obviously Federal and well managed, and a couple of wildlife
preserves and one national park, so. But most of our land is in
private hands.
And I am just curious because I hear these problems like
Mr. Stewart addressed, and I hear my colleagues from States in
which 80, 85 percent of the land is federally owned. You manage
over 193 million acres, and I think you do it with the
resources that you have. But what is the merit of considering
should we be offloading some of this land? Do you see it in
perpetuity staying as it is? I am interested in your long-term
view of what we do with the assets. Do we hold it as the
Federal government or is there merit, as some of my colleagues
are saying, to returning this one way or another in a managed
way into private ownership?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, I will start with a quote from Gifford
Pinchot, the first Chief of this agency when this agency was
created. The quote is simply that ``National forests exist for
one reason and one reason only: the public wants them.'' The
National forests were reserved from the public domain, the
majority of them when Congress was petitioned or the
Administration at that time, the President was petitioned to be
able to withdraw these areas from the public domain because
they were not okay with the amount of devastation and flooding
that was occurring. This lack of any management, this was back
in the 1800s, so that is what created this system of lands.
Then there is a system of laws that Congress just passed,
Presidents have signed, and agencies have implemented on the
ground to represent how the public wants these lands managed.
Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act, wonderful to read it, sounds
perfect, then I will tell you it is really difficult to
implement it on the ground. It is one of the things that is
different than while the States manage a lot of their lands
and, of course, private landowners is that we have to find the
balance of all these different uses versus being able to manage
it for any single one use.
So for me, I like the way that we have our system of
ownership in this country. I think it provides all the benefits
to the public.
Mr. Cole. Let me posture it again, and it is not meant to
be adversarial in any way. It just is something I struggle
with. We actually do have a lot of timberland in southeast
Oklahoma. Most of that is privately held, and it was set up
that way. When the State was opened up, frankly, a lot of the
Indian tribes were sort of looted out of the land. We just had
a big settlement on that which we appreciate, but the land
remains in private hands, and it is productive. It is a
beautiful area.
So what I am wondering is, you know, we clearly have
systems that have come into being at different times, and it is
one thing for me to think about what I want to do in my State.
I just love having 80 percent of Nevada in Federal hands, you
know. I am not sure people in Nevada want to do that.
And, again, I am not suggesting the elimination of these,
but is there a time or a way to rethink whether or not we have
the right portion because those questions, as Mr. Stewart
suggested, are coming up, and they are coming up in a not very
productive way, in my view. We have a lot of people caught in
difficult circumstances, and they feel adversarial with their
own government when they do not want to feel that way.
So how would we rethink some of these things, or should we,
again, because while it is true we have created this system, it
is an accident in the way we create it. We did not think about
it that way from the beginning of the republic. We did not
apply that set of standards to every State in the country, let
alone every region in the country. So, given that, is there
some merit to think in some ways of divesting it, or would you
argue we should essentially take the assets we have and
continue to manage them, get better at it, and provide the
resources.
I am just wondering if there is ever any thought inside the
Federal government about the first principle, if you will. How
much of this land should we own? How much should be in private
hands and managed differently?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, I am a strong advocate for our system of
land ownership, and I think these lands should remain in public
ownership. They are public lands. I am concerned that when I
hear proposals from States, I am concerned how you would pay
for the management. What would prevent you from selling it off?
Mr. Cole. Selling off is precisely what I am suggesting.
Not all of it. Well, I just think it is worth thinking about,
and I am just curious if the Administration or anybody ever at
least explores this as, you know, a realistic option. If it is
like it is now and we are going to think about managing things
better, and putting in resources, that is one thing. Do we ever
go back and think, geez, how much do we need to hold, where do
we need to hold it, or is it just we are going to hold what we
have in perpetuity?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, that is my position. Based on what I
hear from the public across the country, and I understand there
are pockets, and I want to focus on what we can do to address
those issues so that we can do a better job to address those
concerns. We are very fortunate in this country to have this
conservation legacy. I will tell you, in the future when you
think about close to 14 percent of the CO2 that is emitted
every year in this country is sequestered in our forests, we
need to be looking at how we can expand those forests.
So the idea that we would want to do anything to lose some
of these lands to some form of development, we have got to
understand those consequences because as I look forward into
the future, I will tell you, it is going to be so important for
us to be able to maintain and actually expand our forests if
for no other reason just for air quality. They do an incredible
job with sequestered carbon, then when we can have sustainable
harvests, and we can also sequester it into these wood
products.
It is going to be something that is going to become even
more important for this country and actually for the world.
Mr. Cole. I will make this last point. You have been
generous, Mr. Chairman. And my intent is not to question you or
to express sympathy with some of the types of actions that we
have had and that you have to deal with it. I do not think that
is ever an acceptable thing. But I do think you have very
articulately outlined your position. But I would like some
study because, again, we do not hold the same balance of lands
regionally across this country. And I am not in an area that is
directly affected by this for the most part.
But I do think, you know, when we know 1 out of 5 acres in
the country is federally owned, that, to me, is worth thinking
about, particularly when it is concentrated in a relatively
small area. 50, 60, 70 percent of the State being owned by the
Federal government is pretty difficult on the people that live
there. And whether or not we should redistribute that would be
a fair question, too.
But, again, you have been very generous, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much. And thank you, Chief.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Ms. Pingree.
WHITE-NOSE SYNDROME
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank you,
Chief, for your testimony today, it is certainly interesting to
see the breadth of issues that we have in all the diverse
States. As you know, I represent Maine which is in New England,
and we have very little presence of public lands. We are
fortunate that we have more water than drought, so we are not
one of the States that are so deeply affected by the fires. But
I do appreciate the challenges that you are dealing with, and I
hope that one of the things that we can tackle on this
committee is to have that funding be more stabilized so the
rest of the funding that many of us care about is better
available to us and certainly more predictable.
Sorry I have to go to another hearing, and I will give you
a few questions for the record. But I will just quickly ask you
about a very different kind of issue that I think the Forest
Service has been handling well in terms of the back and forth,
and that is the northern long-eared bat. We have a lot of
forest in our State, and we have a lot of timber harvesting,
but it is, of course, all private land.
This has been a big concern for the Forest Service, Fish
and Wildlife, as well as our timber harvesters. We are
particularly concerned that you are able to maintain the
balance of dealing with the private landowners, the small
landowners, the loggers themselves. As you know, this is an
issue where the bat has been troubled by White-nose syndrome,
the fungal disease, so there was some question about whether
they would be listed as endangered. And the Wildlife Service
has listed them as threatened, which gives a little bit more
wiggle room. I know some of that was controversial as there
were those who wanted it to be endangered, but this gives us a
little bit of a middle ground in that you are now working on a
tag and release program that is currently level funded.
I just want to talk a little bit about that because what is
critically important in my State is that we continue to ensure
this coordination with the local wood lot owners. If you could
briefly tell us about how you are doing as a result of that
2015 study that you did, how you worked with other agencies,
particularly Fish and Wildlife. Will you be able to continue to
fund this work under the budget request for forest and
rangeland research at last year's level? And just how will you
continue that cooperation since white-nose syndrome is one of
the things that we certainly hear about from our landowners?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, first, we will continue that level of
funding. We have a great partnership with several universities
that is helping to find solutions to the white-nose syndrome,
and we are actually making some progress on it.
When it comes to managing our forests, there are certain
spruce trees that are important to be able to maintain those
and not impact the bats. We have been able to work with Fish
and Wildlife Service to be able to say, we can adjust some
operations here and still be able to get in there and be able
to manage our forests and not impact those bats. So I feel
really good about the work we have done together with the Fish
and Wildlife Service.
What really helps us is that they understand the benefit of
the forests, and they understand that if we are not managing
these forests, and we are going to lose the bat habitat, or in
your case with private land, it gets developed. You are
fortunate that you have not had as much pressure as the rest of
this country, but it is starting in your State, too.
I will tell you, it is so essential that we find ways to be
able to maintain our private forested lands. It is the majority
of forests in this country. Over 50 percent of our forests are
private. It is essential that we maintain those.
Ms. Pingree. Absolutely, and I appreciate your saying that
because you are right. In our case, it is not the pressure from
the Federal government or the publicly owned land, but it is
very important to people in our State and in the region that
much of this land continues to be able to be harvested, or
timber, or pulpwood, or a variety of uses. And development
pressure is certainly growing in our area.
I think when you look at a map of the East Coast, you see
all the bright lights and you finally get to northern Maine and
you see a little bit of darkness. And that means that we have
some of the last preserved forests, but that will only stay
there if people are able to make it economically viable for
those communities. We appreciate your moderation in this and
the ability to work with you, so thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Jenkins.
FOREST SERVICE STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chief, welcome. As we
have talked before, I think West Virginia has a good
relationship with the Forest Service, and we appreciate you.
We have 125,000 private landowners and about 80 percent of
our forests are privately owned. I want to ask you about the
Forest Service's Stewardship Program.
Under the proposed Fiscal Year budget that we are talking
about, there is over a half a million-dollar cut suggested in
that program. We think this program provides a lot of technical
support. It is an important tool. It has been successful. Can
you give me a rationale for why the proposed cut to what we see
as an important program that provides much-needed services?
Mr. Tidwell. Our request does not result in a reduction,
but what it does do, it moves some of those funds into our
landscape scale restoration budget line item. Once again, this
is where we have taken funds from stewardship for forest health
on State lands, urban community forest funding, and we put that
together in one account to sort of create a better way for the
State foresters to be able to compete for that funding and be
able then to address all these issues across the board versus
we have this pot of money to be able to address urban
community. We have this pot of money for forest stewardship. We
have this pot of money for forest health.
It is an area we are actually, based on the success that we
had last year, we are increasing our request in Fiscal Year
2017 to be able to expand this. We have good support from our
State foresters because they are seeing that this is actually
helping them to be competitive, and they also see that it is
actually helping to get more work done on the ground.
STATE ACTION PLANS
Mr. Jenkins. The farm bill directed State foresters to take
a comprehensive look at forests. Can you help me understand how
the Forest Service and the national forests are working with
State foresters to accomplish the objectives and priorities
detailed in the State Action Plans, and what has been asked for
under the farm bill?
Mr. Tidwell. Well once again the States have done a great
job to put together their action plans that we work with them
starting a few years ago to help them. I mean, it shows where
their priority is, where they need to really focus their work.
Because of those action plans, it allows them to be more
competitive for these limited funds.
It also has allowed them to work across State lines. So we
have several State foresters now that are working with their
adjacent States, and they are putting together these large-
scale projects that compete very well for these limited funds,
and be able to get more work done.
MONONGAHELA NATIONAL FOREST
Mr. Jenkins. My last question is that as one of the few
eastern members here that have substantial national forestlands
in their district, I have been monitoring how the Agency's
agenda applies to our forests. Last year, one of the questions
for the record that I submitted was asking about the most
recent forest plan monitoring update for the Monongahela
National Forest. When we talked last year, I saw that that
update was last done back in 2011, which is on the Web.
And in response to my questions for the record, I was
advised that the update would be done by May of 2015. But I
have just checked and it appears as though, again, for the
Monongahela National Forest we still do not have any forest
plan monitoring update. Can you tell me why we cannot get that
updated, and why we missed the May 2015 promise, and where we
stand on that?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, I appreciate our folks being optimistic
about how much work they can get done, but it is another area
that we lack the funding, the capacity to be able to maintain
the monitoring.
One of the things we are doing under the new forest plan
rule, it allows us or gives the direction for us to be able to
do these monitoring plans in a more collaborative effort so
that we can use others to help us to be able to get that work
done, and expand it. As to why they did not get your forest
done, I will get back with you and find out if they made the
commitment, they should have followed through with it.
It is an area that in the past we have not done the job to
monitor, and so it is so important for us to really understand
what is going on. If our decisions and our forest plan are
proving out, that is great. If they are not producing what we
expected, we need to know that so that we can make changes. So
it is important that we do it, and I will get back to you on
the status of that.
Mr. Jenkins. The Monongahela is very important in my
district and throughout the entire region, so we welcome the
feedback, and we continue to look forward to working with you.
Thank you, Chief.
Mr. Tidwell. Thank you.
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Simpson.
FEDERAL LANDS
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
being here today, Chief. And before I ask some questions, I
have got a few that I would like to address. I do want to
respond to something that Mr. Cole brought up, legitimate
questions he asked about the amount of ownership of Federal
land in western States. And I guess Mr. Amodei and I could
probably have a discussion for some time and often do on the
floor about this.
But let me tell you why people live in Idaho. They live in
Idaho because they love their public lands. They like access to
them for recreation, for hunting, for fishing, for all the
activities that they do on public lands. And there is always
this movement to turn them over to the States and to let the
States manage them. Well, you could do some cooperative
management between the feds and the States, but like any
landlord relationship, you are always P.O.'d at the landlord,
you know? I mean, that is a reality of what happens. If we turn
them over to the State, we would be P.O.'d at the State.
And the reality is, like I said, you could do some
cooperative management between the States and the feds, and we
have been working on some of those cooperative types of
arrangements. But let me tell you what happens when you sell
those public lands. We just sold 30,000 acres in Idaho to a
couple of Texans. That was a lot of fun. And they all of a
sudden denied access. So all of a sudden people cannot access
their favorite fishing hole or their hunting grounds, and in
Idaho that does not mean you just go around the 30,000 acres.
It means you get a helicopter and have to go over it or come in
from the other side from Montana.
And that is a problem, and that is why we like our public
lands. Like I say, we are always P.O.'d at the land managers,
and we always will be even if we manage them ourselves because,
it is like a quarterback in a football game: we can always do
better than the guy out there on the field. So that is my
answer to that question.
Mr. Cole. It was a friendly question. [Laughter.]
BUDGET CAP ADJUSTMENT
Mr. Simpson. It is a legitimate question, and it is a
legitimate debate that is going on in Idaho, it really is,
Idaho and all of the West. But let me ask you now a couple of
questions. First, the wildfire funding, thank you for your
support on the bill and trying to get this through. I am sorry
that we did not get the cap adjustment bill through in the
omnibus, but we did, thanks to Chairman Calvert and the members
of this committee, get a billion extra dollars in additional
funding.
Let me make one recommendation. Do not do any transfers
this year for wildfire fighting because what I always hear from
people as I go up and talk to them they [the Forest Service]
has to transfer funds, but they seem to handle it okay. So
where is the urgency? Well, this billion dollars will run out
eventually, and while this does solve the transfer problem
probably for a year, maybe 2 years, maybe 3 years----
Mr. Tidwell. One year.
Mr. Simpson. 1 year, okay. It will solve the problem for
this year. It does not solve the long-term problem that we need
to fix, and if you do transfers this year, that will be a
problem in trying to convince other people there is a fix-
borrowing issue. But in your budget request, you asked for,
what was that amount? You asked for $874 million in
discretionary funds and requested $864 million requested
through a budget cap adjustment. Why do you put an amount in
there?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, because instead of asking for just, I
mean, we feel we need to have an amount, and that is our
prediction based on what we see as kind of like the highest
need so that there is some assurance so it is just like there
is not an endless fund. We do not want to be asking for more
authority than we need.
Mr. Simpson. Well, the assumption is you are not going to
ask for more funds in a cap adjustment than what you are going
to need to fight the fires. But what if it goes to a billion
dollars and you only ask for $864 million? Then you are going
to be back into transfers, and that is what you are trying to
avoid is transfers.
Mr. Tidwell. You are correct, but it is our effort to put
this in a way so that it actually builds some support because
we have heard some criticism from others. But that is based on
kind of our high projection, kind of like this would be the
max. You take last year, the $1.7 billion. Well, that is what
it was. That was at our high end. So, we are pretty good on the
extremes. We can tell you the maximum, what it will probably
be, and that is what kind of drives that.
But you raise a legitimate question about what if things do
not work out, what if things really shift, El Nino shuts down.
In 2017 we could be faced with circumstances that were like
last year.
AIR TANKERS
Mr. Simpson. Well, my whole goal in this is to try to stop
the transfers. And people keep saying that we want to spend
more money on wildfires, and it is hard to convince some people
that, no, what we want to do in the long run is spend less
money on wildfires. And we do that through proper management
and by not transferring all the funds.
Could you tell me a little bit about where we stand with
the air tankers that we authorized at one point in time because
the Forest Service is down to, you mentioned the number of
contract planes you are going to have. But how many C-130s do
we have out there, and where are we with that?
Mr. Tidwell. With the transfer of the planes from the Air
Force, to the Forest Service, we flew one of those C-130s last
year. We will have one this year. We will not have all of them
operational until 2019. We do have our next generation planes
that are on exclusive use contracts. We also still have our
legacies.
So this coming year we will have 21 large air tankers under
contract. There are probably another four or five that we could
call up when we needed, plus we have our Modular Airborne Fire
Fighting System (MAFFS) planes with the Air Force and Air
National Guard to be able to provide. So we are in good shape.
We are also moving forward with the acquisition of an aircraft.
We have completed our aviation business case. It is my
understanding that OMB has indicated they are going to sign off
on it, so we plan to move forward with the acquisition of that
aircraft this year.
BIG HORN SHEEP
Mr. Simpson. One quick question if I could, Mr. Chairman.
Last year the committee added language that directed the Forest
Service and the BLM to conduct risk contact analysis, engage
ARS, and convene a meeting among interested stakeholders to
discuss solutions among other things on the domestic and wild
sheep issue. Could you provide me an update on how that is
going?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, we are working with ARS, and the BLM,
and others to be able to understand what is the real risk. More
importantly, to then sit with the States to be able to identify
where is the highest risk. Where are the places we need to make
sure that we maintain big horn sheep? What are some of the
other areas where there is less risk and there may be a greater
need for the domestic sheep, and to be able to reach agreement?
So this is how we are going to work with the States. They
manage the big horn sheep. We want to be able to carry out our
responsibility to ensure viability of big horn sheep
populations, but at the same time do this in a way we are
working together and prevent big horn sheep introductions into
places it creates more problems in the future.
If we can come to an agreement and have a plan, a State
plan so that we are all together on this and we know that these
areas we are going to maintain separation of big horn sheep. In
this area over here, we may have some flexibility, and the
State may not be the best big horn habitat anyway. So, that is
an area domestic sheep should have priority on. But this is
something we are going to work through with the States, and we
are making, I think, some good progress in your State.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Amodei.
STATE AND VOLUNTEER FIRE ASSISTANCE FUNDING
Mr. Amodei. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Chief, good to see you. I
do not want to pick sides between Simpson and Cole. [Laughter.]
But since you are supposed to lead, follow, or get out of
the way. The House passed last year a bill that proposed to get
rid of lands that were in-holdings, small parcels, not
manageable as part of the forests generally. The Forest Service
supported it. The Administration supports it. Can you talk to
somebody in the Senate about getting off their ass and moving
that? [Laughter.]
You do not need to answer, but anyhow something to think
about.
I was in the Carson Ranger District last week, and I know
your history goes through a ranger district in central Nevada,
so I want to talk with you about the firefighting stuff. I am
looking at the budget request this year, and I see that the
line items which have been held kind of actually at flat
funding for the last few years for local cooperation, State and
Federal work, we got forest stewardship, and we have also got
State fire assistance, and volunteer fire assistance has been
at level funding. And while in this environment there are some
days where level funding is a victory, I look at what has
happened in the Service's budget over the last few years, and
level funding is sometimes a precursor to getting zero'd out.
I hear your statements about, hey, we ought to use the
closest resource regardless of what it is. We do not need to
have the discussion here in terms of the importance of initial
attack and cooperation with local and State authorities and all
that other sort of stuff. And so, as I sit here and look at
fuels and fire and all that other sort of stuff, and it is just
another moving part of the puzzle, but you are going, hey, why
are we level funding these folks while we are proposing to
increase suppression.
And you get into that whole argument in terms of do we put
it in suppression, do we put it in prevention, do we put it in
thinning, although you said today, hey, thinning is a good
thing, and I agree with you. But I am sitting here looking at
this going, State assistance, by the way, in a State that you
are not the BLM, and I know you are thankful for that every
day, and I think you are right. But it is like, hey, for the
communities that the Humboldt-Toiyabe plays a large part in,
this volunteer and through the state forester stuff is pretty
important stuff.
So my question is, can I get together with Tom Hubbard and
the folks in your office who develop that to have a better
understanding of why that is level as we go forward in the
discussion of this committee for that line item, because it is
not sex and violence. Nobody is going to be able to make a
commercial out of it. But in terms of operational, I think it
is an important thing to take a look at? Can we get together
offline?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes, and also I agree with you. You will also
notice that our preparedness request, that is not going up
either because the need to put any discretion we have into
paying the bill for fire suppression, it limits our ability to
be able to be proactive and be preventive.
Your point depends on our volunteer fire agencies
throughout the country, not only in your State, but in Mr.
Cole's State. That is our first defense. This statewide fire
assistance is so important for us to be able to maintain, help
those folks maintain their qualifications, and also have the
equipment so that they can safely be able to carry out the
initial attack. They do the majority of the initial attack in
this country.
When you look at that, the number of fires we had last
year, the majority of them were on private ground. We work
together, but your points are well made. We will make sure we
set up some time with you to be able to share the information
with you.
Ms. McCollum. Would the gentleman yield for a second?
Mr. Amodei. Sure.
FIRE FIGHTING TECHNOLOGY
Ms. McCollum. You are talking about having funding
available for prevention. Technology is now playing a role with
the possibility of reducing suppression costs. There was a
pilot project last year using drones out there so that we hit
the fire right. We save lives. We can react in real time. Do
you have money in the budget for more robust work with that? It
is amazing. They are amazing, what they can do, because it is
real time information.
Mr. Tidwell. We are looking at how we can effectively use
that technology. We have had some success in the past when we
have used the military's craft in Mr. Calvert's State to be
able to use that. So we are having to work that through also
with FAA so that it can be part of the technology that we are
using.
One of the challenges that we have is that technology
provides so much information that we have got to find a way to
be able to manage that because we are looking at stuff. We need
information instantaneously. We do not have the ability to look
at a lot of different data. So that is one of the things we are
also working on is to be able to use the information we really
need to collect. I mean, it is incredible what is out there,
and especially with the technology that the military has
provided a few times.
We had a large fire in California a couple of years ago
where we were using an unmanned aircraft that was able to look
through the smoke and identify. We actually had some hot spots
that were outside the line. Our infrared flights would not have
picked him up until that night, but we were able to actually
pick it up right then and during the day.
So it is definitely a tool that we are going to be using,
but we are going to be working together, and also make sure the
public is okay with it because then it raises those questions.
At the same time, we cannot have the public flying theirs
because we have had operations where we have had to shut down
our air tanker operations and our helicopters because it is
unsafe.
So it is going to take a little while for us to work
through this so that we can use the tool to help us, but at the
same time the public can be reassured we are not doing it for
anything but checking on the fire.
Mr. Amodei. We have plenty of drones in Nevada. We fly them
over Area 51 all the time. [Laughter.]
Mr. Simpson. No, we do not, Mr. Chair. [Laughter.]
Mr. Amodei. And actually I would kind of like at some point
in time just an update because there was report language
saying, hey, helicopter test in 2014, blah, blah, blah, how is
that going. So what we will do when we set that up for whenever
you do, we will make sure that all committee members are aware
so that they can either attend or send staff.
Mr. Tidwell. Thank you.
AIR TANKERS
Mr. Amodei. Finally, I want to talk to you a little bit
about the large air tanker program because I have looked at the
2002 report after we had some bad stuff, and then your
modernization stuff. And I am looking at the thing where you
are getting Coast Guard C-130s and got to do all that stuff.
And I have kind of a concern because the 2002 report says, hey,
military long haul aircraft are under different load and
stresses than basically close air support in a firefighting
role, especially when the fire is big and not an initial attack
trying to paint a line around a smaller area, and all the
weather that goes with the fire.
And I look at the C-130 stuff and I am going, do we have
the initial records with this from the Coast Guard, or is it
Groundhog's Day? And so, I have a concern about that with the
FAA certification in terms of public use specified, and so I
want to go over that more extensively offline. But, I mean,
help me with is this not what we were doing in 2002 that that
Blue Ribbon panel said you've got to quit doing this,you've got
to instrument them, and you've got to maintain them for the
role that firefighting represents, not takeoffs and landings
hauling cargo, and stuff like that?
Mr. Tidwell. Yeah. So FAA certifies it for the original
purpose of aircraft, which was cargo from point A to point B.
Our mission is different, and we have learned the hard way that
it is additional stresses on aircraft, so we put together
additional certification. A lot of it is just additional
maintenance to be able to do the inspections on the wings to
make sure we are not having any stress fractures or mental
fatigue in those planes.
So the C-130s that are provided by the private contractors,
they are able to meet those. All of our new aircraft are
meeting these. Our aircraft are going to meet these
qualifications. It just provides that additional assurance, and
it is airworthy to go from point A to point B, but that is a
very different mission from what we do.
Mr. Amodei. Okay. So I will look forward to talking with
you more about that later. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Chief.
Mr. Tidwell. Good morning.
EMERALD ASH BORER
Mr. Joyce. I have to tell you that one of the most stunning
things to me being from Ohio when I got on this committee was
the amount of money we spend on fire suppression. In Ohio
obviously we have a different problem, and I noticed we were
talking about flat funding and the Forest Health Management and
Cooperative Lands account being flat funded. In Ohio, we have
an aggressive problem with the emerald ash borer.
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Mr. Joyce. We have now found that the emerald ash borer is
moving to other types of trees----
Mr. Tidwell. Yes.
Mr. Joyce [continuing]. Including in Ohio, they found it on
the white fringe tree? I was wondering what, if anything, you
plan to do with the flat budget to help local communities fight
the emerald ash borer scourge.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, we continue to work with APHIS--they are
probably our key partner on this to be able to identify a
solution. Right now with emerald ash borer, is about the only
thing we are having some success, if we can get out in front of
it and basically reduce the host trees, we can slow down the
spread. That is very difficult when it is going through a
community. People do not want to lose their ash trees, but the
reality right now is you are going to lose them one way or
another.
So this is an area that our scientists have been working
on. We just have not been able to come up with a solution. We
are having some success to be able to do spraying in certain
areas if there are certain places to be able to make that
investment. The insecticide that we are using seems to be
having some good success, but it is a very expensive approach.
So we need to continue our research.
It is just one of the realities. We had emerald ash borer
around for quite a few years in this country, and then we
stopped having cold winters, and all of a sudden they have
spread all the way up into Canada now. It just indicates what
we are up against, and I think we will be able to find a
solution to it. And then the other thing we are working on is
through genetics to be able to actually develop a species of
ash that can resist the emerald ash borer, too. So, that may
also be helpful if we can come back in and replant ash. They
are a fast-growing tree. But those are the things we continue
to work on.
I would like to be able to have more funding, and I would
like to be able to increase that, but I can say that about
everything that we are doing. I understand the realities of
where we are today with our budget concerns, and so we are
doing our best to prioritize our requests.
Mr. Joyce. Level funding, in some instances, is a victory.
Mr. Tidwell. Yeah, well, it is. At times it is, right.
SPREADING OF INVASIVE SPECIES
Mr. Joyce. Have you noticed it spreading to other trees as
well, in your research?
Mr. Tidwell. Yeah. Our scientists have, and I will be glad
to get back with you and just provide you a full list of it. We
are seeing with some of the other invasives, too, that we are
predominantly on one species. They, too, adapt, and especially
when they start losing their host tree. They are there, and
especially if they are in the numbers. They start moving into
different species. So we are seeing with a variety of species,
it is one of the things the Canadians are very concerned about,
especially if some of our invasives start moving into sugar
maple. They are very concerned about the impact not only here
in this country, but also to our neighbor to the north.
Those are the things we are up against, to be able to slow
down these infestations, and then also to stay in front of it
so that if in this case we come up with a fix with ash at the
same time that borer has already moved on to a different
species, then we are just in the chase, and we need to get out
in front of it.
Mr. Joyce. You hit on a good point with the sugar maples
because that is a big industry in our area.
Mr. Tidwell. It is, yeah.
URBAN AND COMMUNITY FORESTRY
Mr. Joyce. The source of fires in our neighborhood is
mostly fireplaces. Over the years it has been hardwoods, but it
seems that ash is what everybody is burning now because it is
going down at a tremendous speed.
In the Urban and Community Forestry Program budget
proposal, there is a decrease of $4.354 million. While I
understand that cuts have to be made, can you explain to me
what the importance of urban forests is to our growing urban
populations and why that fund would take a 15 percent cut?
Mr. Tidwell. Well, once again, there is not a reduction in
our request. It is just to move that amount of money into this
landscape scale restoration account that allows the State
foresters to have more flexibility. What we found last year
with the funds that were available in that account, about 30
percent of the funding was actually spent on urban community
forests. So the State foresters are recognizing the need there,
and so it gives them more flexibility.
So we have not reduced our request. We just moved some of
the money into this other account. But based on what we saw
last year, it probably will actually increase the amount of
funding that is going into urban and community forests. Eighty-
three percent of Americans now live in an urban setting, and we
have I think over 130 million acres of urban forests in this
country. That is a huge asset if you think about the carbons
being sequestered, the water that is being filtered, and the
quality of life.
All our research shows you plant trees, your property value
goes up, crime goes down, and you save energy. It is an
incredible resource that we have, but we've got to stay on top
of these invasives. Otherwise, it could become so expensive to
maintain.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Ms. McCollum, any further
questions?
GOOD NEIGHBOR AUTHORITY
Ms. McCollum. First, I would like to point out the funding
that is in the budget for the Office of International Forestry
Programs because doing the detection right helps us get ahead
or stop invasive species from coming in. So that is very, very
important.
Tying things together, I have to agree with Mr. Simpson. If
you look at Minnesota, we are right on the cutting edge where
the forests start building up again. The one thing that we have
lost in the metropolitan area, and we are fighting very hard to
keep, is public access for swimming, sailing, fishing and other
recreation. So we are very protective of our public lands.
I would like you to talk more about this Good Neighbor
Authority Master Agreement. You have one with Chippewa and
Superior International Forest and the Minnesota Department of
DNR. When you mentioned marijuana eradication, one of the
things our National Guard was doing, before it was so heavily
redeployed over and over again both in Iraq and Afghanistan,
was to get some of the flying time in looking over the forests.
They would work with the Minnesota DNR as well as our national
forests on some of the things that were going on with marijuana
eradication.
Can you talk about some of these State-to-State agreements
that you have going on with the Forest Service and how
effective that is in saving money and heading off tensions in
the future?
Mr. Tidwell. So the Good Neighbor Authority is something we
have had for a couple of States for quite a few years, and then
with the last Farm Bill it was expanded across the country. We
now have, I think, 10 or 11 States where we have an agreement
in place.
What it does is it allows us to be able to work with the
State to be able to look at projects that maybe go beyond the
National forest, or, in some cases, just on the National
forest, and be able to use State resources to help us get more
work done. Then the receipts that come off of that are then
available for us to then do additional work.
It is one of the areas that I think when we talk about some
of the tension between State management or for the Forest
Service you manage the public lands. These are the sort of
things that I want to spend our time on, because initially we
are having good success to be able to increase the capacity,
actually get more work done, and by working with our States. It
is like everything, we are in a learning process. Not every
project is going to probably work out as well as we hope
initially. But over time, I think it is going to be another way
for us just to get some additional work done.
It is also helping, I think, to address this question about
is there a better way for us to work together, and this is one
of the authorities that I think is going to really prove out to
be really helpful, and I want to be able to go beyond just
forest restoration. I think there are a lot of things that we
can be doing working together with the States under this
authority besides just forest restoration. That is our primary
goal right now.
MARIJUANA ERADICATION
As far as with the marijuana eradication, we use the Air
National Guard units in a lot of places to be able to fly
people in, and in the past have been able to clean up. In some
States, a lot of their Guards have been deployed and do not
have the capacity they used to have. This additional request
allows us to be able to rely on a better partner so that we are
not just always asking, but we can also be there as a partner
and do these cleanup operations.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE: WILDLAND FIRE SUPPORT
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. One quick thing. You mentioned
technology, and our staff was out in California, and they
witnessed that your employees are kind of jerry rigging their
own technologies at some point. They are using their iPads,
their iPhones. There is no real policy or guidelines that are
set to utilize new technology more effectively.
We did use Predator for the Rim Fire. If you remember, we
had a hell of a time getting permission to unleash that
technology. I had to call the Secretary of Defense----
Mr. Tidwell. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert [continuing]. At that time was Chuck Hagel, and
he was on the airplane, and tell him to please sign a memo that
is floating around that airplane someplace to allow us to use
the Predator on site.
Since then, have there been any conversations with the
Department of Defense to have more efficient, effective
coordination when the fire first starts. I have been told if
you can get that resource above the fire immediately, it helps
direct the other aircraft, find the hot spots, and maybe put
out the fire faster. The other aircraft cannot see that through
the smoke, and using advanced technology to interface with
firefighters that are on the ground with their iPads and
iPhones where they can immediately know where they need to be,
and where to go.
Mr. Tidwell. Mr. Chairman, it is one of the things we do
need to sit down with the folks in Defense to be able to get
something in place when we need that. Ideally we will be able
to develop different unmanned flying aircraft that we can use.
Predators are very expensive, and it goes way beyond anything
we need there. Right now it is one of the tools.
So your point is well taken. I will ask the staff to be
able to look at what we can have in place until we can get our
program established because when the State requests it and it
is being flown at the direction from the Governor, then we need
people like yourself, your support, and then we are able to do
it. We need to be able to have that so that when there is a
situation, it is just like here it is, it is available.
MILITARY AIRCRAFT
Mr. Calvert. In San Diego when we had fires, we could not
get the Marine Corps to use their helicopters and do spotting.
I remember it took us 2 days to get permission to use the
Marine Corps helicopters. And the Marines wanted to help, but
they had to get a sign-off from here in Washington. Sometimes 2
days is a critical period of time where we could not use those
spotters to bring in the air resources to put that fire out.
Mr. Tidwell. We are doing a better job now to be able to
quickly justify using the military aircraft so that we are not
violating the Economy Act that requires us to use the
contracted aircraft first. We have all those committed. We are
learning how to be a little bit more nimble on that so that we
can provide the insurance and we are not violating the Economy
Act. There is an urgent need, and, yes, it may only be for a
day, but we need it now. All of our other aircraft are
committed in other places in the country.
So I think in the future we will be able to have those
resources available much faster than what we have had in the
past.
Mr. Calvert. Good. Okay. Are there any other questions?
GRAZING FEE PROPOSAL
Mr. Simpson. If you do not mind, I would just like to ask
one question if I could. Your grazing fee proposal, tell me
about it.
Mr. Tidwell. Well, it is a proposal to have an additional
charge above the grazing fee of $2.50 per head out there.
Mr. Simpson. What is the grazing fee? What is the AUM now?
Mr. Tidwell. It was $1.65 last year, and I think it is
going up to, actually it goes up to the maximum of 25 percent.
So somebody can do the math here.
Mr. Simpson. So this would be more than double?
Mr. Tidwell. Yes. And the money would then be used for us
to be able to address the backlog of administration and then
also to be able to move forward on implementing the Rescission
Act to get the Allotment Management Plan NEPA done. It is a
proposal to find a way to be able to move forward to be able to
assure that we are doing our job to make sure we can continue
to graze, and at the same time to deal with the budget
complications. I mean, ideally I wish we could be just asking
for an increase in grazing. It is one of the issues that had
been brought up with Mr. Stewart.
We have so few folks out there. Where we used to be able to
sit down and have the discussions with permitees and county
commissioners, and basically a lot of one-on-one discussions.
We just do not have the folks there anymore. So, that is one of
the things that is added to some of the complications that we
are seeing.
So it is a proposal to be able to collect some additional
fees. When I look at what most States charge, we still are
going to be less than what States charge for grazing.
Mr. Simpson. Would this provide for full cost recovery for
the administration of the program?
Mr. Tidwell. I would have to get back to you on that.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Kilmer.
STEWARDSHIP CONTRACTING
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks, Chairman. I have one question. You
mentioned in your opening remarks the value of stewardship
contracting in terms of taking revenue from timber sales and
plowing it back into that forest. Unfortunately that doesn't
work on other timber sales. It is my understanding that the
Forest Service actually has authority that was expanded in
2005, the K-V authority, Knutson-Vandenberg authority, but the
Service does not really use it. That does not make sense to me.
Can you tell me why?
Mr. Tidwell. We are using our authority under the K-V,
Knutson-Vandenberg. We have been using that for years. The
problem that we are running up against is today we have 50
percent fewer foresters than what we used to. We have these
different authorities, but we need to have people that can
first understand and be able to implement it.
We are getting to the point now where we have a lot of
NEPA-ready projects. They are ready to go forward and to be
able to restore forests. We do not have the staff to be able to
get out on the ground because of the reductions that have
occurred over the last decade. So it is one of the things
through the Good Neighbor Authority that would allow us to be
able to make full use of our authorities and be able to
increase the capacity. But through our authorities under the K-
V plan, it is one of the things that we do implement.
The difference, though, with our stewardship contracting,
and we are doing about 30 percent of our forest management work
now under stewardship, there is a great level of trust. I can
get the same result on the ground whether I use a timber sale
or a stewardship contract, and you would get the same result on
the ground. I use the stewardship contract. There is a higher
level of trust with folks that sometimes are concerned with
what we are doing, and so it requires a collaborative effort.
The other key difference is that with the stewardship
contract, we address all the needs of that landscape together
at one time versus a timber sale, we would cut the trees, use
K-V funds to come in there and do some restoration work. A
stewardship contract provides that certainty, that guarantee
that we are going to address all the needs on the landscape
under one contract versus, yes, we will do the timber sale,
and, trust us, we will get around to doing the work that you
are really interested in.
So those are the two differences, and so we want to use all
of our authorities, but that is the key benefit with the
stewardship contract. We can do some of the same things under
the K-V, but we just have not been able to build that level of
trust that we need to be able to continue to move forward.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. I know there are a number of other
questions. We will submit them for the record. And I discussed
before some groundwater issues that I would like to get on the
record also. So any questions, please submit them and we will
get them answered in a timely fashion by the chief.
Mr. Calvert. I appreciate your being here today. Mr. Dixon,
I appreciate your being here today. And we are adjourned.
Mr. Tidwell. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, February 25, 2016.
INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
WITNESSES
ROBERT McSWAIN, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
MARY SMITH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
ELIZABETH A. FOWLER, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS, INDIAN
HEALTH SERVICE
GARY J. HARTZ, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND
ENGINEERING, INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE
Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert
Mr. Calvert. Good morning, and welcome to this oversight
hearing for the Fiscal Year 2017 budget for the Indian Health
Service.
Funding for Indian Country has been a nonpartisan priority
of the subcommittee for many years now. Working together, we
have grown funding for American Indian and Alaska Native
programs at a greater amount and at a faster rate than any
other programs in the appropriations bill. As a result,
contract support costs are now fully funded, freeing up
operation funds, and affording tribes the capacity to run
additional programs rather than relying on the Federal
government to do it for them.
Funds to meet extraordinary medical costs to victims of
disasters or catastrophic illness which used to run out in the
middle of the year, and, thus, spawn the common refrain in
Indian Country, ``Do not get sick after June,'' are now finally
in Fiscal Year 2017 estimated to last the entire year.
More children are receiving proper dental care. More teens
are receiving the help and support they need to battle
substance abuse and suicide. More providers are being recruited
because we have been helping to pay their student loans. More
new care facilities are opening their doors each year.
The list of accomplishments go on and on, and we are deeply
proud of our work. But we also recognize that we still have a
long way to go before health disparities in the American Indian
and Alaska Native population compared to the Nation as a whole
become a thing of the past.
I hope that today's hearing will help highlight the
measurable differences that reflect funding increases that have
been made. As a subcommittee we need to be able to communicate
to our colleagues in Congress that the sacrifice we make
elsewhere in this appropriations bill in order to increase
funding for Indian Country is actually saving lives.
Saving more lives, however, is not simply a function of
more money. The Indian Health Service is battling a management
crisis in the Great Plains area, for example. The crisis
reached a new low point recently when the Center for Medicare
and Medicaid Services, CMS, terminated its agreement with
Obama-Winnebago Indian----
Ms. McCollum. Omaha.
Mr. Calvert. Omaha, excuse me. Omaha. After Denver's win, I
should know that. Omaha. [Laughter.]
Omaha-Winnebago Indian Hospital because the conditions at
the hospital posed an immediate jeopardy to the health and
safety of patients. Just a few months later, CMS threatened to
do the same at two additional Indian Health Service hospitals
in the Great Plains area. All three hospitals are directly run
by the Indian Health Service rather than by the tribes, and all
three remain open for business under intense management
scrutiny.
That said, it is not my wish to focus today on a hearing on
the crisis in the Great Plains. The Senate Committee on Indian
Affairs has already held a hearing on the matter, and I doubt
it will be the last. Also I do not wish to imply that funding
and management are unrelated. We all know that it takes money
to hire and retain good people.
My point is this. When the Indian Health Service struggles
with management and accountability, the subcommittee struggles
even more to find the money, the offsets, and the votes to fund
increases for the Indian Health Service.
The President's Fiscal Year 2017 budget is particularly
challenging. The bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 increases Fiscal
Year 2017 discretionary budget authority by less than one-tenth
of 1 percent. And yet the President is proposing an 8 percent,
$377 million increase for IHS without any realistic offsets
elsewhere in the budget. Of the proposed increase, $241 million
is just to keep pace with tribal and Federal pay costs,
contract support cost, medical inflation, and population growth
in order just to maintain current levels of service.
Program increases developed in close consultation with
tribal leaders, which are necessary to staff newly constructed
facilities, and to make any real progress to decrease the
health disparities of American Indians and Alaska Natives
compared to the Nation as a whole, are an additional $136
million.
With us today from the Indian Health Service to get into
the details and answer questions are principal director and
current acting director, Mr. Robert McSwain--it is good
timing--and his second in command, Deputy Director Mary Smith.
Welcome, Mr. McSwain, and welcome aboard, Ms. Smith, I look
forward to your testimony today.
But before opening statement, I would like to ask our
distinguished ranking member, Ms. McCollum, for any opening
remarks.
OPENING REMARKS OF MS. MCCOLLUM
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to
join you in welcoming our witnesses here today, and I look
forward to hearing their testimony.
Funding for the Indian Health Service has been an area of
broad nonpartisan support--I think even stronger than
bipartisan--and cooperation in the past several years. However,
last year's events in the Great Plains region, as the Chairman
pointed out, make it clear there is more to be done and that
there are still obstacles to us doing more.
We have a moral and legal responsibility to provide
healthcare for Native Americans. When we fall short, it is not
just a violation of treaty agreements that we hold with Native
Americans, but it is a violation of a trust that we share. The
failings at Omaha-Winnebago and Rosebud are alarming. Just
alarming.
Despite the increase in resources this Subcommittee has
provided, it is clear that resources alone will not solve all
these problems. We also need permanent employees that have the
skills needed to serve the region in a culture that fosters
excellence in patient care. I am hopeful that the top to bottom
audits that the Service is undertaking in the region will
provide the assurances that these incidents will not happen
again, and the guidance necessary to improve the entire Indian
Health Service.
In Fiscal Year 2017, the Indian Health budget includes $1.5
billion in discretionary funding, a $377 million increase over
Fiscal Year 2015 enacted level. Much of that increase, $159
million, would be used to cover increases in the cost of
providing the same level of service. $82 million would go
towards increased contract support costs, and $103 million
would expand and strengthen the Service's programs. I am
pleased to see the budget request includes a $12 million
increase in the Indian facilities line for construction of new
quarters for Indian Health Service staff.
The problems of the Great Plans region have made it clear
that recruiting and retaining permanent staff must be a
priority for the Service. The quarters budget increase will
help the Service bring more permanent staff on board in these
very isolated locations.
It is clear that there is a mental health crisis in Indian
Country. Pine Ridge Indian Health Service documented 18 cases
of suicide and 308 cases of attempted suicide last year. That
is nearly 1 case per day. Suicide is the second leading cause
of death for Native American youth age 10--age 10--to 34. I am
pleased that the budget request includes more than $40 million
in new resources to tackle this problem. However, the solution
in the mental health crisis does not come from healthcare
alone. So I am interested to hear how the Indian Health
Service, working with other agencies, will ensure that Native
Americans have the access to quality education and housing, as
well as economic opportunity.
The Administration's Generation Indigenous Initiative seeks
to coordinate its efforts in Indian Country, and I am
interested in learning more about Indian Health Service's role
in these efforts, and how tribal members can participate in the
process.
Finally, I am concerned about the lack of dedicated
resources in the budget to combat opiate addiction. In addition
to treating addiction, we must develop the tools and pain
management to ensure that patients in chronic pain do not abuse
their medication later. I want to stress again, I think it is
wonderful what the President has put in for drug intervention
for youth. But in talking to youth recently in my office over
the past 3 weeks, they are talking about parents and people
over the age of 34 that they are in contact with that are
either abusers or trying to quit the problem. So we need to
look at this as a family issue, as a whole Nation problem.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for holding this hearing
today, and I look forward to working with you, and Chairman
Cole, and everyone on this committee on these important issues,
and doing our part to build healthy tribal communities, making
the whole United States healthier.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. McSwain, you are recognized for
your opening statement.
Opening Remarks of Mr. McSwain
Mr. McSwain. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
first of all, let me just apologize deeply for being late. It
is not like me to do this, and I know I did not start off on a
good foot. And I just want to, on behalf of the Agency, beg
your indulgence.
As pointed out, I am the Principal Deputy Director of the
Indian Health Service, and accompanying me today is Mary Smith,
the Deputy Director, and also Elizabeth Fowler, Deputy Director
for Management Operations, and Mr. Gary Hart is Director of the
Office of Environmental Health. I think we have got the team
here to be able to answer any and all questions that the
committee has about our budget request.
I am pleased to provide testimony on the President's
proposed 2017 budget for the Indian Health Service, which will
allow us to continue to make a difference in addressing our
Agency's mission to raise the physical, mental, social, and
spiritual health of American Indians and Alaska Natives to the
highest level.
The 2017 President's budget proposes to increase the total
IHS program to $6.6 billion, which will add $402 million to the
Fiscal Year 2016 enacted level. And if appropriated, this
funding level would represent a 53 percent increase in funding
for the IHS since 2008. And I want to thank the committee and
the Congress for that support over the last few years.
The overall funding increases proposed in the President's
budget are consistent with tribal priorities. We consult with
the tribes on what we want to ask, and so this represents their
ask as well as the Administration. And these will continue to
address longstanding health disparities among American Indians/
Alaska Natives compared to other Americans, specific
investments including expanding behavioral health and mental
health services, improving healthcare quality, capacity, and
workforce, supporting self-determination by fully funding
contracts or costs of tribes who manage their own programs, and
ensuring increased healthcare access through addressing
critical healthcare facilities' infrastructure needs. As you
will see, I mean, we have had a great series of increases that
have enabled us to replace facilities that are on average 33
years old per facility.
The President's budget includes funding for full, what we
refer to as current, services. Full Pay Act. It is pay costs,
inflation, and pop growth because a population does grow and we
respect that, and we must maintain pace. And these are critical
for just simply maintaining the budgets of IHS and tribal
hospitals, clinics, and other programs to current levels. That
gives us a starting point.
The budget also includes increases of $49 million, of which
$46 million will be focused on critical behavioral health
services, including GEN-I certainly and suicide prevention
projects, and also the integration of medical and behavioral
health into our system so that there is a behavioral health/
primary care integration. It has also continued the whole of
behavioral health in tribal communities between medical and
behavioral health and tribal community organizations. We have
found that there are several programs out there are granted by
other agencies. It is a matter of us working together and to
integrate those into a complete program for those tribal
communities.
The budget is to help implement Zero Suicide Initiative.
And the Zero Suicide Initiative is, simply put, we run a
healthcare system, and the healthcare system means that our
staff are trained, not only our staff, but the tribal programs
that are operated, that we are aware of high-risk people coming
through the system, so that they are not just behavioral health
people in the facility, but all the providers are trained to be
aware of those indicators that would show that people are at
risk. So we do not just simply have them come in for their
usual medical checkup, but we are also observing so that we are
training for purposes of zero suicide.
A youth pilot project, something that the tribes have been
asking for for years, and that is after care. So we have these
nice youth regional treatment centers. They go and they get
treated, then they return. What about after care? So we are
making an investment for after care. Domestic violence
prevention to expand the numbers of grants to 30 additional
Indian tribal organizations, and certainly funding to expand
the Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund, and a bit for urban
programs as well because Indian people do find themselves in
urban programs, and that is a major priority for us.
Improving the quality of healthcare in the Indian health
system is a primary objective of this budget, and it builds in
to the point of investing in health information. Data drives
our decisions, and we want a better data system that will help
us do that. We have the electronic health record, and we can
talk more about that as we go on, as well as we are moving
towards all 27 hospitals under a hospital consortium that is
based in quality measures.
The whole notion of the infrastructure for new facilities,
and we have got things for addressing five newly-constructed
facilities for tribal clinical leases and maintenance costs
specific to where tribal space is ineligible for maintenance
and repair, and some additional money to begin to address the
backlog. As you all know, our backlog and basic maintenance
repairs are around $473 million, so we have made an investment
to reduce that as well.
In addition, this budget will enable us to complete the
Phoenix Indian Medical Center Ambulatory Care Center, and begin
a design of the White River Hospital, continue construction of
the Rapid City Health Center, and to begin the construction of
Dilkon Alternative Rural Health Center on the Navajo, and to
fund replacement, additional, and then, of course, as mentioned
by Member McCollum, that we have a new venture in addressing
the need for quarters. Staffing quarters is critical in some of
our remote locations, and we put investment there to begin the
process. We are still looking at where do we need to go with
this, and we will do that.
Supporting self-determination. Again, full payment, and I
want to just simply thank the committee for urging us in that
direction. And we are there, and I think we have got a lot of
good things to report on that front. We have got a couple of
legislative proposals that I want. One of them is to address
the very definitions of ``Indian'' in the Affordable Care Act.
We have got several definitions, and so depending on how it is
defined is how the law gets implemented. We would like to see
that addressed in our proposal.
And finally, on our legislative proposals, another one is
the special diabetes program. Very successful program for us in
terms of a chronic care model, and we have got some data that
we can share with you that certainly shows where we are
beginning to slow the progress of diabetes in Indian Country,
particularly amongst the youth.
And I know that you have mentioned it and we can talk
about, but we are looking very closely at the Great Plains
hospital. In this regard, a real focus on recruitment and
retention of providers, certainly the housing issue, working
more closely with our sister agency, the Center for Medicare
and Medicaid Services. And what their findings are, I can tell
you on the record, what they have found is unacceptable to us,
and certainly has drawn the attention of Secretary Burwell. And
she has put in place an ability to respond not only to the
Department, but assist the Indian Health Service in addressing
these issues.
I want to close by emphasizing that the challenges we face,
I know that working together in partnership with Indian Country
and the Congress, we can improve our Agency to better service
tribal communities. And I appreciate all your efforts to
provide us the best possible healthcare services to the people
we serve, and in helping to ensure a healthier future for
American Indians and Alaska Natives.
With that, I close, and the team will answer any questions
that you might have.
[The statement of Mr. McSwain follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. McSwain. Mr. Cole will start
off the questioning.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very, Mr. Chairman, and let me just say
publicly, I want to thank you and our ranking member for all
you have done over the last few years in this area in your
respective positions now, but just even before that when you
were simply members of the committee. It has made a big
difference in a lot of lives.
And I want to congratulate the Administration, too, in this
regard. This has been a great area of bipartisan cooperation
and where I think the resources that have been placed there
have broadly, you know, made things better, have saved lives,
so there is a lot to be proud of here. But as you pointed out
in your opening remarks, there are always things to be
concerned about.
I am going to have to leave literally after my question and
your answer, Director, because I have got to chair a hearing
with Secretary Burwell at 10:00. So I have got to go do that,
and I am sure we will discuss this issue in that hearing.
GREAT PLAINS
So I do want to give you an opportunity to talk at length
on this Great Plains CMS issue. I am very concerned and
troubled when you have three difficult facilities. It suggests
something systemic is a problem. And so, one, I would like to
know specifically what are the findings and what has been done
to correct them for those three facilities. And then, you know,
what you are doing system wide to make sure this is not three
needles in a haystack that suggest there are more needles.
JOINT VENTURE
Last point if you would touch on it, would we find the same
thing in tribally operated facilities as we are finding in
these? Is there any disparity in ratio? And, again, if so, why,
or do you think these issues that we found in these three
facilities we would find if tribal facilities were looked at?
Is this random? Again, I want your thoughts, and I will say I
tend to have a bias in favor of tribes basically, you know,
joint venturing and operating their own facilities.
Nobody holds you accountable like your own people do. And I
know in our tribe, when we took over the operation of our
facilities, or began to, in the 1970s, it made an enormous
difference. You know, almost immediately we saw wait times come
down very dramatically because if somebody is sitting there
waiting too long, they would simply call a tribal legislative
official, and you could get your fingers around their neck
pretty fast. So they were just responsive.
On top of that, we developed people in our own tribe, gave
them opportunities to acquire professional skills, and manage
big budgets. And, frankly, they have moved on into other
directions now. It gave us a cadre of really trained and
talented people.
I just want to get your thoughts on that, on the contrast
between, again, IHS facilities and tribally operated
facilities.
Mr. McSwain. Thank you for that question, Congressman Cole.
There are very important distinctions, and one of those is on
the Federal side we are governed by rules, regulations, pay
systems, and tribes have the ability to be flexible. They are
not bound by the pay schedules, so they can be very competitive
in doing so, as well as the regulations that govern. But they
are also governed by certainly the same rules we are when it
comes to certification by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid
Services.
We have not had any citations for tribal facilities, and
clearly I think a lot of it has to do with when the tribes
operate, they take pride in managing it very literally. I mean,
of course, as you mentioned, when there is a complaint by a
tribal member, they know where to go. They are running it. They
go to their council. And when we are running it as we do with
27 hospitals and some 200-plus health centers across the
country, they are staffed, and we run according to Federal
regulations and Federal requirements.
And the biggest challenge, and this segues into the
challenges I am seeing in the Great Plains area. We are
addressing currently the current findings by CMS in those three
facilities, and they center around having trained, qualified
providers. And we are trying to carry out the mission with a
combination of contractors, a heavy contract load. So if we can
hire permanent staff, and I think it was mentioned earlier that
the biggest solution is to have permanent staff there.
STAFFING AND HOUSING
But it is a challenge. Many of these locations are very
remote, very isolated, and not only is it a housing issue,
which we are struggling with and we put forward the notion. And
let us face it. I have talked to many of the tribal leaders,
and they have a housing program. They do not have enough
housing just for their own members. You know, they have 20
people in a house. As I talked to one tribal leader, he says I
cannot give you a house to provide for staff. I need those
homes for my own members. I will certainly work with you on
space and so forth if you can build them, ergo a request for
additional housing.
Housing is a real challenge, and we found that out when we
were beginning to address the issue with Pine Ridge suicides.
We could send healthcare workers up there, but they had to
drive 60 to 70 miles.
Mr. Cole. Yeah.
Mr. McSwain. And they were not going to stay there. And so
we immediately began putting in place some temporary facilities
on the short run and then some modular. So those are the
challenges in the Great Plains area which are probably not
shared other places in the system.
Mr. Cole. Yeah, and let me just make this point, and then I
will yield back my time that the chairman has been generous
with. I think that is true. I have been to the Rosebud. Ms.
McCollum and I were on the same trip there and seeing the
facilities, and seeing the challenges in terms of the housing.
And I want to commend you for doing it.
While I am very concerned about this, I want you to know I
see a lot of these things as functions of a system that has
been historically underfunded. I do not blame this on the
Indian Health Service or what have you. I have some idea of the
scope of what you have to deal with literally for generations.
And it is only the last few years, honestly, that we have begun
to give you the resources to make the difference that you are
making.
But I would commend you to keep really looking at this
because, as the chairman suggests, this is the sort of thing
that does make it difficult for us to convince our colleagues
to continue the fund the Service, which I think is
indispensable. And while I have a bias towards tribes operating
on their own, that is a tribal choice. I mean, I respect tribes
that choose to do it in a different manner, and they are best
situated to make decisions for themselves as to which would
work better for them. And it should not be imposed on them from
up here.
So just thank you for your good work, and look forward to
working with you, look forward to working with my friend, the
chairman, and the ranking member, and the other members of this
committee to see if we can continue to build on the progress of
the last few years.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to
follow up on that. It is not just housing in the Great Plains
area. It is housing throughout Indian Country. It is a school
for the employees to send their children to. The Chairman, and
I, and the members of the committee are working on improving
the situation in schools, being able to recruit and retain
teachers through alternate housing. If you are a person who
comes to work at one of these IHS facilities, or even an
educational facility, we should ensure that high-quality
daycare is available.
This is a whole-of-Nation challenge. President Obama has
made it a priority to have all the agencies sit down and work
together on these problems. You do not address a whole problem
by siloing it, and checking off a box, and saying we took care
of it. So I appreciate that, and I think the committee is going
to ask at some point what we are doing throughout the agencies
to help you address this problem and other problems.
MENTAL HEALTH
This also goes to a whole-of-family issue. As I mentioned
in my statement, and you also touched on, there is a mental
health crisis in Indian Country, and Native youth have been
particularly hard hit. The budget request does have additional
funding for tribal youth around mental and behavioral issues.
We could talk about this for hours, but I am just going to lay
out a few questions. If you could, give us a general
observation and then get back more fully to the staff.
Please describe your request and how these initiatives are
going to improve mental health outcomes for youth. Nationally,
not only in tribal areas, there is a huge shortage for capacity
for youth with psychiatric issues, mental health issues. So I
want to know how the Service is going to work to help youth in
this way.
Let me just describe what I have seen in Indian Country.
Should a youth and their family reach out, they are sent to a
regional treatment facility which can be hours and hours away
from the family. When a youth is having a challenge, that
usually means quite often that the family is having a
challenge, or if the family is not having the challenge, the
family needs the supports put in place for when that youth
comes home. Usually that means family counseling, or addressing
other issues and maybe substance abuse problems in the family
so the whole family is being treated.
SUBSTANCE ABUSE
I hear that directly from youth in my office. I was in Red
Lake, and they are seeing their out of home placement go
through the roof, in part because of substance abuse in the
family, which affects a child, or a child is living with a
grandparent who needs more tools in their toolbox when the
child comes home from treatment.
I want to know what you are doing to bring this assistance
closer to home. Building a new regional treatment facility is a
good step, but it is not the only step. If that is our only
focus, we will have failed these children, and we will have
another generation suffering from post-traumatic stress.
Could you kind of give us an overbroad description of what
you are doing to address the whole issue? I am pleased that you
are asking for a new regional treatment facility, but that is
not the full solution. Then please follow up with the staff in
greater detail.
Mr. McSwain. Thank you for that question, Congresswoman
McCollum. This is a real challenge obviously in many of our
communities. And the biggest challenge is the available
resources and available access points for behavioral health and
mental health in the communities.
What we are learning is as we work hand-in-hand with the
tribes and we are doing that, and I have to go back to Pine
Ridge as a prime example because we focused on Pine Ridge. A
year ago when they had 18 suicides. I am happy to continue to
hold my breath because we have made it through the winter
months now with no suicide since November. I think a lot of it
has to do with attention.
And I think your other comment about the Indian Health
Service cannot do it alone, we recognize that. And I want to
thank Secretary Burwell and Deputy Secretary Wakefield for
literally getting us all together and saying, okay, all the
agencies in the Department have a role to play. And then they
are reaching out beyond that. Clearly the Secretary is reaching
out to other departments that could help.
So we have got to work all together to begin to address
this issue. SAMHSA is a good partner. They are providing
resources to the communities, the tribes, and their programs.
Our goal is to ensure that we link them with our provision of
care to their community action groups.
The agreement we have, and you mentioned the schools. We
have entered into an agreement with the BIA to have mental
health workers in the schools if they give us just a little bit
of space. I know space is hard.
Ms. McCollum. Yeah.
Mr. McSwain. But we can have someone there that can begin
to counsel the youth in the schools, and make them available to
the communities, and we are building a model. And if what we
are doing is, in fact, working, then we will need to do more of
that in other places, because as I have traveled around the
country with listening sessions in 12 areas last year, it is
not just the Great Plains area. It is the Navajo, it is the
Northwest, it is Alaska, it is California, it is the Arizona
folks.
I mean, everyone is very concerned about their youth and
what is available. And you are right about we can build as many
YRTCs, or youth regional treatment centers, but, again, someone
has to get them there, and then return them, which is what we
are finding out, and we have proposed that in the budget. We
want to do something about after care, and so that there is
more watching of the kids when they return and for providing
those safe zones. I think there was a hearing that was held
last year about the cost of suicides. And one witness said
schools are a safe zone. So this is because of families and the
struggles at home.
So all of this comes together, and I just want to say that
what we are learning in Pine Ridge as a model, we can
replicate. But you are right. There is a big debate going on
presently about trying to build another facility in a far
location, and whether or not that is the best thing to do
because the families want to be local. And so, then the
challenge is where do we put it locally?
And I know that with the Great Plains area, we are testing
with a strategic plan, and I will ask Mary Smith to respond to
that because I think it is an important thing we are doing. We
are doing a lot of immediate response, but then the long-term,
how do we sustain it and keep it going? If you do not mind, I
would like to have Ms. Smith respond to the strategic plan
layout, if you would, please.
Ms. McCollum. Okay.
STRATEGIC PLAN
Ms. Smith. Well, thank you. Hi, I am Mary Smith. I am
Deputy Director of the Indian Health Service. With respect to,
I know it was mentioned the challenges in the Great Plains, so
we are certainly addressing immediate things that were cited by
CMS, and trying to work to solve the immediate problems. But
one of the other things that has kind of been mentioned at this
hearing is some of the systemic challenges that we have with
staffing, housing, and lack of access to, you know, schools and
job opportunities for spouses and things like that.
So we are actually engaging in kind of a strategic
framework effort to look at some of these core issues, like
staffing, housing, and expanding the use of telemedicine to try
to strategically think about these things. We are looking at
both short term, intermediate term, and long term, you know,
proposals.
Of course we cannot do this without our tribal partners and
you all, so we are gathering data. We hope that this will be a
data-driven process. And in the very near term we will be
reaching out to our tribal partners and you all to start to
think through these problems on how we can address them both
short term and longer term.
MEASURING PROGRESS
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Let me ask a question regarding
your testimony. As you mentioned, our appropriations have
increased approximately 43 percent since 2008, and substantial
investments to impact the quantity, of course, but also the
quality of healthcare provided to American Indians and
Alaskans. What do you consider to be some of the most
significant improvements? You mentioned measuring. How do you
measure that progress?
Mr. McSwain. I think our most significant has been in the
areas certainly and our ability to purchase care. We have had a
rather significant increase in the purchaser/referred care
account, contract health service. In some areas, and not in all
areas, we are struggling with some areas, and some of them are
still on priority one, life and limb. But a number of the areas
have begun to see where they can get down into level 3, and 4,
5. Not 5, but 4. 5 is not allowed certainly because it is
cosmetic surgery certainly is one where, well, if you can get
down into 3 and 4 and you get preventive health, you are past
the life and limb.
I think our biggest success has been in purchased/referred
care, and our ability, because we--as you know, over the years
we have converted a number of hospitals to health centers. And
by converting them to health centers means we buy the care. We
buy the secondary care that we need to provide the full
comprehensive care that we provide to our American Indian and
Alaska Native patients. So there has been a shift in that
regard and will continue to be so. But that is one major piece.
And the other one is facilities. I mean, I recall 15 years
ago we had not much support for facilities, and we have
actually been moving down that road in terms of finishing a lot
of facilities on that priority list, and joint ventures. The
Joint Venture Program has been real robust. And so, if we
partner with a tribe, the tribe will build the facility, and we
will staff it. And that is another way to provide more quality
access to care with some of these facilities that are being
built.
So those are two examples in addition to behavioral health.
I mean, as you know, the old days, and I have been around the
system for a few years, and our experience in the older days
was we could take care of by just providing safe water and
sanitation. We could have an impact, a positive impact on
infant mortality. Today we are challenged by behavioral issues,
and behavioral issues are in the community which requires us to
work closely with tribes.
But the investments we are making in behavioral now are, as
you can see in our budget proposal for this year, the
President's budget proposal for 2017 is really beginning to
focus on behavioral issues.
BEHAVIORAL HEALTH
Mr. Calvert. On the behavioral health issue, we have some
of these Native institutions. For instance, I have one near my
district in California, the old Sherman Indian Institute. And
it seems in the past, many folks sent their children out to
these schools for education.
But it seems lately, that they are sending young people to
these outer areas to get away from their homes primarily to fix
a behavioral issue or some family issue that they cannot deal
with on their own reservation. Are these facilities, or is it
better to have, as you say, these centers closer to home,
closer to their families? How do you look at that?
Mr. McSwain. To the extent we can, and I think you are
referring the Southern California Youth Regional Treatment
Center, that is being constructed near Hemet.
Mr. Calvert. Right.
Mr. McSwain. That facility, we chose the site based on the
tribes getting together where they would they like to see that
site, where is it most accessible, and where can it be. And
they selected that site. The same went for Northern California.
The tribes got together and they selected a site. And the idea
behind that is, in fact, I think Mr. Hart has just given me
some examples. As soon as we are done with these----
Mr. Calvert. Sure.
Mr. McSwain [continuing]. We will invite you to, I think we
have had a conversation about inviting you to. This is one at
Hemet in Southern California.
But it is where we put them, and I think in every case
recently it has been the tribes participating. And there was a
lot of testimony at the groundbreaking with some kinds that
been shipped away. One of them came back to say that the
program was great. It is just she was not sitting in Salt Lake
City, would prefer to be closer to home.
And so, those are the testimonies that we are getting for
having those sites closer in. And so, I think that plus other
options, I mean, it is not just YRTCs, but we partnered with
Boys and Girls Clubs that would work on the reservations and
help us put together meaningful activities for kids on the
reservations. And so, those are things that we are doing on
this front.
Mr. Calvert. I look forward to attending the ribbon
cutting.
Mr. McSwain. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Calvert. Ms. Pingree.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your work
and for your presentation here today.
SUBSTANCE ABUSE: OPIOID
I want to just talk briefly, too, about the opioid
epidemic. It seems like virtually every committee I sit on has
had to have a hearing on opioid issues, and it is certainly a
challenge that all of us face in our States across the country.
And people see it really at a crisis level. But it is certainly
a big challenge within the tribes as well.
I come from the State of Maine, and the Penobscot Nation is
one of the eight tribes throughout Indian Country to receive
funding for a grant. It was the Department of Justice
Coordinated Tribal Assistance Program, and they were able to
have a healing-wellness court. That CTAS grant will end, and
that will be too bad because that has been a real asset in
terms of getting people through the court system and right into
treatment. The lack of the grants is going to be exacerbated by
the fact that there are insufficient facilities to treat people
with the opioid crisis.
In our State, often to find an in-patient bed, people have
to travel as far away as North Carolina, and so many of these
issues we have been talking about, the importance of being
close to your community, to your family. So I know that the
substance abuse budget, the request is for an increase from
$114 million to $140, and I know that would be very helpful.
But I guess I would like to hear you talk a little bit
about will any of those funds that you are requesting support
increase access to in-patient treatment for adults? And can you
talk a little bit about the current status for in-patient care
for substance abuse treatment, and how budget increases to
contract health services might help in this area.
Mr. McSwain. Excellent question. The whole opioid area, as
a healthcare delivery system, it is one that I would certainly
wish Dr. Susan Karol was here, the chief medical officer,
because she has been providing leadership for the whole of
medication, controls, and pain management. And we tend to have
it in pain management occurring in our facilities. We tend to
palliate someone who is in pain, and then wind up having a
prescription drug problem, namely with opioids. And so, as part
of a larger issue from certainly the President and the
Secretary is a major push on opioid abuse. And we are as a
system addressing it that way.
Now, your question about hospitalization, it does not
necessarily arise unless they are in real deep trouble. Then
they will be referred to the PRC program to a facility for
purposes of either detox or certainly for attention. So as a
system, we are very, very conscious of our pain management
program. In fact, we have published a policy and provided
ongoing training with our providers about how to approximately
administer pain management medications certainly in the area of
opioids.
I know that what we are doing, you know, and I am having
conversations with tribal leaders about not only the quick step
between opioids coming out of our healthcare system to heroin
abuse. It is the transition because if they cannot get their
opioids, OxyContins and such, from our healthcare delivery
system, and that is an area for us to really begin working on
very carefully. And we have some campaigns of teaching, and
certainly of our providers, but also of communicating with the
tribes about the need for that. There is not a tribal meeting I
have had where a tribal leader has said I have got a real
problem in my area, and you help by addressing this.
As a system, we are responding, and I know on the tribal
side, on the tribal programs, they are also responding, the
ones that are totally run by tribes, such as Alaska and
California, for example.
Ms. Pingree. I appreciate that you are taking a
comprehensive look because I think you are right. In most
communities people have been concerned about the over
prescribing of pain medication. Then certainly in many of the
areas of the country like we have in New England, as physicians
tighten up on pain medications, you have a lot of people who
are previously addicted, less expensive heroin moves right in.
That has really become a challenging issue, and it certainly is
in my State and I know in a lot of other places.
So having a physician involved in that role, but then
figuring out what to do. And as we all know, these are very
powerful addictions. So for many people, the only option that
will be helpful is going to be an inpatient recovery program.
It is good that doctors are better at dealing with the issue or
that there is some medication assisted treatment. But in the
end, I know we will continue to ask you that question about how
in a State like mine that does not have sufficient facilities,
do we manage that, and if there is an increase in your budget,
is there a way to have more in-patient treatment. So in our
State people do not have to travel so far away or wait so long
for beds because, as you know, there is sometimes a moment that
you can get someone into treatment, and if they have to wait a
long time then it is not a possibility a month later, or
sometimes they are not with us a month later. We certainly hear
from our tribal leaders that that is a huge challenge.
Hopefully there will be an increase in your budget, and
hopefully we will see and others will see that there is better
access. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McSwain. I just want to add one other thing as you were
mentioning, Congresswoman Pingree. It was the fact that we have
also partnered with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, particularly
their law enforcement individuals. We have actually entered
into an MOA that is going to address not only training for the
use of naloxone because of opioid overdose. For them to be able
to use the naloxone to, in fact, ensure that they do not expire
from an overdose. And so, that training is going on across all
the reservations and have law enforcement individuals, not only
the BIA law enforcement, but those tribes that have their own
law enforcement, like Cherokee.
Ms. Pingree. That is great. That is very important, too.
Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Simpson.
SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an interesting
discussion that we have on that because it is a real problem
with prescription drug overdoses. The challenge is, having been
a medical professional in the dental field, as a doctor it is
hard when someone comes in to see you in what appears to be
severe pain, to say, no, you are not in pain, and how do you
deal with that? And trying to establish whether someone is
there because they just want access to drugs or if they really
do have pain is a challenging thing for doctors to try to deal
with. But it is a real problem, and something that we have got
to find a way to fix this, and have people more conscious of
the issue.
We have a tendency to just want to say do not over
prescribe, and that will solve the problem. It is not nearly as
easy, and I am not suggesting that you are saying that.
Ms. Pingree. No.
Mr. Simpson. But it is not as easy as some people sometimes
think it is.
JOINT VENTURE
You mentioned joint ventures where the tribes will build
facilities and we will staff them. Do we have any facilities
that have been built that we have not staffed that are planned
to be staffed because of a lack of funding?
Mr. McSwain. None whatsoever because part of, as you know,
with the Joint Venture Program is that when we go through the
process, and Mr. Hart can provide some lengthy experience about
the Joint Venture Program. What basically happens is it is a
competitive process, very competitive. And the idea behind it
is the tribe will build a facility. They will have a
conversation with us so that we can match up our requirements
for staffing in terms of their population, et cetera.
But they will build a facility, and they will find the
resources necessary to build that facility. And we commit in an
agreement that at some point that they are going to open, we
will ask for staffing funds for staffing and operating that
facility. And so, that agreement means that we have not built
any joint ventures or we have not committed to providing staff.
Mr. Simpson. So we have not had instances where the tribes
get out of ahead of our ability to staff them, because several
years ago when we were looking at this issue, we found that
there were facilities that were built, particularly tribes that
had successful casinos and had the extra money. These tribes
went out and built them, and then came to us saying, hey, we
need to get this staffed. And apparently the Department does
not have the resources not only in the health area, but also in
the law enforcement area to staff those facilities. But we have
addressed that problem?
Mr. McSwain. On the Indian Health Service side, I know
where you are going with, for example, there were several
detention centers that were built with no program in mind.
Mr. Simpson. Right.
Mr. McSwain. And they have come to us and said, oh, can you
put your behavioral health program in that detention center.
But for purposes of healthcare delivery, like a health center
or a hospital, if it is a joint venture, we have a conversation
with them, they apply for it, and they are approved it. We go
through a two-step process. They give us their ideas. We review
them. We move to the second level which they have a business
plan.
But at the end, we will reach agreement with them. And
currently the last go-round, we had 13 that actually qualified
for consideration. We started out with three at the top that we
have agreed, and they are on schedule, and they will be
reflected in upcoming budgets. And because the other ones were
small in terms of staffing requirements, we went ahead and did
all seven. We added four. And the idea behind it, so it is a
combination.
Now, in terms of facilities meaning access to care. And the
tribes have elected to build if they have got the wherewithal,
and you mentioned casinos. The tribes can build them, and we
will partner with them and staff it with staff. And, of course,
this new one where we have done this for a while is that we
have a proposal for a small ambulatory because, and, again, in
the interest of providing access to care, that was a very
successful program. They can leverage the funds that we give
them with other agencies and matching.
But the idea is they can have a facility that they can then
have available for access to care on their reservations or in
their communities. It is usually a health station, and you will
see that in our budget. But to answer your question, no, I
mean, there have been some of those, but they know the Joint
Venture Program. In fact, they know the rules. Do not turn the
dirt because you have not been approved. And we have to have an
agreement that has been finalized.
In fact, just yesterday we finalized a major one with the
Cherokee Nation about they are doing a complete redo of the
Hastings Hospital and expanding it rather significantly, again,
for the people in that part of the country.
CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS
Mr. Simpson. Okay. 2 years ago, Congress drafted IHS to
fully fund Contract Supports Costs. In order to do that, IHS
took money from the direct operations. Direct operations funded
some dental positions at headquarters. They need positions
filled, but the funding would now come out of the dental
program. It is kind of a rob Peter to pay Paul situation.
DENTAL
This year direct operations received a $2 million decrease.
I am aware that there are several dental positions at
headquarters that are vacant. Are there still vacancies, and
how many and how long have they been vacant? Will the salaries
come out of the dental program line? Are any of these vacancies
because of funding changes due to Contract Support obligations?
And did meeting the Contract Support costs requirement affect
leadership hiring?
CONTRACT SUPPORT COST
Mr. McSwain. Okay. On the Contract Support Cost area, 2014
was a watershed year, as you pointed out. That year we
projected and we wound up having to find some discretionary
side of the house to be able to meet our full obligation. And
then in 2015, we were able to kind of right the ship a bit, and
in 2016 the President's budget had proposed a mandatory account
or at least full funding. And I think that you all responded by
a law that said we would have a third account with indefinite
funding.
And so, for all intents and purposes, we have moved the
contract support costs into a third account. And even though
our proposal for 2017 is saying we still would like it over in
mandatory because the Supreme Court has made it real clear we
are to pay a hundred percent. And so, we are paying a hundred
percent of all our obligations under contract support costs so
that it will not now be a matter of finding the money on the
discretionary side or taking it away from direct service
programs.
So I feel confident in the future. That is in a good place.
In fact, I know that Deputy Director Smith has been working and
providing leadership to the Contract Support Costs Workgroup.
So we are going to actually have a policy in place that has
been revised since 2001, updated in 2006, and now because of
the court case we need to reissue that policy, and then put
everything in a place where there is an agreed-upon policy.
And I think we are real close to a final version, in fact.
It was a hard lift. I think we have had a contract support cost
workgroup working on this since 2010, and we are beginning to
see where it is going to put that in a proper location, and the
fact that we will continue to meet our obligations at a hundred
percent without adversely affecting the rest of the budget.
DENTAL
Mr. Simpson. What about the dental aspect to it?
Mr. McSwain. The dental aspect of it, we have some
vacancies, but the director of the Oral Health Division who is
filling those positions is not being told otherwise. He is not
constrained because we went into a freeze in order to meet our
obligations, and that included dental. But now he has been
given the green light to go ahead and fill these positions.
Mr. Simpson. Okay.
Mr. McSwain. And it is going to be a challenge around the
country. It is a challenge similar to other healthcare
professionals. Dental is a challenge in many of our locations.
We do have some dental vacancies. And, again, with your
support, we have increased the numbers of loan repayment
programs that would help us fill those positions.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Kilmer.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for being with
us. I guess the good part of going last is a lot of stuff I
wanted to ask about has been talked about, including mental
health to opioids.
TELEMEDICINE
I do want to talk about something that has not been
discussed. I represent an area that has a lot of rural coastal
tribes, and they face some unique challenges. The conversation
around telemedicine I think is valuable when you are
geographically isolated, but is less helpful if you do not have
access to high-speed internet.
Being able to provide care in your community is a challenge
if your care facility, which is the case for one of the tribes
I represent also serves as your emergency response center and
is right in the path of the tsunami zone.
So I guess my question is, does IHS look at those sorts of
challenges? What do we do for those remote, geographically
isolated tribes in terms of being able to provide healthcare in
those communities? How can we as members of Congress help?
Mr. McSwain. That is an excellent question, Congressman
Kilmer. It is interesting. I was sort of reflecting on where
your question was going. How did we discover penicillin? And
the notion is that we were faced with a challenge.
And I think in the case of telemedicine, we are facing
right now a real challenge of ensuring that we can provide
quality access to very remote locations. We have got some great
models, and Alaska is a great model insofar as telemedicine.
For them to travel to any one is between a $10,000 and $15,000
one-way trip. So there is the need to have it certainly
available.
A recent, and certainly going back to Great Plains area, is
that we are looking at stationing telemedicine staff in some of
the remote locations, and how do we go about doing that.
Bandwidth is a big issue clearly, I mean, because if you are
talking about simply having communication and access is one
thing. But if you are going to move large files, X-ray files
and such across that, now you are going to really be challenged
on bandwidth. And some of our isolated locations in the country
become a real issue. But we are working with our fellow
agencies about how to begin to address the bandwidth, if you
will.
And, of course, the other part of it, too, telemedicine,
you have got to have both ends. You have got to have the folks
at the other end that is available to manage the patients
coming into the center, whether it is behavioral health, which
is even more so, or whether it is medical. We do a really great
retinopathy program that we are doing by telemedicine. We are
able to do reds. I was in Elko, Nevada and had my eye checked,
and I was being told it was being read in Phoenix.
And so, that is those kinds of abilities. And I think as a
system, it is my view that we need the tool that we can use in
the absence of having a full staff out there. In some places
you do not merit having, let us say, for example, an
optometrist in the community because it is too small. But you
can certainly have telehealth available for that community. And
that is where we are going to go.
So I think from an agency stance, we are doing that across
the country. First it was by urgency, and now we have a design
to move ahead.
Mr. Kilmer. I would certainly love to follow up with you
and your team on how you work with those other agencies on
making telemedicine a reality. I also think we have got to
figure out how to make sure care facilities do not end up in
the path of tsunami. If you are a coastal tribe, I think that
is a real problem.
SUBSTANCE ABUSE: OPIOID
I also wanted to just follow up on one of the issues that
Ms. Pingree mentioned with opioid abuse, and you touched on
naloxone kind of availability. Just can you give us a sense of
whether there are adequate resources available to have that
deployed and to have law enforcement trained? I know that that
is looked at as a potential resource to at least avoid
fatalities associated with overdose. So I am just curious
whether the IHS had adequate funding to roll that out.
Mr. McSwain. We have not been adversely affected to move
ahead, and we have been using certainly our prime vendor, which
is a special agreement we have with VA on making available
naloxone for purposes of deploying it. And our relationship
with BIA, with the Bureau and law enforcement, for example, and
tribal law enforcement people is such that I think that if we
start to project that we are going to be adversely affected by
that, but otherwise we are making it available.
Mr. Kilmer. Are the communities that ask for it getting it?
Mr. McSwain. Right. Right.
Mr. Kilmer. No one is being told no?
Mr. McSwain. No one is being told no at this point. And,
again, it is a supply that is available. If it grows, I guess,
in demand, we will have to address that as well.
Mr. Kilmer. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MEDICARE AND MEDICAID
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. I will just ask another question
here. The Federal government funds many of the healthcare
programs for which American Indians and Alaska Natives are
eligible to receive services free of charge. Full enrollment in
these programs can stretch limited appropriations to the Indian
Health Service much further. Could you update the committee on
Indian Health Service's efforts to achieve full enrollment for
the eligible service population?
Mr. McSwain. I am not so certain I quite understand your
question, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. What are you doing to encourage people to
enroll in Medicare and Medicaid programs.
Mr. McSwain. Oh, okay. Coming through our system, we have
the benefits offices certainly as a patient comes into a given
center. The first place they are going to go is patient
registration, which then begins to tease out what are they
eligible for. Are they eligible for Medicare or are they
eligible for Medicaid? Do they have private insurance? And if
they are eligible for Medicaid, we enroll, get them enrolled.
It is interesting. It is a voluntary system for us. We
translate the importance of the ability to bill Medicaid and
Medicare for them because we can turn that into additional
services provided by that given facility because, as you know,
the law that was authorized in 2010 said all collections will
return to the facility which generated them.
And so, there is certainly an incentive to have them get
enrolled. I mean, there was a time that tribal people would
push back and say, wait a minute, do not you have a trust
responsibility to us? Why do you make me sign up for this
other, and when we explain to them how important it is, then we
have seen the numbers go up. Have we maximized? I do not
believe we have maximized, and clearly, of course, it gets into
whether the State has expanded Medicaid.
But I think in any case, we want to make sure we maximize
availability. And if they are veterans, then we will sign them
up, and we will bill VA for their services.
Mr. Calvert. Well, it certainly helps us on our
appropriations process if we are able to move that across. I
certainly would encourage you to do that because we have
challenges just to increase the appropriations this year, just
to stay even with the increased cost in healthcare in Indian
country.
So anything that we can do to offset some of this is
certainly important. Do you have a thought?
Ms. Smith. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I think we have been working
a lot more closely with CMS to try to see if we can think of
some creative thing to have like easier eligibility for both
programs and working more collaboratively with CMS. So I think
we are making strides in that area, and we are going to
continue doing that.
Mr. Calvert. Okay, good.
Mr. McSwain. Yeah, let me just add to that. That is an
important point, Mary. And that was that we have added another
person to our senior staff. Her job is Deputy Director, Quality
Care, but she had a vast experience with CMS, and she brings up
these new ideas. For example, the new idea was just recently I
had not heard of this, but auto enrollment.
Ms. Smith. Yeah.
Mr. McSwain. Actually when patients come in, we can get
them enrolled automatically. So, I mean, that will expedite and
expand our ability to ensure that as many people as possible
are covered, and, therefore, we will be able to generate some
additional resources for those clinics. And that will maybe
take a little load off you.
SUBSTANCE ABUSE
Mr. Calvert. Right. Thank you. Ms. Pingree.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, I appreciate your
being here today, and just one brief question here. Maybe you
have talked a little bit about this, but I do not think so,
about the coordination with SAMHSA. As I understand, in 2014
they created an Office of Tribal Affairs. I am just curious
about how you work with them. We have talked a lot about
behavioral health issues, how the collaboration with them
works. Are they informed by the Indian Health Service? Are you
informed by them? Just what that relationship is like and how
you benefit from it.
Ms. Smith. That is an excellent question, and the reason I
am sort of happy about the question is that we have had a
consolidation, if you will, in Rockville. So SAMHSA now, and we
have moved into the 5600 Fishers Lane, and so has SAMHSA. So
they are just in the building.
Ms. Pingree. Great.
Mr. McSwain. And so, it has made our coordination a whole
lot easier. But even before that, we have been working together
with SAMHSA on their community, and we have traded many
efforts, if you will. We have got a grant going out, we let
them know. They have got a grant going out, they let us know.
And if there is an outbreak somewhere, Kana Enomoto over at
SAMHSA is quick to call us. If there is a tribe out there that
reaches up through SAMHSA, we get a call. I mean, just recently
a tribe out in California had a series of suicides. So, I mean,
there is a more growing collaboration between SAMHSA and Indian
Health Service as it pertains to what SAMHSA can do versus what
we can do, and then we collaborate.
And I think going back to the example of, I think there was
a question raised about coordination. I thought we were
coordinating well, but it turned out that we had a couple of
sites out on one of the reservations that were not coordinating
at all. They funded a clinic, a program, and we are funding a
clinic, and the two folks across town, a small community, had
not talked. And so, we corrected that. You talk to your
grantee, and I will talk to our folks, and we will get that
coordination.
So we are having more of that coordination on the ground,
which is so easy for us to say, well, they are in the same
building. But, no, to answer your question on point is it has
increased and will continue to increase as we begin to look at
what they are being funded for versus what we are funded for.
And the major distinction is we are a healthcare system,
and so we are delivering care, whereas they are delivering
funds to the community to develop the community capacity. And
so, for us still to work together as we bring about a
maximizing of our efforts.
Ms. Pingree. That is good to hear. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Simpson.
DENTAL
Mr. Simpson. More than 5 years ago, HHS decided to take
approach to early childhood caries, a childhood epidemic in
Indian Country. They recruited and trained healthcare workers
beyond the dental program to work with kids and families on how
to recognize and prevent disease. Working with 1- to 5-year-
olds was the first step in addressing oral disease.
Now the program has launched and they are ready to move
onto other oral disease categories. Early childhood caries was
the dental program's first 5-year initiative. What will follow
that?
Mr. McSwain. I think on point, the--oh, I am sorry. I
thought it was on. Thank you. Certainly Dr. Lozon and company
at IHS headquarters is, in fact, continuing the initiative
through the next 2 years and clearly, is conducting the ECC
sites again. So we have not lost track of the fact that early
childhood caries is still a very light program. I mean, we have
not stopped that. Just yesterday, Dr. Lozon, I asked him where
is our program, and he said, no, we are expanding. So we are
going to continue.
CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS
Mr. Simpson. Okay. I want to ask a question that I probably
should not ask because somebody will say what are you thinking.
There used to be a saying around here 5, or 6, 7 or 8 years ago
in Indian Country, ``Do not get sick after June because all the
money ran out.'' That is something that this committee
concentrated on, trying to provide the funding that is needed
for Contract Support Costs at a level where healthcare was
available. Now, the saying is ``Do not get sick after
September.'' We are moving along in the right direction.
What is your authority to transfer funds within accounts to
meet issues that come up, like if you run out of money for
Contract Support Costs? Can you move money between accounts?
And the reason I ask this is the Forest Service has the ability
that when they have catastrophic wildfires going on, they can
take funds out of different accounts to make sure that they
fight those wildfires. Now, we do not like that in this
committee.
Can you do that, or do you have to go through reprogramming
process?
Mr. McSwain. We have certainly authority up to--let me
check. Is it up to a million? Up to a million to move between
budget activities. Anything more than that, then we come in for
your clearance.
REPROGRAMMING
Mr. Simpson. On the reprogramming?
Mr. McSwain. Yeah, on the reprogramming. Now----
Mr. Simpson. Is that an appropriate level, or should it be
more?
Mr. McSwain. Well, we can get back to you on that I think.
So far, it has not affected us.
[The information follows:]
At present, IHS has the authority to reprogram up to $1 million
dollars between activities within one appropriation account. In the
case of contract support costs, IHS no longer requires reprogramming of
funds due to the separate, indefinite appropriation provided in the FY
2016 Omnibus. Furthermore, IHS does not have the authority to move
money between appropriation accounts. At the current time, IHS does not
anticipate a need to increase the existing reprogramming authority.
Mr. McSwain. But getting to your other question that you
raised, Congressman----
Mr. Simpson. Before you answer that, the challenge
obviously is that when you look at healthcare services, when
you look at less important programs versus trying to transfer
money out of those, there are no less important programs often
times. If you look at the Forest Service, they can say, we are
not going do trail maintenance this day and nobody dies from
it.
So it is a different challenge that you face, but if you
could move money between less, and I hate to say less
important, but less critical programs to more critical accounts
when they run out of funds, would a million dollars be
sufficient, or would increased authority in that arena be
advantageous?
Mr. McSwain. Yeah, I think increased authority would not
hurt. But I think there are two ways to answer this question.
One is 60 percent of our program is contracted by tribes.
Tribes have the legal authority to redesign. They can move
money around. On the direct side because we are running the
direct certainly on our side, then we are looking at the
accounts. And I think the one-year raise at the outset is that,
no, it is no longer June and it is no longer September. We got
through. And what you are most likely talking about is a
catastrophic emergency health fund, and that is the one that
was running out of money because of the numbers of large cases.
We are going to have to look a little bit because we are
getting ready to publish, and I think we have not published it
yet. The reauthorization enabled us to reduce the threshold to
$19,000 instead of $25,000. And that may have an effect on the
numbers of high-cost cases coming in, which means that we will
have to take another look at it.
And because of that, we have asked for a $3 million
increase in our CHEF account for 2017. Just if we implement
that change in threshold, then you may hear that again, but I
do not think so. I think we are okay. But I think the authority
to move money around in a health system is always an item, but
I think on our side certainly we can talk with folks as to
whether or not that is something we would want to propose.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you for being here today, and thanks for
the work you do. It is, as you can tell from this committee's
support, vitally important that we address not only the
healthcare needs, but the other needs in Indian Country. And we
do have a trust responsibility this committee takes very
seriously. So thank you for what you do.
Mr. Calvert. Just to clarify on Mr. Simpson's question,
when we are talking about moving funds, we are not just talking
about moving funds within the Health Service. Can you move
funds from outside of the Health Service within the Bureau's
accounts? I think maybe that is what he is also asking. Have
you ever moved money outside of your particular line, out of
the Indian Health Service account?
Mr. McSwain. We clearly have always had two accounts, and
then, of course, with the addition of contract support costs.
And the whole distinction is we would not move any money from
the Service's budget into the facilities budget or conversely.
I mean, those are walled off, and we do not do it. We would
reprogram within, for example, a subset of activities like
dental to agency and conversely, but, again, very limited.
Folks are pretty jealous about, you know, let us talk if
you are talking about trying to move money from this category
to this category.
Mr. Calvert. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that.
Mr. McSwain. Okay.
Mr. Calvert. Well, I certainly want to thank you for your
attendance today. We appreciate your coming to our hearing. We
wish you well. You have a big challenge ahead of you. We will
try to work with you the best we can to help you meet those
challenges.
With that, if there are no further questions, we are
adjourned.
Mr. McSwain. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, February 25, 2016.
OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION
WITNESS
CHRIS BAVASI, OFFICE OF NAVAJO AND HOPI INDIAN RELOCATION
Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert
Mr. Calvert. Good afternoon, and welcome to this oversight
hearing on the Fiscal Year 2017 budget of the Office of Navajo
and Hopi Indian Relocation.
The Relocation Program in Arizona impacts relatively few
Americans, but to those it does impact, it does so deeply and
in personal ways. Being told to relocate from one's home and
pull up one's own roots can be devastating to a family and to
any community no matter what incentives are offered to try and
make the process easier.
Perhaps that is why the Navajo and Hopi land dispute has
been called the greatest land title problem in the West, and
perhaps that is why the Relocation Program, which was created
to solve the problem, was expected to take 5 years and cost $41
million. Well, it continues today 40 years later and $568
million after its inception.
We are here today because this subcommittee has redoubled
its efforts to succeed where so many good people before us have
fallen short. In December of 2014 at the subcommittee's
request, the inspector general of the Department of the
Interior published a report concluding that the Office of
Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation cannot complete its work and
cease operations in the near future without legislative changes
and/or an increase in annual appropriations. The inspector
general further pointed out that the increasing appropriations
in the short term is a more cost effective strategy than
continuing with the status quo. The report recommended that
this subcommittee consider alternatives and determine an
approach that will best control costs and complete the
relocation mission in an acceptable, judicious, and timely
manner.
In January 2015, members of this subcommittee visited the
Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Nation to see the challenge firsthand
and to hear from those most directly affected about what has
gone right, and what has gone wrong, and where we should go
from here. The message we heard was clear: do not leave until
you finish the job.
In December 2015, the subcommittee more than doubled the
Relocation Program's budget to $15 million in Fiscal Year 2016
in order to reduce the backlog of 96 certified applicants
awaiting relocation and to work through 200 additional known
appeals. Just this week, the Office of Inspector General
released its second subcommittee commissioned report which
looked into the allegations made by relocated families that
homes and infrastructure are incomplete or in need of repair.
The law says that the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian
Relocation shall cease to exist when the President determines
that its functions have been fully discharged. In consultation
with this subcommittee, the Agency has set a goal to complete
its work so that the next President can be in a position to
make such a determination by September 30th, 2018, about 2 and
half years from now.
The Fiscal Year 2017 budget proposes a modest 3 percent
increase to work with the Navajo Nation, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs, and the other Federal departments and agencies to
ensure that this program can be brought to a fair end, and to
ensure that any responsibilities remaining after the closure
will be transferred to the appropriate Federal or Navajo
entities.
Cleary there is much to be done, and the devil is always in
the details. Hopefully today's hearing will flush out some of
those details and begin to put us on a path to completion as
quickly as possible, but not a day faster than is needed to
ensure that those affected by the program have been treated
fairly, honorably, and with dignity.
This is not a partisan issue. It is a human issue. It is a
nation-to-nation issue. It is an opportunity to make good on a
commitment to shake hands and let deep wounds begin to heal.
My former boss, the late President Ronald Reagan, once
said, ``No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size,
so government programs once launched never disappear.''
Actually a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal
life we will ever see on this earth. If he were alive today, he
may have to make at least one exception.
I am pleased to be joined today by my subcommittee
colleagues as well as the senior leadership team of the Office
of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation, executive director, Chris
Bavasi, chief financial officer, Nancy Thomas, chief counsel,
Larry Ruzow. Welcome. It is nice to see you all again. Thank
you once again for your hospitality last year during the
subcommittee's visit.
Before turning to you for your opening statement, allow me
to ask my friend and colleague, the subcommittee's ranking
member, Betty McCollum, for her opening remarks that she might
wish to make. Ms. McCollum.
Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum
Ms. McCollum. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Good
afternoon, Mr. Bavasi, and for those of you who are joining us
here today for this hearing.
When Congress created the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian
Relocation in 1988, it did not envision that the office would
be still be operating 28 years later, and that families would
still be awaiting relocation. America has a responsibility to
meet its commitments to the Navajo and Hopi people. We are here
today to better understand the status of the relocation effort,
and whether or not the office is prepared to start closeout of
the relocation process and the office.
Throughout its history, as the Chairman pointed out, the
relocation process has been very controversial, and there have
been significant delays. The emotional toll on the families
that we met with is one that will be with me forever. The issue
has been going on for too long, and now it is time to just
resolve it.
In January of last year when the Chairman, and I, and
others traveled to Arizona, we were able to meet with the
families, both Navajo and Hopi tribal members, as well as the
staff from the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation. We
listened carefully as they explained some of the challenges
that were still out there that they were facing, and some of
the opportunities and possibilities they saw in bringing this
to closure. In recognition of what we learned on that trip,
this committee, as the Chairman pointed out, doubled the
appropriation Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation to
$15 million. This year, the budget request for the office
maintains that higher level.
I am hopeful today that we will learn how that increase has
been used to ensure that the relocations are done in a more
expeditious manner, that they will continue to be done in an
expeditious manner, and that the proper mechanisms are in place
to address any responsibilities that may exist into the future.
Clearly, Congress owes the Navajo and Hopi people the
opportunity to bring closure to this issue so that they can
start moving forward on working on their future. But we must do
so in a proper fashion.
I look forward to your testimony. Mr. Chairman, I thank you
for the time, but I also thank you for the trip that you
arranged with the staff to go out there to work on this
problem.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. And, Mr. Bavasi, you are
recognized.
Opening Remarks of Mr. Bavasi
Mr. Bavasi. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Chairman Calvert----
Voice. Microphone.
Mr. Bavasi. Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum,
members of the subcommittee, and subcommittee staff, you have
our detailed statement, but I would like to just say how
pleased I am to have the opportunity to appear before the
subcommittee today and discuss the Office of Navajo and Hopi
Indian Relocation's Fiscal Year 2017 budget request with you,
and answer any questions you may have.
Before discussing our 2017 budget request, I would like to
express our gratitude to Chairman Calvert and the subcommittee
for increasing our Fiscal Year 2016 appropriation so that we
could begin to eliminate the backlog of Navajo households who
have been certified as eligible for relocation benefits, but
were awaiting appropriated funds so that the promise of a new
home could become a reality. I also express the gratitude of
some 60 Navajo households and families who will sign contracts
this year for a new home, about 44 of whom would otherwise have
been required to wait several years more before they could sign
the contract for their new home.
As set forth in the President's budget, most of the money
we are seeking in Fiscal Year 2017 is to provide housing and
housing infrastructure for Navajos who have been certified as
eligible for relocation homes. So, again, I would like to thank
you for allowing me to come before you today.
[The statement of Mr. Bavasi follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
CLOSE-OUT DATE FOR THE RELOCATION PROGRAM
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. We will get right into it. The
Department of the Interior's inspector general recommends that
Congress legislate a sunset date for the Relocation Program,
and provide the requisite level of appropriations to meet the
Agency's statutory obligations by that date. You testified that
the Agency is focused on completing its work so that the next
President can make a determination on whether to close at the
end of Fiscal Year 2018.
The question is, since current law puts the decision in the
President's hands, is there a reason why it still may be
necessary for Congress to legislate a sunset date?
Mr. Bavasi. Well, I think by doing that you set a sense of
urgency that perhaps is not there today.
Mr. Calvert. Does a determination that the Agency's
functions have been fully discharged mean that the Federal
government's work is done?
Mr. Bavasi. Not necessarily. It means that work of the
office is done. However, there may be other areas the Federal
government might have to take on.
Mr. Calvert. Much of the appeal and relocation process is
out of the Agency's hands. Can a determination be made that the
Agency's functions have been fully discharged if a case is
pending before the court or not everyone has been relocated?
Mr. Bavasi. We think that it can. Those responsibilities
can be handled by others.
Mr. Calvert. Okay. We all know that failing to plan is the
same as planning to fail. My sense is that you are still very
early in the closeout and transition planning process, and that
in order to meet your target date you will have to pick up that
pace considerably and immediately. Is that a fair assessment?
Mr. Bavasi. I think it is fair, but I would also like to
remind you that this is not new to us, meaning that this whole
notion of transition has been in play for a very long time. We
thought actually prior to the Noller Herbert case that we would
be going out of business a number of years ago.
So we were working a number of years ago now with BIA, with
the Navajo Nation, and the chapter, to develop a transition
plan. That did not occur, as you know, and so this, again, is
not new to us. We have a lot of experience in this, and so we
have already started meeting with the stakeholders to
reinstitute that transition plan.
QUARTERLY STATUS REPORTS
Mr. Calvert. Yeah. Will you commit to providing the
committee with a quarterly status report from this point
forward to see where we are at and where we are going?
Mr. Bavasi. Sure. Absolutely.
Mr. Calvert. The law says that your Agency may call upon
any other Federal agency for assistance, and that any failure
to provide reasonable assistance must be reported to Congress.
So that would be helpful if going forward we continue to
communicate and find out how we are doing. Our intent is to
close this out in Fiscal Year 2018, so we want to make sure
that there is no reason for that not to happen.
Mr. Bavasi. We agree.
Mr. Calvert. Okay. Ms. McCollum, you are recognized.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I concur with the
request that the chair is making. I think a quarterly report
will be very helpful.
TRANSFERS TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES
I want to raise something that happened in my office
yesterday. Yesterday I was sitting down with some tribal
leaders from the Navajo Nation, and we were discussing the
water settlement and all the great potential and everything
that they have moving forward on their community development. I
was surprised to hear that as they are moving forward with
their business to serve those families, that ONHIR has been
working with them on the role of business capacity leases.
In your testimony, which is not numbered, but it is the
last page that I have, you have a statement to continue this
fine program with the livestock that you are working on. ``When
we are gone it will present challenges for us, the Navajo
Nation, and for the local community.'' You go on to add to that
the Bureau of Indian Affairs. But you are confident that you
can collaboratively come up with a solution.
Are you taking on some new responsibilities with the
understanding or discussions with other agencies that
responsibilities are going to be transferred to them, and that
they are part of the discussion? Can you explain to me, besides
the housing, how you are prepared to close out other things? We
just do not want the housing closed out. We need to have
everything closed and transferred.
Mr. Bavasi. Absolutely. The only other thing that we are, I
think what you are referring to, are the new lands----
Ms. McCollum. Yes.
Mr. Bavasi [continuing]. And some of the programs on the
new lands, like the demonstration ranch and the Range
Maintenance and Management Program. These subjects are not
foreign to the Navajo Nation, or the chapter, or BIA. And so,
we have been in discussions with all of them about how to
transition these programs to them, and we will be coming
forward with that transition plan.
Ms. McCollum. Well, Mr. Chair, I think we are going to need
to know how much that costs because those are going to be costs
incurred by BIA now. We have been very successful working
together in a nonpartisan fashion to meet some of the needs of
the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Education and health we just
discussed earlier today. I do not know how significant the
amount is or what the expectation is going to be for BIA, and
for this committee, to have a new line item. I do not know if
there is going to be authorization authority that is going to
be required to transfer those funds or not.
Explain to us how this is going to work and how you are
going to account for the dollars in the transfer.
Mr. Bavasi. Not all of the things I just mentioned have
costs associated with them. For instance, the demonstration
ranch is self-supporting, and we believe that it has the
potential to be a revenue generator for the area. And so, that
should not have any costs associated with it when it transfers.
And we are not certain where that would transfer to, whether it
be the Navajo Nation, the chapter, or they have developed a
separate corporation out there made up of what they call the 14
Rs, the 14 range units. And so, that is a possibility.
The maintenance program and the Well Maintenance, Fencing
Maintenance Program and the Range Management Program will have
a cost associated with it, which I can give you the exact
numbers. Not today, but I can certainly get to you what it
costs on an annual basis. And the question is whether or not
the chapter and/or, BIA, or the Nation, whoever ends up doing
those things, wants to continue it at the same level that we
do. But I can certainly get you those numbers.
Mr. Calvert. That would be helpful if you could submit that
for the record.
[The information follows:]
Annual Range Management Costs
The yearly costs to carry out range management activities on the
New Lands area held in trust by ONHIR area about $810,000--$610,000 in
salaries for 10 employees, and $200,000 in materials and supplies.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to have those
numbers. We need to understand if there were leases, contracts,
memorandums of understanding--whatever was incurred with your
office--that are going to be transferring over. If those are
considered legal instruments, what the responsibility is, and
whether or not it changes with the resettlement moving forward.
As you described to us and the committee, in the past when you
thought you had noticed everybody to the very best of your
intentions, you ended up in court, and then you had to re-
notice folks again for the relocation.
We need to head off any potential misunderstandings, any
potential miscommunication, and clearly know what these costs
are and what responsibilities are being transferred over to
other agencies. That is very important for this committee to
have, because, in essence, we are closing out the housing
relocation, but we are still continuing some of the other
issues.
You said that the Navajo Nation might want to continue the
ranch. It is self-sufficient, and it is done. But we need to
know that that is a mutual understanding, and there has been
consultation with the Navajo Nation on that, and that it is
clearly spelled out.
Mr. Bavasi. I am not sure I could agree with you more on
all of those things. That would be part of the transition plan
that we will be getting to you hopefully on more than a
quarterly basis.
Ms. McCollum. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think it could have
been some of the discussion earlier with us on the transfer.
Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady. Mr. Cole.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And, again, I
want to thank you, and the Ranking Member, and your
predecessor, Mr. Simpson, for really working hard to try and
bring this program to an appropriate and successful conclusion.
It has not been an easy task obviously, and you are to be
commended.
And I want to tell our friends, we appreciate your help and
your hospitality when we were out there. It was an eye-opening
experience, and I felt like we got a lot of candid advice and a
lot of history. I was very pleased with the level of
cooperation we received.
I am going to have a series of questions, but I am going to
posit something. My big fear, and I suspect this committee's
big fear, is if we get to the end of 2018, and we have doubled
the budget essentially, that just means we are going to have
another 40 years with a higher budget. That is how I would
describe failure, and there is some danger of that. I do not
point fingers at anybody here, but given the history of the
program, there is every reason to believe that could happen. It
cannot be an ``in-perpetuity housing program.'' We have housing
programs.
STATUS UPDATE
So if you will, give me an idea of where we are in the
process, the number of families that are eligible, if you will,
the scale of the task in front of you, and how fast are we
proceeding in getting people appropriately taken care of and
relocated.
Mr. Bavasi. We have at the moment 92 families that need
relocation benefits. There are at this moment about 185, 190
appeals. And in the past, the success rate ratio for an appeal
has been about 10 percent. So we are thinking another 20
families perhaps, so we are talking a little over hundred
families that will need benefits. And so, we should be done. We
will have 60 this year. We will have 60 contracts signed this
year, and should be able to finish the rest by 9/30/18.
HOUSING PROGRAM
Mr. Cole. That is good. Now, when we had the genuine
pleasure of visiting the area, we visited Navajo Community East
Mill and Hopi Spider Mound. In those areas there were houses
that had been built that were deficient. So it is one thing to
take care of people that have been on a waiting list and moving
along there.
Tell me about where we are with folks that were given
houses in good faith, and those houses were not appropriately
built. Where are we in resolving that? Are we going to have to
go back and rebuild? Can things be repaired, and how big a
problem is that going to be?
Mr. Bavasi. Well, that is a difficult question.
Mr. Cole. It was meant to be. [Laughter.]
Mr. Bavasi. Yeah, meaning that I do not know how difficult
it is going to be for you, but our program is not a perpetual
housing program. Our program was intended to be over much more
quickly than it is, and I think we all know the variety of
reasons why it has not been completed. But one is that this is
not a forced relocation program, so people frequently take
their time to get through it, number one. Number two, probably
more importantly, when this was first discussed in Congress, it
was planned to be about 1,000 families. This turned out to be
over 3,800 families that have been certified, so that is one
reason it has taken longer than it needs to.
But we have the mechanism in place to build the houses and
build them quickly as long as we have the appropriations, and
thank you for that. And so, we should be able to have this done
without any problem at all in the time frame we said.
Mr. Cole. Well, is there any provision or concern, again,
you know, we certainly heard complaints about this house was
appropriately built, that sort of thing. Number one, is that
true. There is a big difference between something that has not
been cared for appropriately and something that was built
defectively. So I know you have to sort through that.
I am interested in how big a problem that is, and how we
resolve that portion so that insofar as we can, people that
think they were given homes that were poorly built or poorly
sided, whether there is legitimacy to that complaint, and that
they are resolved.
Mr. Bavasi. Any complaint we get, regardless of what it is
or how old the home is, we will go out and inspect without
question. If it is a latent defect, meaning a defect we did not
spot when we were building the home, we will fix it
immediately. If it is under warranty we will fix it
immediately.
Generally that is not the case. Generally for an older
home, it is what we refer to as homeowner maintenance issues.
And, you know, folks are expected to maintain their homes like
anyone else would. And so, all the houses that we have built in
my tenure there have met all international codes. So there has
not been, at least in the evidence that I am aware of, of
faulty construction.
Mr. Cole. Yeah, and I do not think there has been in terms
of during your tenure and the people that were there. There
were certainly some concerns that pre-date you. It is a problem
you inherited, so I do not want you to think this was directed
at you or any of your current employees. But we did see some
instances.
ELIGIBILITY APPEALS PROCESS
I am curious as to how those cases get resolved. Is there
an appeal process for that, you know, so that there is some
adjudication of this, if you will?
Mr. Bavasi. Well, when they come to us, that is what I was
saying. I was not trying to be flip. I am not sure what problem
you may have because when they come to us, you come to us with
a problem, we immediately inspect it.
Mr. Cole. Okay.
Mr. Bavasi. If we are responsible, we will fix it
immediately. If not, well then, we will tell you exactly what
has caused the problem, what you need to fix the problem, and
that is the end of our responsibility.
Mr. Cole. Okay. You have been generous with your time, and
I will finish with this question about the appeals process. As
I understand it, it will last beyond your tenure, assuming we
reach the guidelines or the target dates that we are
collectively shooting for here.
Tell me how that works, how anything, for which there is a
legitimate appeal gets resolved once the office itself goes out
of existence. Who would be responsible for, if a judgment is
rendered, paying that judgment? I think that is one of Ms.
McCollum's concerns, too. We do not want to just end the
office. We do want to discharge the functions fairly and
appropriately, and we want to make sure if there is some after
math, that it gets taken care of and we do indeed end the
effort.
Mr. Bavasi. Our plan is to have all of the homes built by
the time we are out of business, to have everyone have gone
through the appeals process by the time we are finished.
However, you are correct, there will be a 6-month--excuse me--
6-year time that they can appeal to the Federal courts that
determination. And as we have discussed in the past, that is
going to be some kind of responsibility, and we have not quite
figured that one out yet, but it is going to be Justice
Department and the Department of the Interior. I am not sure
how that is going to work. And we have also talked about the
possibility of having some kind of a trust fund set up to
accommodate if there were to be----
JUDGMENT FUND
Mr. Cole. Well, just out of curiosity, and I will direct
this to the staff to my colleagues, is this something like the
judgment fund or something would be in a position, because that
is a very substantial fund, and it is a pretty well-established
method as to how we handle those. And what you do not want to
leave are people hanging out there, or forcing BIA or somebody
else to pick up some obligation that they had not anticipated
which diverts funds from someplace else.
Mr. Calvert. If the gentleman would yield, I am hopeful
that as we go through this process over the next 2\1/2\ years,
and the questions are legitimate questions that are being
asked, are addressed early, one, get that out there. And I am
sure even after this offices closes that we probably will have
to move some money over to the BIA to carry on some of these
legacy responsibilities.
You know, we were out there at Spider Mill, and it seemed
to me just looking at it from my old job as a builder that
there were some subsidence issues around there, and there may
be some legitimate concern over and above, you know, immediate
construction remedies that you do as a normal course of
business. But that may or may not be the case, I am not sure.
We will leave that to the experts to decide.
Voice. East Mill, sir.
Mr. Calvert. What is that?
Voice. East Mill, not Spider Mill.
Mr. Calvert. Excuse me, East Mill. I think we need to make
sure we have a budget when we conclude this where we do not
delay concluding your job, but move that responsibility to
someone else where we can make sure that happens. We need to
work with you to make sure we have sufficient funds to move
over to the BIA, to make sure whether the judgment fund is
involved, and all the rest of it so we can answer those
questions when we move along.
Mr. Cole. I yield back my time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I am not an attorney, but it has
been my experience here in Congress that if things are clearly
settled in a court, then it goes to the judgment fund. That is
why I think we need to know what all these legal documents are
going to look like and what they are. We need to have the
Administration's attorneys look at it, and the congressional
staff review and look at it, so we know exactly what we are
getting into.
HOUSING CONDITIONS: FOUNDATION ISSUES
And I concur with both gentlemen that some of the things
that we saw appear to be the fault of contractors. Then you get
into the issue of warranties. I warranty this or I warranty
that, or it is an act of God. But one of the things that I
found really troubling was that we were in this area where all
the foundations were cracking because there was a helium
deposit underneath that. What has been the resolution on that?
People were asking for that to be checked out. What was the
final resolution on that area?
Mr. Bavasi. Well, that is East Mill, and I do not believe
that it is a helium deposit issue, but I am not an expert on
that. But it is an expansive soil issue. And what we have done
there is we have gone into any house that shows any problems,
we have gone in and fixed the home or replaced it. We have
replaced four homes, and as they come along, if there were to
be another home that needs to be replaced, we would certainly
do that.
Mr. Calvert. If the gentlelady would yield, are you still
building homes in that area?
Mr. Bavasi. No. No, we are not.
Mr. Calvert. Okay.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you for clarifying that. We are done
building homes there. But any time you have a soil condition,
soil conditions can, change at the bat of an eyelash. If you
already know you have a poor soil condition there, that goes
back to people inspecting, and you said everything was state-
of-the-art. Who is overseeing the inspection process, the soil
siting process, all those kinds of things? What code are you
using? Are you using Federal code, State code?
Mr. Bavasi. It is international residential codes (IRCs),
and we do all of the inspection, and we bring in outside
contractors if we need to. In the case of East Mill, we had
some helical piers put in, and so we had outside contractors do
that.
CONTRACTING AND INSPECTION PROCEDURES
Ms. McCollum. Well, I just hope that we are not being too
naive in who we are having do the contracting. I know it goes
out to bidding, and bidding is important. All of us want to
respect the taxpayers' dollars. But some of the things that we
have seen in schools and elsewhere have not given us
confidence, and this is not to you personally.
Mr. Bavasi. Sure.
Ms. McCollum. It has not given us great confidence that
inspection procedures have been carried out to their full
benefit. Sometimes the lowest bid is the best, but we really
need make sure that the inspection process is done properly.
Soil siting at the school that we saw, which has nothing to do
with the project that we are talking about today, but some of
the contract work that we saw at that school was troubling.
When I can see things, and Mr. Calvert, who has a lot more
experience, and Mr. Cole are even seeing more things--things
that were avoidable that the taxpayers are having to go back
and do again.
If there is any help you need in making sure that, even if
we have to double inspect, we need to get this right. I know
that is what you want to do, and I have every confidence you
will do that. But if you need any further help from us on that
because you feel your hands are tied in some way, please do not
hesitate to ask us for our help.
Mr. Bavasi. Thank you. I appreciate that.
RELOCATION PROCESS
Mr. Calvert. Just a couple of other questions on this
relocation process. Does your Agency have the legal authority
to choose an eligible recipient home site for them?
Mr. Bavasi. We do.
Mr. Calvert. How many times has your Agency exercised that
authority?
Mr. Bavasi. None that I am aware of.
Mr. Calvert. With your increased workload and target
closeout date, does your Agency intend to exercise that
authority, if necessary, to meet your deadlines? If not, what
are your alternatives?
Mr. Bavasi. Well, I suppose we will if we need to. We are
hoping that is not the case. Of all of the folks who are
certified eligible at the moment, as I mentioned earlier, there
are only 11 that have not been forthcoming and worked
cooperatively with us. And they have all been notified that
they needed to respond to us more quickly or we would
administratively close the case.
Mr. Calvert. This is important because we do want to come
back here in a year or 2 years and find out that there is a
person that stops this whole process. That is what happened
before. So that is something that is important because, again,
I want to see this close out at the end of 2018.
Any other questions?
Voice. Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce. No, sir.
Mr. Calvert. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. No.
Mr. Calvert. Okay, fine. I appreciate your coming out from
Arizona. We appreciate your being here. Thank you so much. And
this hearing is adjourned.
Mr. Bavasi. Thank you for your help.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 2, 2016.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WITNESSES
HON. SALLY JEWELL, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
MIKE CONNOR, DEPUTY SECRETARY
KRISTEN SARRI, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, POLICY MANAGEMENT
AND BUDGET
Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert
Mr. Calvert. Okay. I think we will get started here. Some
good news. There are not going to be any votes until 5:00, so
we will have no interruptions during this hearing.
So the committee will come to order.
Secretary Jewell, I would like to welcome you to today's
hearing along with Deputy Secretary Mike Connor, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget,
Kris Sarri. Our hearing today will address the Fiscal Year 2017
budget priorities for the Department of Interior.
Madam Secretary, let me begin by wishing you a belated
happy birthday.
Secretary Jewell. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. I heard you climbed a mountain on a wall,
whatever that is.
Female Voice. Which mountain.
Mr. Calvert. Yeah, well, it is one of these mountains you
put on----
Secretary Jewell. There is a rock gym in Arlington.
Mr. Calvert. There you go. [Laughter.]
Secretary Jewell. It was a great party.
Mr. Calvert. Close enough. With the November elections just
around the corner, this may be your last budget hearing before
our subcommittee as Secretary. On behalf of the subcommittee, I
want to thank you for your service and willingness to have
frank discussions regarding the challenges we face.
In particular, I want to thank you for your tireless
personal efforts to reform the Bureau of Indian Education.
Working together, we have made real progress improving the
quality of life and education throughout Indian Country. This
is further evidence that we can work together to find common
ground, even if we do not agree on every issue.
In that spirit, I would like to mention a few things before
we receive your testimony. Overall the President's Fiscal Year
2017 budget request provides $11.9 billion in discretionary
funding for Department of the Interior programs under the
subcommittee's jurisdiction, 1 percent below the Fiscal Year
2016 level. The budget request assumes a reduction of $169
million in discretionary funding for wildfire programs while
providing $290 million for fire programs through a budget cap
adjustment.
The challenge of providing adequate wildfire funding
remains one of the greatest challenges facing our subcommittee.
I want to applaud my friend, former subcommittee chairman, Mike
Simpson, for his continuing efforts to address this issue
through his bipartisan legislation, which by the way has now
145 co-sponsors.
The budget request proposes funding PILT, which is very
critical to our rural communities in the West, on the mandatory
side of the ledger, but without providing an offset. This
budget gimmick will only add to our challenge of addressing
many legitimate needs in this bill.
The centennial of the National Park Service is one of the
highlights of this year's budget request. Last year the
subcommittee made a substantial investment in our national
parks, providing additional funds for Park operations,
addressing longstanding deferred maintenance issues. We will
endeavor to make similar investments this year within the
confines of our 302(b) allocation, which I am sure the chairman
will let us know about pretty soon.
Like many from the West, I am concerned about the President
using authority under the Antiquities Act for designating large
national monuments. President Obama has used this authority 22
times since 2009 to designate nearly 4 million acres as new
national monuments. This is more than every other President,
except Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. These large designations
often disregard the views and concerns of affected communities,
local stakeholders, and their representatives in Congress.
Another challenge facing the Department and the
subcommittee is the Endangered Species Act. ESA is a well-
intentioned statute that has saved numerous species from
extinction, but the authorization has long expired. We can and
must have an open and realistic discussion in Congress about
what is working and what is not.
It is increasingly clear that the Administration's priority
goal is to make several forms of energy uneconomical, even
obsolete. The latest example is the White House using the
Department to double down on its anti-coal agenda by proposing
a 3-year review of the Federal Coal Leasing Program and a
moratorium on new coal leasing on public lands. Many perceive
this as yet another attack on a key industry that supports
energy production and energy jobs in the United States. I
suspect the Department will face a number of lawsuits on the
decision to halt coal leasing on Federal lands. I also expect
you all to encounter significant challenges from the States
should you attempt to increase the cost of coal via higher
bonding requirements.
The committee fully expects the Department to follow the
clear congressional direction from the Fiscal Year 2016 omnibus
working with the States as partners on the stream buffer rule
rather than ignoring States as has been the case since 2010.
This is an issue of great interest and concern to members of
this committee.
I am also concerned that the Administration is taking a
page from the war on coal playbook and applying it to oil
production. It appears that the Department is attempting to
make it as costly as possible to operate offshore facilities so
investors will simply walk away from prospective sites. Onerous
requirements under the well control rule, for example, will
likely lead job producers to opt not to drill in areas
currently producing oil. The result is the Obama Administration
de facto moratorium on oil production without engagement with
Congress.
Lastly, even with the El Nino rains, my home State of
California remains in the midst of a devastating drought
affecting families, businesses, and landscapes across the West.
While this subcommittee is limited in what we can do to address
the drought itself, I implore you and the Department to apply
common sense and take full advantage of opportunities under the
law to store and pump these El Nino rains.
So far, even with the increased rainfall, we have not
pumped as much water as we did last year in the midst of a
drought. We have had 3 times as much as rain, and we have
pumped less water. As of mid-February, more than 192,000-acre
feet, enough water to serve over 2 million people for 1 year,
has been lost because of lack of adequate pumping. That is
pumping within the biological opinion. That is enough water to
serve San Diego and San Francisco combined for a year. I ask
you to use your remaining time as Secretary to provide some
desperately needed relief to the people of my State.
In closing, I once again want to express my appreciation to
the professional staff. Our subcommittee could not do its work
without your budget shop, the various bureaus, and the folks
sitting behind you. Thanks to each of you for everything you
do.
And with that, I am happy to yield to the gentlelady from
Minnesota, Ms. McCollum, for any opening remarks she would like
to make.
Opening Remarks of Congresswoman McCollum
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Secretary Jewell, I
join with the chairman to welcome you to the subcommittee
today. Ms. Sarria, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of
policy, management, and budget, and, Deputy Secretary O'Connor,
I welcome you, too.
Last year, we were able to make great gains in repairing
the damage caused by sequestration, increasing the Department's
funding by $1.3 billion. I am so pleased to see that your
Fiscal Year 2017 budget request builds on that progress. The
Department of Interior budget continues its dedication to
conservation and the protection of America's cultural and
natural resources in so many ways.
The subcommittee is united in its commitment to the social
and economic well-being of Native Americans, so I am pleased
that the budget request advances Indian education by investing
in elementary and secondary education, and by continuing the
more robust Education Construction funding that was enacted
last year. These investments are a good start, but so much more
still needs to be done.
The centennial of the National Park Service is underway,
and the budget takes a forward-looking approach to a second
century of stewardship. It proposes investments necessary to
begin tackling the backlog of maintenance needs across the
National Park system, so that these treasures are preserved for
the enjoyment of current and future visitors. And while I
support these increases, I do have to express my sincere
disappointment with the Department's failure to fund the Save
America's Treasures grant program.
The Department also maintains a commitment to engaging the
next generation to be stewards of the land by dedicating $1.3
million for youth programs. These programs build a strong
foundation for preservation for our natural and historic
heritage through initiatives like Every Kid in a Park and the
Urban Wildlife Conservation Program.
I also appreciate the budget's strong emphasis on strategic
science investments. This work provides data and tools to
inform sound decision making to address complex challenges such
as drought, response to natural hazards, and climate change.
Once again, the Administration is proposing to reform the
way we fund wildfire costs. This proposal will provide a more
reliable way of funding wildfires. Additionally, the budget
does not include funding for payment in lieu of taxes, the PILT
program. Instead, it calls on Congress to do its duty and to
reauthorize the program as mandatory spending.
I support this approach. Counties rely on the Payment in
Lieu of Taxes Program, and discretionary funding does not
provide the certainty that these local units of government
deserve. The rising cost of firefighting and PILT are consuming
a growing portion of the interior bill, and I encourage the
authorizers to address these issues.
Finally, I would be remiss if I did not call attention to
the Department's workforce. The Department of Interior is
70,000 employees strong. These civil servants dedicate their
lives to managing and sustaining our national treasures. They
work relentlessly to ensure that public lands are there for the
collective use and for the appreciation of all of the American
people. They deserve to do their jobs safely and free from
intimidation or abuse. And so, to these men and women, I want
to say thank you to all of you. You are very appreciated.
Madam Secretary, I look forward to your testimony this
afternoon, and I thank the Chairman for the time. I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady, and we are joined
today by our distinguished chairman of the full Appropriations
Committee, Chairman Rogers, and I thank him for taking the time
to contribute to this important conversation. Chairman Rogers,
would you like to make any opening remarks?
Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary,
welcome to the subcommittee. Your Department plays a central
role in the stewardship of our natural resources and the
preservation of our national heritage. From operating fisheries
to running our national parks, even processing permits for coal
mining--a few----
[Laughter.]
Your Department touches almost every aspect of life in my
district as well as those across the country.
Not so long ago, we called on your Department to join an
interagency task force, an effort to raise the water level at
Lake Cumberland back up to its historic pool level while saving
the endangered dusky tailed darter, who, by the way, I learned
last week, is doing just fine in his new habitat. I appreciate
your participation in this important effort, and I am pleased
to report that my constituents are enjoying boating and fishing
on Lake Cumberland once again.
That said, other communities in my district in Kentucky
cannot tell a success story quite like that. In a few short
years, I have seen 10,000 of my miners lose their jobs,
struggling to find work in communities that are experiencing
staggering unemployment. And let me be clear about one thing.
Working in the coalfields was a good job for these miners. This
industry provided high wages and reliable work in my part of
the country for decades, and watching these miners grapple with
starting over again is heartbreaking. Going from a job in a
mine that paid $80,000 to trying to find a job at a McDonalds
unsuccessfully, and trying to pay those bills and raise those
small children.
Not to mention for every one mining job we lose in my area,
we lose three to four more in other industries associated with
it, leaving us with 12 and even 15 percent official
unemployment in some of my counties. We have a real crisis in
Appalachia, and some of the policies championed by your
Department only exacerbate the very real challenges that they
face every day.
Every department in this Administration has bought into the
``keep it in the ground'' strategy with respect to our
country's most abundant resource, each one handing down their
own set of anti-coal edicts aimed at shuttering power plants
and coal companies nationwide. Coal is a plentiful and an
inexpensive commodity, and your Department should be seizing
every opportunity to unlock this resource and maintain its
sizable footprint in our energy economy.
Instead, this Department is perpetuating an unaccountable
regulatory scheme that leaves businesses waiting on permitting
and leasing decisions for months and years even at a time, and
levies unworkable compliance costs on already overburdened job
creators.
A particularly concerning piece of this wrongheaded
regulatory agenda is the Department's proposed stream
protection rule. For over 4 long years now, you have been
spending millions of dollars rewriting the stream buffer zone
rule finalized in 2008. Your Department has led an entirely
mismanaged and insular rulemaking process from the start,
seeking input from no one other than your politically minded
colleagues bent on destroying the coal industry through
regulation. This committee has heard time and again from your
so-called State partners that you have left them completely out
of the rulemaking process.
There is no doubt that this rule will have a tremendous
impact on determining on what coal can and cannot be mined, and
will result in the bulk of it being left in the ground. One
independent analysis of the proposed rule indicates that it
threatens up to 280,000 jobs, most of which are in Appalachia.
That is the equivalent of dozens of small towns in my region,
and a high price to pay for what will be imperceptible
environmental gains.
All the same, your Department doubled down on its anti-coal
stance earlier this year when it issued a moratorium on all
Federal coal lease sales. This decision halts proposed coal
lease sales in nine States, including my home State of
Kentucky, while you engage in an unnecessary study of the
Federal coal leasing process. Even pending lease decisions will
be shelved during this exercise. And you know as well as I that
this moratorium is just another excuse to keep coal off the
market so it cannot compete with other resources.
This approach is not a winning strategy for energy
independence or economic growth in the country. We have an
unemployment crisis in Eastern Kentucky, a disaster, and
despite our efforts to retool and encourage economic
development, these regulations are proving too much to overcome
in some areas.
Efforts such as the AML Pilot Program that this committee
began last year and the President's Power Plus proposal for
economic development on abandoned mine lands represent just a
small portion of what it is going to take to get Appalachia
back on its feet. The job creators in this region need relief
from these onerous regulations in order to keep jobs in the
coalfields online and to turn their good ideas for economic
diversification into employment opportunities.
These issues mean everything to the communities that are
struggling to make ends meet in rural Appalachia. We need to
set the right priorities here in Washington so that they can
resurrect their economies and put their people back to work.
Having said that, I look forward to hearing your testimony
today.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am also pleased to
see our ranking member of the full committee, Ms. Lowey, is
here today. I am happy to yield to the gentlelady for any
opening remarks she would like to make.
Opening Remarks of Congresswoman Lowey
Ms. Lowey. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Ranking Member McCollum. Secretary Jewell, thank you for
joining us this afternoon and for your service to our country.
I hope you had a happy birthday.
Many of America's natural wonders are a testament to our
national heritage and symbols of the values upon which this
great Nation was built. From the Statue of Liberty, to the
Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail, and All-American
Roads, these sites represent significant moments in American
history and mark the incredible progress our Nation has made
since its inception.
The Department of Interior is charged with the significant
task of conserving and protecting these sites, but the
Department of Interior does so much more. It is responsible for
the wellbeing of Native Americans, protecting wildlife,
managing energy production, and providing for the public use
and enjoyment of nearly 618 million acres of Federal land.
To support this critical mission, the Administration is
requesting $12.3 billion in discretionary funding. If enacted,
this request would reverse some of the steep declines these
programs have suffered as a result of sequestration. These
declines led to a reduction in routine maintenance, aging, and
understaffed park facilities and public lands at greater risk
of fire because they have not been properly managed.
The President's Fiscal Year 2017 request also continues our
commitment to our national parks and their centennial
anniversary. These historic sites contribute billions of
dollars to the U.S. economy every year, so it is critical that
we maintain these parks and keep them safe and accessible for
visitors.
I am also pleased the President's budget seeks to increase
investment for Native Americans. The all of government approach
to addressing Federal responsibilities and tribal needs in
Indian Country is necessary to improve the quality of life for
those who living on tribal lands.
Finally, I am especially pleased by the President's focus
on advancing clean energy and taking much needed action on
climate change. Through the President's Climate Action Plan,
the Department of Interior will have funding to increase
renewable energy resources and build community resiliency to
help communities cope with the impacts of climate change we
have already seen today.
In short, your budget invests in public safety and economic
prosperity that will improve the wellbeing of all Americans
today and in the future. And I hope this subcommittee works
support these crucial initiatives.
I appreciate the commitment and the passion you bring to
the job. I look forward to your testimony. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady. And with that, Madam
Secretary, I am happy to yield to you for your opening
statement.
Opening Remarks of Secretary Jewell
Secretary Jewell. Thank you very much. Chairman Calvert,
Ranking Member McCollum, Chairman Rogers, and Ranking Member
Lowey, and members of the subcommittee, thank you so much for
the opportunity to discuss the Fiscal Year 2017 budget request.
This is, as you point out, the Administration's final
budget, and I want to take the opportunity to thank all of you
for working with me and my team over the last 3 years to help
the Department meet its mission for the American people. And
special thanks for the support we received in this current
Fiscal Year.
I would like to also take a moment to mention the incident
we just had at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Harney
County, Oregon. Through tremendous patience and
professionalism, the FBI, with support from State and local law
enforcement, ended the occupation on February 11th as quickly
and safely as possible after more than 40 days. This was an
incredibly disruptive and distressing time for our employees,
their families, and the Harney County community.
I am proud of the Department of Interior law enforcement
personnel who supported the response and helped keep our
employees safe. We continue to cooperate with DOJ, the FBI, and
others as the investigations move forward, and we remain
committed to working with local communities on the management
of public lands.
BUDGET REQUEST
Our overall Fiscal Year 2017 budget request is $13.4
billion. Specifically for programs within this subcommittee's
jurisdiction the request is $12.3 billion. It builds on
successes we're achieving through partnerships, the application
of science and innovation, and balanced stewardship. It gives
us the tools to help communities strengthen resilience in the
face of climate change, conserve natural and cultural
resources, secure clean and sustainable water, engage the next
generation with the great outdoors, promote a balanced approach
to safe and responsible energy development, and expand
opportunities for Native American communities. These areas are
core to our mission, and they play a vital role in job creation
and economic growth.
The budget invests in our public lands, providing $5
billion to support operation of our national parks, historic
and cultural sites, wildlife refuges and habitat, and managing
multiple use and sustained yield on our Nation's public lands.
It focuses investment on important working landscapes like the
western sage steppe, and the Arctic, and proposes a 10-year $2
billion coastal resilience program to support at risk coastal
States and local governments, including funding for communities
in Alaska, to prepare for and adapt to climate change.
As the National Park Service begins its second century, the
budget provides $3 billion and includes a proposal to dedicate
significant funding to reduce the deferred maintenance backlog.
I want to have a special call out to this committee for your
support of the National Park Centennial this year and your
words in that regard.
The budget calls for full and permanent funding of the Land
and Water Conservation Fund, and it extends the expired
authority for the Historic Preservation Fund. It reflects the
Administration's strategy to move effectively to budget for
catastrophic wildfires. Again, I want to thank you for your
leadership in this committee and Congressman Simpson in
particular for his leadership on bringing attention and
constructive solutions on wildland fire.
In response to drought challenges across the West, it
continues to safeguard sustainable and secure water supplies. I
know there will be a robust conversation, on that, Chairman
Calvert.
We continue to engage the next generation of Americans to
play, learn, serve, and work outdoors with $103 million for
youth engagement. This includes mentoring and research
opportunities at the U.S. Geological Survey, urban community
partnerships, scholarships, and job corps training for tribal,
rural, and urban youth, and work opportunities in our bureaus.
There is $20 million for the Every Kid in a Park initiative,
which introduces all of America's 4th graders to their public
lands, providing education programs across the country, and
transportation support for low-income students.
We continue to promote a balanced approach to safe and
responsible energy development that maximizes a fair return to
taxpayers with $800 million for renewable and conventional
energy development, a $41 million increase. We're on track to
meet the President's goals of permitting 20,000 megawatts of
renewable energy capacity on public lands by 2020 with nearly
$100 million for renewable energy development and
infrastructure.
Offshore, this budget supports the Bureau of Ocean Energy
Management and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement with funding to reform and strengthen
responsiveness, oversight, and safety for oil and gas
development, and onshore, $20 million supports BLM's efforts to
develop a landscape level approach to oil and gas development,
modernize and streamline permitting, and strengthen inspection
capacity.
We are expanding educational and job opportunities for
Native American communities with $3 billion for Indian Affairs,
a 5 percent increase, to support Native youth education, as was
mentioned, American Indian and Alaska Native families, public
safety, and building resilience to climate change. The
President's budget calls for a $1 billion investment
specifically in Indian education and $278 million to fully fund
contract support costs, a cornerstone of tribal self-
determination. The budget supports our commitment to resolve
Indian water rights settlements and supports sustainable water
management in Indian Country with $215 million, a $5 million
increase.
It also includes funding to strengthen cybersecurity
controls across all bureaus. It invests in science and
innovation with $150 million for USGS' National Hazards, an $11
million increase. And funding will continue development of
Landsat 9, a critical new satellite expected to launch in 2021.
We believe this is a smart budget that builds on our
previous successes and strengthens partnerships to ensure we
balance the needs of today with opportunity for future
generations.
So thank you, and I'm happy to respond to any questions you
have. And I can tell there's going to be a number of robust
questions coming my way. Thank you.
[Laughter.]
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Calvert. And with that, we are going to start with our
chairman, Mr. Rogers.
STREAM PROTECTION RULE
Mr. Rogers. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary,
the stream protection rule that I referred to has been a
boondoggle wrought with controversy from day one. Congress and
the courts have both weighed in with concerns about the
substance and the process of this rulemaking. Most recently in
the 2016 omnibus bill we told OSM to consult the statute and
consult with their State partners. OSMRE has supposedly been
rewriting the stream protection rule in coordination with
several States, including Kentucky. But I have heard from
several of these States that their input has not been solicited
or incorporated by OSMRE throughout the process.
As you know, under SMCRA, you are required by law to work
with the States on this rule and to incorporate their input
before finalizing that rule. That rule is expected to destroy
over 280,000 jobs in Appalachia and elsewhere, and I am
extremely concerned about how the Department managed the
development of this rule, ensuring that States have a role in
the process.
Can you tell me how much we have spent so far on this rule
to date?
Secretary Jewell. Kris, do you have a number in terms of
what we spent?
Ms. Sarri. We do not have that number.
Secretary Jewell. No, we do not. We will have to get back
to you with that. Would you like me to comment, though, on the
process?
Mr. Rogers. Please, but surely we have some idea of the
cost.
Ms. Sarri. I just do not have that number with me, so I
want to make sure I give you an accurate number. I will try to
get that right now.
Mr. Rogers. What is your estimate?
Ms. Sarri. I think the director at one point had put an
estimate of $6 million.
Secretary Jewell. Our team is scrambling in the notebooks
behind, so before I finish answering this question, hopefully
we will have some sense. It sounds like we will have to get
back to you for the record.
Mr. Rogers. All right.
[The information follows:]
Stream Protection Rule
OSMRE has spent approximately $10.5 million to develop the rule.
This includes $6.5 million in obligations for contract support to
develop portions of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) and
the regulatory impact analysis (RIMA); and $4.0 million for staff,
travel, facilitator for hearings and other items.
Secretary Jewell. Let me just say that it has been an
incredibly long process. I appreciate that. The Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement did engage with
States early on and took that input. They published the draft
Environmental Impact Statement on July 17th with a proposed
rule 10 days later. They conducted six public hearings, one of
them in Lexington, Kentucky, most of them in coal country
throughout the Nation. And they are analyzing just shy of
100,000 comments received during the comment period. We have
also had 15 meetings with 13 different States. I understand the
State of Kentucky declined to meet with us, but we would
welcome their participation.
We are taking that State input, and we will use that
certainly to advise the final rule based on this process. At
this point, we would welcome participation from your State. We
do believe this rule is essential. The stream buffer zone rule
put in place in 2008 was vacated, so we feel we need to address
very real water quality issues and the impact to the watersheds
of the mining practices. And that is what this rule intends to
do.
Mr. Rogers. Specifically, in the omnibus bill, OSM is
required to provide the States with all technical reports,
data, analyses, comments received, and drafts relating to the
environmental reviews, draft environmental statements, the
final EIS. They are also required to meet with any primacy
State at the request of that State. Those congressional
directives are in direct response to OSMRE's failure to work
with the States in a collaborative manner as partners, if you
will, in the development of the proposed rule and draft EIS. It
is absolutely essential that this failure be corrected so that
States will be more involved in the rulemaking process as the
law requires.
In response to the language in the omnibus bill, how have
the Department and the Agency taken steps to begin working
collaboratively with the States on the stream protection rule?
Secretary Jewell. Two comments. Certainly we fully intend
to comply with the language in the omnibus, and the reference
documents that were specified in the language should be
available very soon, and will be provided to States as well as
posted on our public Website soon thereafter. They are being
compiled as we speak and will be released relatively soon.
Mr. Rogers. How soon will it be?
Secretary Jewell. My language says shortly after February
29th. This is now March 2nd, so I do not know an exact date,
but soon.
We also have held, as I mentioned, 15 meetings already with
13 different States. There are several States that have chosen
not to meet with us including Kentucky, but we would welcome
their participation and value their input.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Ms. Lowey.
Ms. Lowey. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
again for your important work.
WILDLIFE TRAPS
I am extremely concerned about the use of body gripping
traps within the national wildlife refuge system. One of the
key problems with these traps is that they are non-selective,
meaning they do not only catch the animals they are intended
for and pose a great danger to individuals who may also be
harmed by these traps. More than half of our Nation's 550
refuges allow trapping and the use of steel jaw leg hold traps
despite the fact that this inhumane trap has been banned by
more than 85 countries and 8 States. Body gripping traps are
not necessary for the maintenance of wildlife refuges,
especially since there are alternative and more humane ways to
remove or relocate animals.
Two questions, because I have been hearing about this issue
for a very, very long time. To what extent do you keep records
of the types of traps set and what those traps catch within the
National Wildlife Refuge System? Do you believe that the
continued use of body gripping traps is conducive to the
original purpose of the National Wildlife Refuge System?
Secretary Jewell. Congresswoman, thank you for the
question. I will take this one for the record because I do not
have information on this. I do not know if we keep these
records. I do know that we allow hunting and fishing, but the
methodologies used, you know, must be consistent with our
authorizing statute. But I do not know, so I am going to have
to get back to you on that.
[The information follows:]
Trapping
The Fish and Wildlife Service, which manages the National Wildlife
Refuge System, does not collect information on a System-wide basis
concerning the types of traps used on wildlife refuges nor the
associated take of wildlife.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997
(Improvement Act), which amended the National Wildlife Refuge System
Administration Act of 1966, established an overall mission for the
Refuge System; 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 for the
benefit of present and future generations of Americans.''
The Improvement Act's accompanying Committee Report specifically
addresses trapping as a management tool to conserve and manage healthy
populations of fish, wildlife, and plants. One of the listed methods
and procedures, ``regulated taking'' encompasses management tools such
as hunting, trapping, and fishing. (H.R. 1420 Committee Report [105-
106], page 7).
The majority of trapping programs on Service lands are implemented
to accomplish wildlife management objectives in order to contribute
towards the purpose and mission of the individual refuge, as well as
the mission of the Refuge System. Trapping is an important management
tool the Service uses to protect endangered and threatened species,
migratory birds, and control certain wildlife populations.
Ms. Lowey. I appreciate it. And by the way, I have had
legislation on this issue, I think, for the last 20 years. So I
would really appreciate your getting back to me, giving me an
up-to-date report.
NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS
On the National Heritage Area, your budget request proposes
a number of important investments. However, there is one
program in which the request falls flat, the National Heritage
Areas. Once again, the Administration proposes to slash the
program by $10 million. This is a significant cut that would
have real impacts on the heritage areas. For example, in my
region, the Hudson Valley National Heritage Area received
$491,000 last year. If the proposed cut were enacted, the
Hudson Valley would only receive $180,000 in Fiscal Year 2017.
This is debilitating, and if you could explain why the budget
is proposing to cut this program to such a degree.
Secretary Jewell. Yes. Thank you, and I appreciate your
support for the heritage areas, and as we have talked about
before, I support them as well. Specific to the Hudson River
Valley which was authorized in 1996, we funded it in 2015 and
2016 at $491,000. I know the National Park Service is
collaborating closely with the National Heritage Areas to
develop a methodology to allocate program dollars. We really
want to try and work with them toward self-sufficiency to the
extent we can.
I know it takes time to do that. We are happy to continue
working with you through this budget process. But, you know, it
is one of those challenging tradeoffs we made in terms of
staying within the top line.
GRAND CANYON NATIONAL PARK
Ms. Lowey. And just lastly, I do not know if my time is up,
so we can continue this discussion. But I have been extremely
disturbed by a report that found evidence of a long-term
pattern of sexual harassment and hostile environment for at
least 19 employees at the Grand Canyon National Park. Some of
these women reported boatmen on their team would refuse to take
them to their worksites if they rejected their sexual advances.
One employee even said that one boatman withheld food from
employees who refused, and this is shocking. Do you want to
make a comment on it?
Secretary Jewell. I will say that I am equally shocked. The
Park Service is on this. It is conducting a full investigation.
It will absolutely take appropriate action. This is not
acceptable behavior within the National Park Service, and if
proven to be true, there will be consequences.
Ms. Lowey. I really appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, because
I was shocked to hear it. In fact, one of my daughters was
deputy director of a Park Service. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CALIFORNIA DROUGHT
Mr. Calvert. Thank you for your questions. Well, Madam
Secretary, I think you know what I am going to be talking
about. We have a little drought in California. You may have
heard about it. I have a chart up here behind Mr. Israel
showing what is going on in the California Bay delta. Our
reservoirs continue to be dangerously low. The winter's rain
was a chance to fill these reservoirs. The first 2 months of
this year produced double the amount of water that we received
all of last year. All of last year. These rains should have
provided needed relief to drought-stricken communities in
California, yet you are pumping less water than you did last
year in a historic drought, and this is significantly more rain
and we are pumping less water than we did last year.
This just defies common sense. You know, the Endangered
Species Act gives the Department some amount of flexibility.
You know, we have gone through this very carefully. If you had
simply chosen to pump as much water as is allowed under the
biological opinion, you would have provided enough water for 2
million people for an entire year.
Instead, the Department sent the extra water out to sea,
and that is not coming back. And it may be that we are not
going to see significant rain for the balance of the year. But
if we do, I would hope that you could help the people of the
State of California. What do you say to the millions of people
who could have been helped by these El Nino rains?
Secretary Jewell. I am going to turn the lion's share of
the question over to my colleague, Mike Connor, who is far more
expert in these areas. But I will say that everything is
stressed. The people are stressed. The farms are stressed. The
landscapes are stressed. And that has factored into the
decisions that have been made.
I will also say that fortunately this year you have a
better snow pack, so there is some precipitation and storage
that will come out later in the year. But Mike has been working
very, very closely with everyone in the Bureau of Reclamation
and in the State on this, so I am going to ask Mike to answer
the specifics.
Mr. Connor. Mr. Chairman, I agree it has been a frustrating
year from the standpoint you referenced given that we at least
had a 2- to 3-week period where there was lots of
precipitation. It has since, as you well know, substantially
reduced over time.
Mr. Calvert. There were some days where we were getting 50
to 60 thousand cubic feet per second moving through the delta.
Mr. Connor. Yeah, I do not remember seeing it that high.
There probably was a couple of days. I know we were definitely
in the 25 to 35, even 40,000 CFS outflow range, which is very
significant. I think under the water quality permits, you have
to maintain at least 15,000.
Having said that, as the Secretary noted, the drought has
had a devastating impact on people as well as overall
environmental conditions. And that is the reason why operations
for a period of time this year have been fairly conservative,
and it is because the monitoring and the assessment of the
delta smelt have been, the basis upon which they developed
their incidental take statement, indicated they were at their
lowest levels than they had ever sampled.
And so, the Service has been very concerned that any
entrainment event that could occur from pumping might have such
an impact it might endanger the existence of the species. They
are concerned about extinction of the delta smelt.
Mr. Calvert. Well, as you know, over 95 percent of the
water on some days was going through underneath the Golden Gate
Bridge. How much water does it take to satisfy that
environmental requirement? 100 percent? 99 percent?
Mr. Connor. The issue is really what are the pumping
levels, how much can you pump while not bringing the delta
smelt towards----
Mr. Calvert. And that is a great point. When you have that
much water moving, how can you reverse flow that? As you know,
the pumps are capable of pumping up to 11,000 cubic feet per
second. Most of those days that we are talking about in
January, you were pumping less than 2,5000 cubic feet per
second. Less than 2,500 cubic feet per second.
As I understand from the people that are up there, the old
timers, the fish were not anywhere near the pumps. Matter of
fact, there was just one day I think they took an incidental
take of one fish. And they had to drop their pumping
immediately. One fish.
Mr. Connor. There are a couple of responses. When there is
outflow coming from the San Joaquin, from the southern side
where the pumps are located, you have the possibility of
pumping a lot more. There is a lot more outflow going out
through that system. Here we have had most of it come out of
the Sacramento system, so it is at the top of the system. And
so, you still have smelt south of the delta that you are
concerned about.
There has been take, which is obviously a strong concern at
that point in time, but also in the sampling they have done,
they have sampled and detected smelt in the southern delta
area. They have been very sensitive to any potential
entrainment events, and it has been, from that standpoint, that
we have not pumped to the maximum limits under the biological
opinions.
Mr. Calvert. Are we ever going to pump? Are we ever going
to see any water going to these reservoirs?
Mr. Connor. Well, I looked at the records, and that gets to
the 192,000-acre feet. I mean, I think we should compare notes
because just on the back of envelope I have looked at it, and
we are estimating about 70,000 acre-feet that have been lost
under the biological opinions.
The biological opinions started to control pumping around
January 7th when we met actually. I think that was right at the
transition period. Since that time, there has been, I think, 27
days where we have not pumped the maximum under the biological
opinions. For the last couple of weeks, we have been at about
5,800 CFS, which is the maximum under the biological opinions.
And that approach and the concern about the species is
probably going to continue. I am hoping we can get at least a
couple more precipitation events, particularly in the south
side of the system, and maybe we can go above the 5,800 CFS
level like we did last year.
Mr. Calvert. Well, all we can do now is hope, hope that it
rains because we cannot pump water that is already gone.
Mr. Connor. It has been a frustrating year from the water
user's perspective. I absolutely understand that. We will look
and continue to try and maximize flexibility. There have been
times when the Smelt Working Group has proposed even more
stringent pumping limitations. Water users, other stakeholders,
have gotten together and decided to operate a little bit more--
--
Mr. Calvert. Just a last comment. I know the Secretary
mentioned stress. We have got farmers that are pretty stressed
out in the Central Valley. Just last week it was announced that
a major farmer is pulling out 10,000 acres of trees. 10,000
acres of trees. And the people that attend to those trees are
out of work.
So just as much of a crisis what is going in coal country
right now is happening in my State of California, and, by the
way, people forget we are the largest farming State in the
United States, but we have 1 million acres out of cultivation
this year. 1 million acres.
I know we have a historic drought. I know the problems that
you are operating under. But when you see more rain by
multiples this year, and we are pumping less water than we did
last year, most people look at that and say what the heck is
going on. How do you explain that?
Mr. Connor. Mr. Chairman, may I make just one more comment?
This is a very frustrating situation, and the way we operate
now, it is going to continue to be frustrating. Hopefully we
will rebuild storage, and we will get back to water allocations
next year, because we are rebuilding at least some storage this
year.
I do think this year is indicative of the need for new
approaches and solutions. And as you know, and you and I have
discussed, Cal Water fixed and provides the opportunity for new
conveyances, one of those options. I think this year in
particular is indicative of a year where there would have been
a lot more water supply had we had conveyance and diversions in
the ----
Mr. Calvert. Well, you know, I wrote the Bay Delta
Agreement 15 years ago.
Mr. Connor. Yes, sir.
Mr. Calvert. And we have still not yet gone through the
environmental procedures to get to construction on these
projects. And we have gone through two additional biological
opinions since that was done, and each biological opinion has
become more and more restrictive. And the irony of this is the
smelt population, for whatever reason, has continued to go
south since 1992. Obviously there has been significant
restrictions on how we operate the delta.
So I think anecdotally there is other information that we
are not applying. I wish we should use good science to look at
this problem and how we are operating up there because this
clearly is not working.
Ms. McCollum, you are recognized.
INVASIVE SPECIES
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Madam Secretary, last
week I attended Governor Dayton's water summit back home in
Minnesota, and I heard firsthand the concerns related to our
waterways. They included invasive species such as Asian carp,
nitrates in our water from agricultural runoff, aging water
infrastructure, the effects of climate change, and a whole host
of other concerns.
These conversations highlighted the importance of the work
that you and the employees at the Department of Interior do who
are there to listen and take in concerns. I want you to know
that we value the research that USGS has done to better
understand our water quality and use. In my own State of
Minnesota, we see the importance of the conservation work being
done by Interior in our national forests, the refuges, and the
parks.
I just want to pass along how much Minnesotans appreciate
the work that the Department of Interior is doing to protect
our waters. We hope out of that summit there will be some more
innovative and creative ideas on which more collaboration can
happen.
INDIAN SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
However, there was another issue that I heard about while I
was back home. Even at the water summit, folks were talking
about it. That was the Bug School, Bug-O-Nay-Ge-Shig School on
Leech Lake Reservation. Secretary Jewell, you know, we have
talked about it. You visited that school. You saw the
deplorable conditions that the students and faculty have to put
up with every day. I know you have visited other schools in
Indian Country, and you are hearing the alarm bells go off loud
and clear. That is why last year working together in a very
nonpartisan way, we increased funding for replacement school
construction by $25 million, and funding for replacement
facility construction by $12 million.
Now, I understand the Bureau of Indian Education is close
to finalizing its new replacement school construction list, and
has been making progress on developing these replacement
facilities priorities. I would like you to update the committee
on status on these lists. Also, you did send, I will call it, a
white paper over with some ideas that you had on how we might
be able to speed up school construction.
With high suicide rates, with the Generation Indigenous
initiative, with what we are hearing about the stress that many
of these communities are facing with drugs, alcohol, and now
the current heroin epidemic, the youth that were here from
Indian Country the last 2 weeks are looking to us for
leadership. They see education as an opportunity for more
progress and more success for them in their lives ahead.
Can you update us and the committee on how you see us
progressing on school construction for the Bureau of Indian
Education? As we are getting ready to hand over to the next
Administration, what do you think the President will encourage
the next President of the United States to be doing on these
issues in Indian Country?
Secretary Jewell. Thank you for the question, and I would
say, more importantly, thank you to this committee in
particular for your personal interest, your engagement, your
CODELs out to Indian Country to see firsthand what is going on.
First on school construction. We had over 50 schools that
submitted applications for whole campus replacement
construction. We narrowed that down to 10. We had them do
additional presentations. The input from those presentations is
being analyzed to come out with a list, and it is weeks away I
think, so very, very soon.
On the Bug-O-Nay-Ge-Shig school specifically, certainly the
language that you put in the appropriations report helps shine
a spotlight on that particular property. That is something that
is also in process and evaluation. As we talked about on the
phone, we have to make sure the scope of the work is
appropriate and it is prioritized well relative to other
replacement facilities. That is in process, but you can expect
there will be resolution to that relatively quickly.
How do we speed up school construction, this whole process?
We had a list that dated back to the 2004. With the support of
this committee, the final two schools on that list are being
done. We have a whole process dictated by the No Child Left
Behind Act that we have been following so that we have a more
of a living effective list going forward. That is what has
taken awhile, frankly, in coming up with the next few schools
we are going to prioritize. But it will be a robust process so
we can keep that list up to date, and recognize that things
change. I mean, population demographics change. If we can make
investments that can extend the life of one particular
facility, that may raise something else on the priority list.
Those are all, I would say, nearing completion in terms of
the process.
BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION REPROGRAMMING
On the reprogramming, thank you for the support of the BIE
reprogramming. We have posted the new jobs. Some of them are
existing jobs that will continue. Some are new jobs people are
applying for. The period of time to apply for those closes on
March 11th, and we expect to have them beginning to be filled
by the middle of April.
We have already started a robust training program for
teachers so students will begin to see changes in the
classroom. We are working with school boards on training for
school board members as part of the program. Then, of course,
we have the sovereignty in education awards for tribes that
want to take over control of the schools.
TIWAHE INITIATIVE
So I think students will begin to see a difference in the
classroom probably already this year, but next year. But more
importantly, you mentioned Generation Indigenous. You mentioned
high suicide rates. The fact is we need to work across
government and with tribal communities to address some of these
really challenging issues.
School facilities can be an ideal spot, gathering place for
parenting classes, for counseling, a safe place for kids to go
after school. This is part of what we are encompassing in the
Tiwahe initiative, so there is an increase in the budget for
the Tiwahe initiative which looks at whole families and
communities. We have through the President's action, formed the
White House Council on Native American Affairs, which I chair.
We have hired a full-time staff member for that, which is a
career staff position. So that will continue beyond this
Administration.
INDIAN EDUCATION
And, of course, the people that are leading Indian
education, the BIE career staff, will also continue into the
next Administration. And they are being trained for the new
positions and are supportive of the changes. I mean, change is
hard. You do not do it all in a year. Larry Roberts, our acting
assistant secretary, was just in Albuquerque meeting with our
leaders in the BIE going through all of this, all-employee
meetings and so on. I was there a little bit before that
meeting with leadership. I feel like we are in a good spot, but
we cannot do it without everybody working together.
I will just mention quickly one more thing. It is hard
without a clock, so I am sorry. But Pine Ridge is a Promise
Zone community. The Ag Department picks those, but we have got
a strike team in place to really understand what is happening
with suicides. We'll look at what we can learn from an effort
on Pine Ridge with SAMHSA, which is a unit of HHS, the Indian
Health Service, the BIA, and the BIE, to see if we work
collaboratively together and with Ag and some of their rural
programs, can we make a difference.
There is a lot going on. Continuity is really important, so
it is about our career staff and, you know, mechanisms put in
place for this cooperation so it will continue to live well
after we are gone. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Simpson.
STEENS WILDERNESS
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Secretary, for being here today. A couple of statements first
with regards to the Steens Wilderness in Oregon. I know my
colleague, Congressman Walden, has been very frustrated with
obligations that the BLM has to build and pay for a fence to
keep cows out of the wilderness as per the legislation that was
passed. In order for wilderness bills to succeed and be
accepted, they must keep the promises that were made.
I am pleased that Director Kornze spoke with my staff this
morning, and it sounds like we may be headed toward a positive
solution with this problem, and I will speak to him further
tomorrow. But that is something that needs to get done.
WILDLAND FIRE
I appreciate your support for the wildfire fighting bill
that I think every member on this subcommittee is a co-sponsor
of. Unfortunately we did not see it get across the finish line
last year. We keep pushing it a little further each year. But
what Chairman Calvert was able to do is get an extra billion
dollars in an outside account for wildfire fighting. While we
do not think that is the permanent solution we need, hopefully
it will stop the fire borrowing for at least a year or 2 years,
or until we have an extremely bad year.
My advice, as I told the chief of the Forest Service is, do
not do any fire borrowing this year. Take the money out of the
account that was set aside to do this. One of the challenges we
have is trying to explain to our colleagues that do not
understand what we are doing, why we want to do what we want to
do in regards to fixing fire-borrowing. They say, well, it all
worked out. They do not see what was not done because you
borrowed money from the accounts that we appropriated money
for. So it would be my suggestion that you do not pursue any
fire borrowing this year, so we can show people the
consequences.
SAGE GROUSE
Now, a couple of things I would ask you about. One would be
sage grouse, but I suspect other people are going to talk about
sage grouse a little bit. You have proposed a $79.2 million for
sage grouse conservation, huge increase. We used to ask for
about $15 million for sage grouse. Last year it was $45 million
increase. One of the things this committee wanted to make sure
is that we did not list sage grouse. And one of the potential
excuses was that we did not fund what was requested. So we made
sure we put those resources into sage grouse conservation.
This year it is a $14.2 million increase over last year.
What are we going to do with the $79.2 million sage grouse
money?
Secretary Jewell. Largely that is $66 million in the BLM to
implement the resource management plans, about a $14 million
increase. It is for on the ground vegetative treatments to
protect, improve, and restore the sage steppe, in Boise. The
best smelling trip I took last year was to the seed warehouse.
Part of what we need to do is actually find the right ----
Mr. Simpson. You could have just said Idaho in general.
[Laughter.]
Secretary Jewell. Some parts of Idaho I have not had the
same experience. But that is the cattle business. Yeah, that is
good, too, right.
So it is largely implementation of the resource management
plans. There is money for the National Seed Strategy. You have
done some innovative stuff in Idaho. You have used volunteer
groups, youth groups to collect seed, to plant sage brush. All
of that kind of work maintains a healthy sage brush ecosystem
and restores it when there have been fires and that is all
wrapped into the BLM request.
We have juniper removal, particularly true in Oregon, that
is critical to the stage steppe. It is actually following
through on the resource management plans that got us to a not
warranted listing.
WOLVES
Mr. Simpson. Okay. And one quick question because I have
got to go to another hearing, if I could ask it, Mr. Chairman?
I would hope that the Department would support what this
committee has been trying to do, and that is implement the Fish
and Wildlife's decision on wolves in the Great Lakes and
Wyoming. The decision to delist that was made by science. They
went through all the studies and everything else to make the
determination.
I will tell you that no matter what happens, somebody is
going to sue until the cows come home or do not come home. We
are trying to get away from the lawsuits, and it is what we did
in Idaho and Montana, which was supported then by Secretary
Salazar. We would hope that the Department would support this
committee's efforts in trying to make sure we do not spend the
next 10 years in court trying to defend the decisions the Fish
and Wildlife Service made on delisting of wolves in Wyoming and
the Great Lakes because they are clearly recovered.
Secretary Jewell. Well, we agree they are recovered, and we
are frustrated by the lawsuits. I would hope the Endangered
Species Act does not have to get administered by the halls of
Congress. I think that is the only objection we have is that,
you know, we are frustrated we lost that lawsuit.
Mr. Simpson. We are not trying to change the Endangered
Species Act or anything else in this case. What we are trying
to say is listen, it has worked for wolves. It has done its
job. Fish and Wildlife has made a decision. They have the
hearings, they have had the comment periods, and so let us move
on, and that is all we are saying. We are not trying to delist
them. We never delisted wolves in Idaho and Montana. All we did
is implemented the Fish and Wildlife decision. So that is where
we are coming from.
I appreciate it. Thanks for the work you do.
Secretary Jewell. Thank you.
Mr. Connor. Congressman, can I just add one thing? I just
want to say thank you in your role as chairman of the Energy
and Water Appropriations Subcommittee for the additional
drought funding for the Bureau of Reclamation. I think we have
good investments that will not alleviate all the concern, but I
very much appreciate it. It is much needed, from
infrastructure, restoration, conservation across the board. I
appreciate it.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, can I ask unanimous consent to
proceed for 1 minute?
Mr. Calvert. Yes, sir.
STREAM PROTECTION RULE
Mr. Rogers. I will be real brief. Madam Secretary, you
earlier said Kentucky did not want to meet with you. I have a
letter here that the governor wrote on February 8th in essence
saying as soon as we get the documents that the omnibus bill
says we are to receive from you, which they never did, which
you never sent them. He says as soon as they get those
documents and review them, they want a meeting.
Secretary Jewell. That is great.
Mr. Rogers. And I want to file this letter with the record
of the hearing.
Mr. Calvert. No objection. Part of the record.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers. Is that correct?
Secretary Jewell. I have not seen that letter, but if that
is what it says, we will get them the documents. We would be
delighted to meet with them.
Mr. Rogers. They want to meet. They want input. But they
cannot do it until you send them the documents that back up
your claim.
Secretary Jewell. Okay.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
WOLVES
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Next, Ms. Pingree,
but before I turn to Ms. Pingree, on the wolf issue, as time
keeps going on, you may want to take a look at Oregon and
Washington also because it looks to me from reports I have been
getting that the wolf population in Oregon and Washington is
clearly beginning to recover quite handsomely based upon the
number of dead sheep I have been hearing about.
So with that, Ms. Pingree.
CLIMATE CHANGE
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Secretary
Jewell, thank you for your work. Thank you for everyone who is
with you here today, and we certainly do appreciate the big
challenges that come before your Department and the great work
you have been doing with them. I am just going to take up one
issue right now, and it is not as big as drought and wildfires
and some of the economic challenges that people have been
addressing.
But I want to say in the context of the fact that we really
appreciate the parts of your budget that are calling attention
to and asking for funding around climate change. I just think
many of us hearing back from our States about the impacts of
climate change, and certainly in mine with so many lobstermen
and fishermen. They are worried about ocean acidification and
rising sea levels, and movement of the some of the species of
our fish because of the warming of the water.
So we have to deal with a lot of those issues as well as
our wood lots and small farmers worrying about extreme weather.
So I really appreciate the focus that you give to us and
helping us to think ahead about how to deal with those
challenges.
TICK BORNE DISEASES
And one of them that we have seen an increasing problem
with is the incidence of Lyme disease. My understanding is that
there are 30,000 cases a year. Lyme is the sixth most common
disease reported to the CDC even though we do not talk about or
hear about it much, and it is the most common vector-borne
disease. The CDC has said in 2013 it is probably getting
reports only for about 10 percent of infections, so in reality
that number is probably higher.
Now, my State, it could have a huge economic impact. We
call it our vacation land, and we are proud of many of the
other activities that go on in our State. Tourism is a big
issue, and the more people hear about tick-borne diseases, the
more they are affected by it, and the more challenging some of
the vector-borne diseases become, less easy to cure, more long
lasting. We want to know everything we can and do everything
that we can about protecting the outdoors in Maine.
Your budget calls for $2 billion in mandatory spending for
a coastal climate resilience program, which I am very eager to
see. I think in your discretionary budget there are also
various areas where work by the National Park Service and USGS
are trying to address this need. But just going beyond signage
and public awareness campaigns, I think we really need to work
to know more on tick eradication. I am very excited about the
work that is being done by the National Wildlife Help Center at
USGS.
So just if you want to discuss that a little. I do not know
how familiar you are with this, but the budget does include $4
million, an increase from 2016, to $39 for the National
Wildlife Service Center and climate science centers. Can you
tell me a little bit about how that increase will be used to
further the work being done around how wildlife and their
habitats are being affected by ticks and tick-borne pathogens?
That is also an issue for many regions besides mine.
When the ticks become devastating to wildlife population,
sometimes eradicating them all together, sometimes having a
huge impact on hunting opportunities in those States. And how
does this work fit into some of the overall missions and goals
with Interior on understanding climate change and its impact?
Secretary Jewell. I can talk at a higher level. I cannot
talk into super detail. We have about $63 million in the budget
for climate science, and that includes about $31 million for
the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Centers that
you mentioned. That is up about $4 million.
Every time I visit the USGS science labs, it is clear we
are just scratching the surface, whether it is eDNA for Asian
carp, which is an aquatic invasive tick-borne disease, or
white-nosed syndrome in bats. Whatever the causes, we are not
exactly sure, but how do we deal with this? We are a bit
overwhelmed by the demand on the services relative to our
capacity to provide support.
I would also say USGS works in partnership with
universities throughout the country, and those grants
oftentimes are also really critical. This will help us to
continue the work we are doing, but certainly if we could find
additional ways to support these programs, we could support
more university research in conjunction with the USGS, Fish and
Wildlife Service, and so on to address even more.
That is about as much detail as I have on this, and if you
would like me to follow up specifically on the tick issues with
the USGS, I would happy to do that.
[The information follows:]
Tick Borne Illnesses and Wildlife
The USGS is investigating the effects of environmental factors on
tick populations. As the range of Lyme disease expands, the USGS is
collaborating with the Public Health Agency of Canada and university
partners to determine how climate, wildlife dynamics, and tick genetic
factors influence Lyme disease distribution. To predict the effects of
climate change, field and laboratory study results are being integrated
into models of tick population and tick-borne disease dynamics. In
regards to wildlife health, the USGS's National Climate Change and
Wildlife Science Center partners with the Wildlife Conservation Society
to understand the effects of climate change on moose populations in the
Northeastern United States. Winter ticks have been associated with
moose die-offs across North America. This study is emphasizing the use
of scenario planning to assist States with moose management decisions
in response to high tick abundance and other climate-related factors.
Ms. Pingree. I think that would be helpful, because, we
have to address it when we are back in our home State, and
people are always asking us, how is the Federal government
helping? We do not have enough resources in our own State. So,
to be able to provide a few more details would be useful.
Also, just to reinforce that your request for additional
funding is something I certainly support, and I hope that we
can continue to enhance this because I think, I am talking
about one tiny little problem like a tick. But it could have a
huge impact on a lot of States like mine, and it is just one of
many things I think we are going to continue to see as we deal
with some of these climate change issues.
So thank you. Thanks for your time. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Cole.
Mr. Cole. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Madam
Secretary, always a pleasure to see you.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT
An issue that I wanted to ask you about is after a number
of years in working across the aisle, and with the
Administration, we changed the Violence Against Women Act to
extend more authority to tribes to deal with what is an
epidemic of domestic violence and violence against women in
general. Obviously authority is not capacity, and we have a
number of tribes. I actually met earlier today with the Pascua
Yaquis, who are invested in this, and I think are taking it
very seriously.
Can you, number one, tell us how the pilot projects are
proceeding, where you are pleased, and any concerns you have.
And second, can you give us some sort of long-range vision on
what our responsibility would be, in your view, to provide
capacity? Again, some tribes are going to have the ability to
finance these kind of efforts, and it is everything from good
law enforcement to appropriate judicial systems and detention
facilities. Some tribes simply will not. And so, I would like
to get your views on this going forward.
Secretary Jewell. Well, let me start by saying thank you
for your advocacy for this, and I appreciate former Attorney
General Holder for his commitment and the Department of
Justice's work to actually get tribes included in the VAWA
reauthorization.
How that pilot project is going, I would say it is
frustratingly slow. I will follow up with Larry Roberts and get
more information to you specifically, but there are still just
a few locations where we are piloting this. There are still
many examples of violence against women that are not being
prosecuted by local tribal courts that are not part of this
pilot.
I think we have work to do in terms of educating local law
enforcement on the very real risks women and children, frankly,
are facing in Indian Country from non-Indian predators that
really are not being held to account. I think we have a long
way to go.
I think in terms of the long-range vision, we need greater
capacity in tribal courts than we have. They have a significant
backlog. We need greater capacity in law enforcement. We have,
as you know, run pilots for law enforcement, actually leading
into a number of different law enforcement agencies--the U.S.
Park Police, National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife, other
law enforcement entities--to beef up enforcement on
reservations across the whole spectrum of criminal justice. And
it has had a profound impact on reducing crime.
But we do have a challenge filling the jobs in Indian
Country and covering the landscape frankly so that when a woman
does call 9-1-1, they may or not get a response. It may be a
long time before somebody is able to respond just because of
the large territories, few people, and lack of resources. I
think we have a lot of work to do still.
LAND BUY-BACK PROGRAM
Mr. Cole. Thank you. One additional question if I may, not
related, but in Indian Country, and you may want to get back to
us for the record on this. A number of years ago we made a very
significant financial commitment in the Cobell settlement, and
we have had a couple of hearings on this, Mr. Chairman, but
that is a multiyear project, a lot of money involved frankly.
And I least want to get your assessment of where we are both in
terms of sort of reuniting fragmented land, getting that back
into use by tribes, and then the individual compensation
awards.
Secretary Jewell. We are making great progress, and I am
going to ask Mike to answer with the details.
Mr. Connor. Yes, Congressman. This is one of the areas that
if you had asked me what I was going to spend most of my time
on when I first got confirmed it wouldn't have been the Land
Buy-Back Program. Fortunately it is really taken off, and let
me give you some quick metrics.
We are about 33 percent of the way through the 10-year time
frame for implementing the settlement, and we have expended
about $736,000,000, or 47 percent of the funds already, in
restoring fractionated interests back to tribal trust
ownership. That is the equivalent of about 1.5 million acres of
land.
We were allotted $285 million for administrative costs.
Even though we have expended 47 percent of the funds, we have
only expended 15 percent of the administrative costs. Our goal
is, at the end to be able to take some of the administrative
money and put it back into restoring even more lands over time.
We have made offers at about 33 percent of the 40 most
fractionated locations. We have selected 42 locations for
implementation through 2017. The reason I have to get out of
here at 3:30 is we are having a listening session in
Albuquerque tomorrow to take input. In a couple of weeks tribes
are going to finalize their input on how we plan out the
balance of the program through the remainder of the 10 years.
Hopefully through that we will have a plan, not just for the
42, but how we will either move forward to the 140 total
locations out there, or move forward to a percentage, and think
about how we might go back to other lands we have already made
offers on.
Overall, it has just been a very successful program I think
because of the great work our team has done, the great
leadership in Indian Country, and the great bipartisan support
there has been.
Mr. Cole. Well, I really want to thank you on these
efforts. I think it makes a big difference in terms of dealing
with past grievances, and, frankly, putting land back to
productive use for tribes. So the Administration is to be
commended here, and I would like to continue to work with you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Mr. Cole. Next, Mr. Kilmer.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks, Madam
Secretary, for being here.
PUGET SOUND
As you may have heard, we had more than 50 folks from
Washington State here this week for the 2nd Annual Puget Sound
Day on the Hill. They came all the way from the other
Washington to advocate for what is not just an incredible icon
of our region, but a body of water that is in deep trouble and
that requires attention from the Federal government. They have
been talking to Federal agencies, Members of congress, and
staff about both strong investments and better coordination
with partners at Federal agencies so that we can take those
recovery efforts to the next level.
You have been a great champion for Puget Sound and its
recovery, and I am grateful for that. I was hoping you could
just talk for a moment about steps your Department is taking to
try to streamline Puget Sound Recovery efforts, and the
planning that can be done with other Federal agencies to try to
move these efforts to the next level.
Secretary Jewell. Derek, it is great to see you, and I am
surprised I did not know until you told me that all the
Washingtonians were in town. I figured they might be asking for
tickets to the Washington Monument. So you can send them our
way. [Laughter.]
I do not have a depth of knowledge on the specifics of the
programs. I do know that we have $18.8 million in the budget
which will help move projects forward. About half of that is
for the Fish and Wildlife Service for work in the marine
estuaries, the health of those ecosystems on the tributaries,
and working with tribes. There is $5.2 million in the budget
for the BIA specifically to work on largely, fisheries
management issues. And then there is another $4.3 million with
the USGS to continue their research.
But beyond that, in terms of how we dig into that, I do not
have the details, but I am very happy to provide that to you if
you would like more.
Mr. Kilmer. Thanks. It is a high priority, as you know.
Secretary Jewell. Understand.
[The information follows:]
Puget Sound
The health of Puget Sound is vital to the region's economy,
tourism, quality of life and recreational, commercial, and subsistence
fisheries. We continue to make improvements to our processes and
abilities to develop the best scientific data, restore habitat, recover
imperiled species, and provide consultations for Federal, State and
local governments, and industry. For example, in cooperation with the
Federal Highway Administration, the Washington Department of
Transportation, and the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Fish and
Wildlife Service developed technical guidance on evaluating the effects
of stormwater on Chinook salmon and other listed species to support
transportation projects in the region. The Bureau of Indian Affairs
cooperates with area tribes to coordinate continuing treaty harvest
management, population assessment, habitat protection, stock
enhancement, and data gathering programs involving fish, wildlife, and
shellfish resources. And the U.S. Geological Survey recently completed
research that found that protection and restoration of floodplains
along the 17 major rivers in the Puget Sound Basin could increase the
health of rivers and their ecological value, while protecting people
from future flooding. These findings will help inform the design of
projects that are in concert with Puget Sound recovery goals.
COSTAL CLIMATE RESILIENCE FUND
Mr. Kilmer. I know that Ms. Pingree mentioned the Coastal
Climate Resilience Fund. So the district I represent includes a
whole bunch of rural communities that lie in the tsunami zone.
Coastal communities like Westport and Ocean Shores are seeing
much more severe storm events and flooding and there are four
coastal tribes in the district that I represent that are in the
process of trying to move to higher ground.
I was hoping you could provide a roadmap for what this
program is going to look like if it is funded, and how the
program is going to address the specific needs of the
communities I represent and others along the coast.
Secretary Jewell. The short answer is we recognize there
are big issues. When I was in Alaska about a year ago, and then
the President was in Alaska as I was also in early September,
he saw up close the Village of Kivalina that is washing away,
the same issue around the Makah and Quileute tribes.
Just take Kivalina as an example, when I was up in there
February of last year, they estimated the cost to relocate that
village, which will wash away potentially in a storm that could
happen really at any time. The cost to relocate by the Corps of
Engineers, they said was roughly between $200 and $400 million.
I mean, that is one tiny village in Alaska.
The $2 billion Coastal Climate Resilience Program needs a
source of funding. We have proposed a source of funding. It is
going to be difficult obviously congressionally to get that
done. It is redirecting the GOMESA money in the offshore oil
and gas revenue share that really ramps up in 2018, and saying
we need that for coastal climate resilience to protect
communities from climate change.
I would say if that is funded, there will likely be a
competitive process to determine, what are the areas of
greatest need. Similar to what we learned after Hurricane
Sandy. The $60 billion that you as a body approved after that
devastating storm, a good chunk of it was both through HUD and
our own programs. It was done through a competitive process
where communities step up, put creative solutions on the table,
and those are ranked and funded accordingly. So I think you
could expect that kind of a situation.
You did not mention ocean acidification, but that is also a
big factor along the Washington coast. It is impacting oyster
growers and shellfish farmers, just as Congresswoman Pingree
mentioned, big issues with lobster and with the disease
affecting lobster, like the sea stars that we have had in the
Pacific coast.
These are very real, and I think you can expect a kind of
competitive process by which we allocate if we are able to get
those monies. But that is one of the congressional mandatory
program recommendations that would require legislative action.
We would appreciate you bringing your stories to the table so
it has a better shot at getting done.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Madam Secretary,
it is good to see you. We appreciate you taking the time.
I think it is clear that you and I might see the world
differently in many important respects, but I appreciate your
sincerity. I think in many ways you have a difficult job. But I
would like to express some frustration to you if I could, and
it is not directed at you. I am expressing this frustration to
you on behalf of the people that I represent back home.
FEDERAL IMPACT ON COAL
And if I could, I would like to tell you about some of
those people. I would like to tell you that I know a coal miner
back in a very rural, very poor district. There are two coal
mines in Utah, well, in my district, very high-quality coal,
clean coal. And we have been working as hard as we can for
years now to keep those coal mines open. It looks like we will
fail in one instance and maybe in both of them. And I do not
want to say to this miner and his family because nearly a third
of the jobs in this county will be lost if that coal mine
closes.
I know a teacher in my district, and I come from a family
of educators. And one county has actually had to declare an
education emergency. Now, I did not know there was such a
thing, but apparently there is, because they have lost over the
course of a few years two-thirds of their students. And now
they are looking at busing the remaining students well over an
hour to go to high school.
The reason they have lost these students is because
families have left the county because there are no jobs. There
used to be jobs in mining, in ranching, in forestry, and in
timber, and there just simply is not any longer.
I know a rancher in my district, and he came to me. This is
a humble man. He is not a radical. He is not one of those who
are joining with some of these other organizations, and he has
tears in his eyes, and he shows me a letter he gets from BLM
that they are cutting his grazing rights in half. And the thing
that I see in him is fear, and it is not only fear about his
family and their future. It is a genuine fear of the Federal
government. And I do not know what to say to him in those
circumstances.
One more if I could, and then I will ask a question. I know
a business owner who used to have a thriving business. Now,
they were not, you know, making millions, but he was supporting
his family. But in that area they transitioned to an economy
based on tourism, so instead of being open 12 months a year, he
is open 3 and a half months a year. And he is struggling for
the other 8 and a half months to find ways to feed his family.
Now, that is the impact of Federal decisions on families
and on people. And when you have to deal with them, as I know
you do, and as the rest of us around this table do on a very
regular basis, there are many times when I simply do not know
what to say to them.
MONUMENT DESIGNATION
Now, in this instance a lot of that was because of a
Federal decision to create a monument. And by the way, when the
President at the time, Bill Clinton, created that monument,
nearly 2 million acres, he did not come to Utah to do it. He
stood on the Arizona side and pointed to Utah, and said I am
creating a monument over there because he honestly did not have
the courage to come face the people that were going to be most
impacted by it.
There are many of us in Utah and particularly my district
who are scared to death the Administration is considering of
another national monument in Utah in my district. Are you
working on a monument proposal in Utah? I will just ask that
question first and get your response, and then follow up if I
could.
FEDERAL IMPACTS
Secretary Jewell. Okay. As you did in Arizona, I will give
you a little bit of background. First, I understand the
transitions that go on in communities. Congressman Kilmer and I
are from the same home State. Commodity-based businesses like
oil, gas, coal, timber, which have impacts on the environment,
which is not a static thing, do impact lives in a very real and
profound way, and they impact communities, and that is very
difficult. On a micro level, we must work together to help
support those families.
In grazing and ranching, the BLM is managing a mandate of
multiple use and sustained yield, and we have seen changes on
the landscape where the sustainable yield may lower in terms of
how many cattle a given area can support compared to what it
was in the past. That is real difficult if you are that
rancher, but that is part of the job of the BLM. So those are
really, really difficult.
And our employees are your constituents. They live in your
communities. They are in schools with people that are affected.
I am fully supportive of working together on programs that help
people retool as the commodities are changing around them. It
is easy to blame the Federal government and regulations for
issues on things like coal, but it is also a commodity that has
been impacted by natural gas, switching to natural gas pricing,
worldwide demand for coal. It is not all about regulation.
Mr. Stewart. But if I could just clarify. In my instance,
it really was about a Federal decision. These were not taking
place because of market conditions in any of them. They were
all a result of a single Federal decision, in this case
creating a monument.
Secretary Jewell. Okay.
Mr. Stewart. And I understand what you are saying. There
are other things at play, but just to clarify my set up----
Secretary Jewell. You are talking about the Grand
Staircase-Escalante.
Mr. Stewart [continuing]. I am talking about the Grand
Staircase and the fear of another repeat of that.
MONUMENT DESIGNATION
Secretary Jewell. Yes. To your question specifically, both
Congress Members Bishop and Chaffetz were in my office earlier
this week on Monday. I had met with them previously I think in
June or July about the public lands initiative they have been
working hard on. I know there have been a tremendous number of
community meetings they have held with a variety of
stakeholders. I think there were pretty high hopes that that
effort would result in a successful, balanced approach. There
is a group called the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, I
believe. They have met with me. I sent them over to Congressman
Bishop to meet with him to talk about the public lands
initiative, which they did.
Since the early language has come out on that document,
there is a tremendous amount of frustration about the language
largely dealing with what they call wilderness has a number of
exceptions that are not consistent with typical wilderness
designations. In that context, yes, the Bears Ears Coalition
has come in. They have advocated for a monument. This is not a
secret. It is something that we have suggested they come and
talk to the delegation about.
There have been a number of people that have come in since
the public lands initiative was ruled out saying what we
negotiated hard for in these thousands of meetings, we do not
feel was honored in the language that came out. And you do have
in that region some pretty incredible assets that do warrant
protection.
As I said to Congress Members Bishop and Chaffetz, we have
not done any monument designations without engaging with local
communities. We would certainly do that should there be any
efforts to move forward in that region. But I think, I would
hope, both of us would agree that Utah, in specific the Cedar
Mesa area, is spectacular with clear antiquities that warrant
protection. We would welcome your support and engagement in
looking at what appropriate protections for those landscapes
would be.
Mr. Stewart. Well, thank you, and I would respond I guess
with maybe three points quickly, and then I want to ask one
more very quick question.
PUBLIC LANDS INITIATIVE
You know, the key players on the PLI, Congressman Bishop's
initiative, are still involved with that. They are still
hopeful that they come to a local solution. The second thing I
would ask is that you dive into some of those organizations
that pretend to represent local interests because the vast
majority of them are not local individuals. And, in fact,
including the local tribes have expressed dismay that they may
go forward, and dismay that those who are pretending to
represent them, and I am talking about the tribal entities,
these individuals claim to represent their interests when they
do not.
Then if I could very quickly, so that is on the eastern
side of the State. Are you looking at creating a monument in my
district on the western side of the State?
Secretary Jewell. Can you help me understand what is in
your district? Is that part of the public lands initiative or
not?
Mr. Stewart. No, it is not. We are on the other side. We
are more towards the Zions National Park, the Bryce National
Park, in that area, kind of on the central and eastern side of
the State.
Secretary Jewell. I am not aware of folks that have come
into our office suggesting a monument or anything on that side.
Mike, are you aware of anything?
Mr. Stewart. Well, thank you for that. I guess I will count
my blessings and knock on wood. And I would conclude just
saying we love this land. I mean, that is the reason I live in
Utah. I was writing books. I could have lived anywhere in the
world. I chose to live in Utah because we love this land. We
want to work with you to protect it, but we just beg you, you
know, to use those of us who live there and love it as a
resource as we try to find some ways to do both.
So thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Stewart is the most read author
in Congress, we are very proud of him.
Mr. Stewart. I do not know what that means actually.
Mr. Calvert. I do not know either. [Laughter.]
Mr. Israel.
Mr. Israel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope to be one day
one of the most read authors in Washington.
WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING
Madam Secretary, welcome. I wanted to shift to an issue
that generally has bipartisan support on this subcommittee,
committee, and in Congress, and that is wildlife trafficking.
You and I attended an Ivory Crush in Times Square, New York
City, over the summer. I have been working on a bipartisan
basis with Jeff Fortenberry from Nebraska on this issue. Many
of us support additional resources for wildlife trafficking not
only because it is a humanitarian thing to do, but because we
are learning that wildlife trafficking is providing revenue
streams to terrorist organizations around the world.
And I just want to ask you this one very simple question:
Tell us what your budget does with respect to wildlife
trafficking. Do you have the resources that you need?
Secretary Jewell. Thank you for your interest, and thank
you for that really effective public awareness session when we
crushed the ton of ivory. That is on top of 6 tons we crushed
in the wildlife repository. There are a few more people in
Times Square than there are in the Rocky Mountain Arsenal
National Wildlife Refuge.
We had a total budget of $56 million 2016, including
funding from the State Department. In 2017, we have about a
half a million-dollar increase. It covers a multitude of areas.
There is $33 million in the Fish and Wildlife Service for
international affairs. That includes law enforcement dedicated
to wildlife trafficking of $7.5 million, then the Multinational
Species Conservation Fund at $11 million.
I have been to two demand countries, Vietnam and China, on
this issue. Vietnam in particular is also a source country for
pangolin in particular and turtles. I went to an area where
they are trying to rehabilitate pangolin and turtles, a
conservation area. But the demand for rhino horn, for elephant
ivory, for pangolin, for exotic meats that are not sustainably
harvested throughout Asia is extreme. We are just scratching
the surface frankly with the efforts that we have.
The State Department has been helpful. I went to Gabon,
Kenya, and South Africa in January. I saw what I would say is
the best of mankind and the worst of mankind. I went to a rhino
poaching crime scene. The bad news is there were three dead
rhinos to choose from within an easy drive that had been
poached within a few days of my visit to Kruger National Park
just within that northern tier of Kruger, which is just
horrifying. That is the worst of mankind. I went out with
veterinarians and rangers to tag a rhino and put microchips in
the horns so that they could be traced, take blood samples and
so on, but unfortunately the chance of that rhino actually
being poached is quite high.
I went to the Port of Mombasa, which is one of the bad
actor areas that wildlife products move through. I was happy to
see that the Kenyan government actually had removed a number of
people very recently, some that I had met with, because of
corruption at the port that was allowing illegal wildlife
products to go through.
We have six attaches around the world from the Fish and
Wildlife Service. Sometimes, and I learned this when I was
there, they are the trust place that people from different
countries will go to when they are not sure if they can trust
people in the other countries, and with good reason, because
corruption is rampant. It is like drug trafficking or human
trafficking. There is so much money involved relative to what
people can make otherwise that the temptation is very high.
We are just beginning to scratch the surface. I would say
our investments are driving a return on investment. I would
love to have more capacity in these law enforcement attaches
overseas, and they are doing a job that is very, very helpful.
They are also cooperating on technologies that help, for
example, trace the kingpins, not just the poachers on the
ground who sometimes are just trying to feed their families.
We are committed to this effort. I think raising awareness
and visibility so that we kill demand is really important, and
that is why the Times Square Ivory Crush was so important. It
is raising visibility with designer brands that are using these
products that is really important. Brand is critical, and
shaming a brand is a very effective way to impact this.
So thank you for your advocacy, and I would say we are
continuing to chip away, but we have got a long, long way to
go.
Mr. Israel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Madam
Secretary. I think to the extent that the chairman is going to
manage my time, I may try to manage your answer time a little
bit, not as an affront, but just so that we can cover as much
ground as possible. And I am going to endeavor to be crisp so
that that works.
LAND TITLES
The first thing I got to tell you is I need your help. I
have been in this outfit for 53 months and 16 days, but who is
counting, trying to work through the chain of command in the
Bureau of Indian Affairs on title matters. This is not
complicated with lots of moving parts stuff. It is people who
have paid off their homes on reservations and colonies, and
have waited between 5 and 10 years for a simple title plan type
of conveyance. And in my neck of the woods, that is through
Phoenix or Albuquerque, depending on what it is.
And I will just tell you quickly, please give us some help.
We are going to talk with the BIA a little bit later, but it is
like, I mean, in any other sense paying off your home and
waiting for years to have a conveyance is--so I do not know. I
am told it is, well, we are not funded in real estate stuff or
whatever. I am not saying they are or they are not. I am just
saying, come on, there is a problem there. And maybe from your
end it will be more successful than from mine.
Secretary Jewell. I will answer it very quickly. We do have
a challenge in providing titles and responding on things like
that. I have visited those offices. They are very frustrated
because they are not automated. It costs money to automate. I
think there is some money in the budget to continue to support
automation efforts, but we are not going to address this
overnight. But it is an ongoing problem, and we could get back
to you with more detail on the record, or you can ask in the
BIA session, and will make sure that they know of your
question.
Mr. Amodei. Or the other thing is to simply do, like you
did in some other instances, to go, hey, if you want us to fix
this, here is what we need. And if the committee says no, then
the committee says no. But right now it just feels like, oh,
that is kind of the way it has always been, and so there we go.
So anyhow, thank you for your attention to that. I appreciate
it.
SCIENCE COORDINATION
I want to next move to science coordination because I
notice there was language in your opening statement, and you
have got kind of a new effort in house, and you are talking
about coordinating with each other. I would like to meet with
those folks and just have a briefing for what they are doing.
And let me tell you the reason for the request. I am
concerned through the processes of some things recently, sage
hen for one of them, where we speak with Director Ashe and say,
hey, have you used any of the local folks. I am not telling you
that they are in the tank one way or the other, but have you
considered, for instance, the work of the College of
Agriculture at the University Nevada, which has a quite long
track history of Great Basin, sage brush steppe ecosystem,
desert research, excellent outfit, USGS, even some of the
Federal stuff. And I get back from these people, no, we have
not been consulted.
And so, I am not saying, therefore. I am just saying when
you talk about collaboration on the science front and you have
got this, no, I would really like to talk to those folks, say,
okay, they are going to talk in house. But what is the company
policy, if you will, for, hey, can you at least talk to folks
who have been doing this stuff for decades, by the way, not for
one team or another, but in terms of real resource-centric
people with credibility as part of the makeup of what you
decide is the appropriate thing?
Secretary Jewell. Well, specifically the sage grouse it is
probably the most relevant recent example of that. We very much
did take into account State programs, State science, WAFWA, the
Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. I think that
is correct. And that is very, very important to us.
USGS took over largely the science side of the biological
sciences when Bruce Babbitt had my job in the late 1990s. The
USGS is joining very closely with the Fish and Wildlife
Service, doing a lot of scientific research, and they do engage
with local communities. We are happy to get you a briefing if
you would like to dig into that a little more deeply.
Mr. Amodei. I would appreciate that because I will just say
that that has not been my experience to the extent that we have
checked. So we would like to make sure we are fully briefed
before we come to any final conclusions.
SAGE GROUSE
Next, what I would like to do is we have been going back
through some of the stuff forensically in the whole sage grouse
process. And one of the things that we are trying to check, for
instance, is, okay, you have a sagebrush focal area. How were
those boundaries set? And so, we asked the agencies.
And so, one of the folks who did mapping, how were the
boundaries set in USGS. We got some curious non-responses. So
we asked BLM and Dan Ashe's folks, hey. We asked those
questions in January in preparation for this meeting, and we do
not have a response. So I do not have anything specific to say
other than I find that curious.
I will tell you that the Forest Service responded, and they
said the sagebrush focal area boundaries were given to us by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife. So because none of this is national
security, border security, hooping and snooping, we do not have
to have these briefings and SCIFs, if it is like why not just
tell us how we drew those lines where we drew them for those 3
million acres across four States.
I mean, the bottom line is how did we get there? And so, we
have got some frustration on that. So, I mean, forewarned is
forearmed. It is like, listen, I am not saying you did a bad
thing or a good thing. Somebody put a line somewhere on a map.
We would just kind of like to know where that is. So if you
could be of assistance to getting us some response to that,
that would be great.
And one final thing, and actually you are going to get a
talk in this one, so I do want you to think I am----
[Laughter.]
Secretary Jewell. No question, you just want me to listen?
Is that the----
Mr. Amodei. You know, people that have listened said it was
not that great, so you do not try to break the mold.
[Laughter.]
I was in Las Vegas in December for a western caucus policy
forum at the same time you were in there talking to the western
governors. And so, we had an opening, and I had a chance to
come. I said, well, let us go see what the Secretary has to say
to western governors. And I noticed that you made several
references to drinking beers with them, and I do not know if
anybody on this committee has ever had an invite to drink beer
with you, but I know I have not, so I feel a little bit picked
on.
Secretary Jewell. When all our budget hearings are over.
Mr. Amodei. There you go. [Laughter.]
You are buying, right?
Secretary Jewell. I had a couple left over from my party.
[Laughter.]
We did not drink much.
Mr. Amodei. I will bring a big cup. But anyhow, when you
are talking about sage grouse, you said I am a little skeptical
about things that go through in Congress right at the present
time for perhaps the obvious reason. Can you give me the basis
of your skepticism?
ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
Secretary Jewell. Yes. This was around the Endangered
Species Act, and I would say that at the time that I met with
the Western Governors Association, there were a tremendous
number of Endangered Species Act riders going on any kind of
piece of legislation. I know you are shocked. Any piece of
legislation going through.
The main issue that Governor Mead from Wyoming wanted to
take on for his term as head of the Western Governors
Association was the Endangered Species Act. I think we would
agree there are ways it could be implemented that work more
effectively and perhaps where all of us could spend less time
in court, which is certainly in my interest. But with all of
the riders that were being put up around the Endangered Species
Act from, well, any number of them, it is clear that there is a
risk of a gutting of the Endangered Species Act, and I do not
want that to happen either.
My comments were related to that and saying how can we work
together within the bounds of the existing law to interpret it
more effectively for States and do a better job ourselves so we
spend less time in court and more time actually taking care of
these landscapes.
Mr. Amodei. So great. One of the byproducts of that is you
are working with Governor Sandoval directly on sage
initiatives. Are you doing that under general secretarial
authority, or is there something in the act? I mean, what is
the basis for saying, hey, if they need a right-of-way for
something in Baker, or we need to speed up adoption of new
maps, and the governor says he is working with the Secretary of
Interior, what is the authority for that framework so that we
can help the governor with things that maybe he would like to
work with you on?
Secretary Jewell. Well, there is a clear willingness we
have indicated to all States in the sagebrush range that if
there are concerns they have with the plan, they are welcome to
bring them to our attention, and we will operate within the
flexibilities we have. For example, in Nevada, the maps that we
used were the best maps we had at the time but Nevada has
purchased new maps.
And so, part of the discussion was Governor Sandoval said
will you use our new maps, and we said yes, okay. So that is
not the Secretary's authority working with the governor. It is
the governor as a conduit for his folks saying these are some
ways we would like to shape this.
So if it is a water tank leaking in Baker. I cannot
remember specifically whether it was a map issue. There is also
a cemetery in one of the other counties.
Mr. Amodei. Those were all identified as being habitat,
therefore----
Secretary Jewell. Correct. And so, the BLM has
flexibilities to work in specific situations on the ground to
address those circumstances, and that is what was being done.
It is not secretarial authority working with the governor. It
just the Secretary communicating with the governor the
flexibilities that the BLM has. We are doing that whenever
asked in other States, and we will continue to do that whether
or not the States are suing us.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
Secretary Jewell. Thank you.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Jenkins.
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary,
thank you for being here.
PENSION FOR COAL MINERS
I notice in your budget you have got funding to try to help
our coal pension fund for our coal miners. I appreciate the
investment. I look forward to working with you because we want
to make sure that our miners are protected, have a solid
pension, health benefits that they can rely upon.
STREAM PROTECTION RULE
What I would like to spend time on is what the Chair of the
subcommittee, and in particular, the Chair of the full
committee brought up, and that is, of course, stream buffer
zone, stream protection rule, whichever way you want to
characterize it. My biggest concern, Madam Secretary, and I
listened to your testimony carefully. I have read your
submitted testimony. I have read the testimony of the OSM
director. And I am almost at the belief that you all are tone
deaf to the lack of engagement and lack of opportunity for
cooperation and input at the State level.
Earlier you described the idea that you did engage with
States and took into account their input. OSM published a rule,
then held public hearings. When we look back at reality, you
had 10 States enter into an MOU to be cooperating agencies in
late 2010. And then in February of 2011, you have Alabama, New
Mexico, Utah say you were not cooperating and they withdrew.
In March, Texas withdrew. OSM was not cooperating. OSM was
not sharing information. In May, Kentucky, West Virginia, with
a Democratic governor and Democratic legislature withdrew. You
know, this is not a partisan issue. You were not cooperating.
You were not sharing information. They withdrew from
cooperating agency statutes. Indiana, Montana in July.
Then we have to come in with this rider on the omnibus
directing that you share information. OSM has systematically
denied, refused FOIAs. The States that historically you had
great working relationships with have simply said things have
changed dramatically in the last 5, 6 years. So to simply say
to the Chairman earlier we engaged, we took their input, and we
published the rule, I challenge that. I think you are tone deaf
to the reality of what is going on out there for the lack of
cooperation.
So number one, are you aware of the frustration that exists
amongst the States on a lack of cooperation at OSM in your
capacity as the Secretary of Interior? Are you aware of this?
Secretary Jewell. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. Are you doing something about it to try to
reengage these people, because I continue to hear as of
yesterday, no, you have not changed your modus operandi. And,
in fact, you suggested to the Chair just a minute ago that one
of your representatives has reached out to their State. You
referenced that I think 10 or 13 States have been contacted and
visited.
Well, guess what? Your person came to West Virginia. I know
about that meeting. And our folks at DEP specifically said that
OSM represented they are not coming here because of this new
mandate. You are really just talking about things in the past.
So my questions are on a couple of things. Number one, of
the language that is contained in the omnibus that talks about
the stream buffer zone rule and the mandate, I heard you say
earlier that you intend to fully comply. My question is, do you
believe this is legally mandated on you to do this?
Secretary Jewell. I believe if it passed in the
legislation, which it did, then we are legally mandated to
comply, yes.
Mr. Jenkins. Secondly, the issue of all technical reports
and data as the chairman ran through, are you going to be
reviewing and releasing some, or are you truly going to the 5,
6, 7 years, which this, I believe, requires all reports, data,
analysis, comments. You are going to turn this over to all of
the States, plus I heard you say you are going to make it
available on the Web. So is everything going to be put out
there?
Secretary Jewell. I will have to rely on my people at the
Office of Surface Mining on what is in compliance with the
order. I do not know exactly what the order says. I know what
material that responds to, but they will be responsive to the
requests, and they will do it in accordance with the omni.
Mr. Jenkins. Well, it is not an order. You have to
understand it is legally binding. This is the law.
Secretary Jewell. Right.
Mr. Jenkins. It was signed by the President. So it is not
an order. It is the law. And I will just read it. ``OSM is
directed to provide the States with all technical reports,
data, analysis, comments received, and drafts relative to the
environmental reviews, draft and final environmental impact
statements.'' Will you provide all of that information?
Secretary Jewell. We will comply with the law.
Mr. Jenkins. Okay.
Mr. Connor. Could I just note, Congressman, I believe that
was report language. It is not statutory language. But
nonetheless, our intent is to comply with that report language.
Mr. Jenkins. Well, I asked the Secretary if it was legally
binding, and she just said it is the law. So are you trying to
correct her and say, well----
Secretary Jewell. He is trying to correct me, and I stand
corrected. Thank you, Mike.
Mr. Jenkins. So now what I am hearing and sensing is that
you do not think it is a requirement of law, and, therefore,
you may not have to comply fully.
Mr. Connor. I was just being technically correct as to what
the language is, and there is a distinction between statutory
language and report language.
Mr. Calvert. Let me ask this question for the gentleman.
Your intent is to comply to the reporting language in the bill.
Secretary Jewell. Yes.
Mr. Calvert. And there is no reason not to be transparent
and to provide the information to the States that have asked
for this.
Secretary Jewell. That is correct.
Mr. Calvert. And by the way, just to the point of Mr.
Jenkins, these are governors both Democratic and Republican
that have asked for this information. This is, as it was
pointed out, not a partisan issue.
Secretary Jewell. I understand that. I also know there was
a tremendous amount of work collaborating with the States up
front, and also a desire to get something done. I know you will
have an opportunity to meet with Joe Pizarchik, who runs the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement. He is
deeply involved in this, understands it, was a state regulator.
And I think that we will be much more effective in being able
to answer the detailed nature of your questions as opposed to
me----
Mr. Calvert. We will be meeting with him tomorrow. Mr.
Joyce.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, I
would really like to investigate where exactly this keg is
right now. [Laughter.]
GREAT LAKES
Mr. Joyce. I know you know how important the Great Lakes
are. As a matter of fact, to quote you, you once wrote, ``The
Great Lakes are a monumentally unique national treasure
containing nearly 95 percent of the United States fresh surface
water. Formed by receding glaciers, the Great Lakes support a
thriving and resilient ecosystem rich with fish and abundant
natural resources.'' I would add rich cultural historic,
commercial, and industrial resources as well, we certainly
agree on that point.
Given all this, I find it disturbing that the President
again proposed to cut a program that is producing such terrific
results. If there is any program that we should hold up as a
model of intra- and intergovernmental and non-governmental
cooperation that produces results, it is GLRI, the Great Lakes
Restoration Initiative. Do you have any explanation for why we
continue to see these proposed cuts to GLRI?
Ms. Sarri. As you know, that is in the----
Mr. Joyce. Do you know where the keg is? [Laughter.]
Ms. Sarri. She has not told me yet. That is actually an EPA
program, and so I would just encourage you to talk to EPA about
why the cut was taken. My understanding is that there are some
carryover balances remaining. That is part of the reason for a
reduced funding level. But I think EPA is in a better position
to discuss their budget.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you. That brings me to my next question.
The actual cuts proposed by the EPA include $2.1 million for
the Bureau of Indian Affairs, $400,00 for the National Park
Service, $11.1 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service, and
$8.2 million for the USGS. Can you describe for me the
consequences your agencies face if we were to fund the GLRI at
the President's proposed levels?
Ms. Sarri. So just let me talk specifically to the
Department of Interior's budget because we actually have $69.9
million. We are very supportive of the work the bureaus are
doing in the Great Lakes. Obviously the additional money we get
from the Great Lakes Initiative is incredibly important to our
bureaus and that kind of cross agency effort. So there will be
some impacts on it.
But as you know, it is kind of a competitive allocation
among the different bureaus that participate or the departments
that participate. It is not clear what the cuts would be in a
future budget year since we would have to work on what the
program would be like in 2017.
Secretary Jewell. Let me just say, though, that the EPA
money has been used to address invasive species, water quality,
and ecosystem health. Without the resources that we have had in
2016, those are the areas that would be directly impacted if we
did not get funding from the EPA at an equivalent level.
ASIAN CARP
Mr. Joyce. Beautiful, because that brings me to my next
question. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has a critical
role to play in working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
to help it understand the urgency relating to the movement of
Asian carp toward Lake Michigan. In 2015, juvenile Asian carp
advanced 66 miles closer to Lake Michigan.
It is my understanding that the Army Corps is developing
what was once called an emergency response plan, but is now
being referred to as a contingency plan. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service should play a critical role in developing this
plan because its fishery biologists understand fish population
dynamics, and can inform the Army Corps to help ensure the fish
do not advance beyond Brandon Road Lock and Dam. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service can alert the Corps and other Federal and
State agencies to the urgency of new data that may be collected
in 2016.
Madam Secretary, what role is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service playing in developing this contingency plan?
Secretary Jewell. I am not sure. I will have to double
check and get back to you for the record because I know they
have been working closely with the Army Corps and the USGS on
everything from e-DNA to, you know, various hazing methods to
stop the fish from going further. But I am not sure
specifically as it relates to that program, unless one of my
colleagues knows. So we will get back to you on that.
[The information follows:]
Asian Carp
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and partner agencies of
the Asian Carp Regional Coordinating Committee (ACRCC) are developing
contingency response plans to address the potential upstream movement
of all life stages of Asian carp in the upper Illinois River and
Chicago Area Waterway System (CAWS), with the goal of increased
protection for the Great Lakes. FWS serves as co-chair of the ACRCC
along with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and is a member of
the ACRCC's Monitoring and Response Work Group. The Work Group is
leading development of the contingency plans as part of the broader
effort to complete the ACRCC's 2016 Monitoring and Response Plan.
The contingency plans will include recommendations on detection and
control tools and deployment strategies for management agencies in the
event Asian carp are detected in the upper Illinois River or CAWS.
Mr. Joyce. I really believe this is one of the most
bipartisan, as I said before, intra-governmental, non-
governmental programs, and we are all working together. We urge
you to get on top of this issue because we only have once
chance to do this right, and we have got to stop talking about
the Great Lakes as a series of lakes and start talking about it
as a natural treasure because we cannot afford to screw this
up.
With that, I yield.
Secretary Jewell. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To Mr. Joyce, we
will figure out what is going on. We had legislation, and the
Army Corps might have been assigned some responsibility because
it had something to do with navigable waters. We will get to
the bottom of it.
LAW ENFORCEMENT
Without getting into the specifics of what happened in
Oregon, because I know that is an ongoing investigation, I want
to follow up with a few questions in the most general sense.
I would like to know what the Department of Interior is
doing to enhance employee safety. I had a discussion with the
Bureau of Land Management, on this topic, and I had a similar
discussion with the Forest Service. First responders are quite
often what the National Parks folks are. Fish and Wildlife
employees sometimes are responding to an accident. Sometimes
Interior employees are first on scene to investigate damage to
a property on Park Service land, or they are checking something
out that has been reported to them by a hiker in a refuge, or
they are looking at a flood plain after something has gone
through our public lands.
I point this out because we have had fewer employees out
there working on a lot of these projects, and protecting our
lands, and making sure that visitors have a safe and good
experience. They are out there more increasingly alone, farther
away from help should they need it--whether they become
injured, or they stumble upon something, or feel that they are
in an unsafe situation.
If you could, please tell us what the Department is looking
at doing to enhance employee protection and personal safety,
whether it is out checking on a hiker or whatever. Do you have
the tools that you need? Is this something the committee should
be requesting you to kind of put together a report on what
needs to happen?
We also know damage is done by some individuals in our
public lands. I was at Voyageurs National Park, and saw where
somebody decided they get a better view looking at what they
wanted to by breaking a chain on a picnic table and sawing down
a tree. The park superintendent thought she was maybe going to
be able to figure out which camper did that. That is damage to
public property.
Are you seeing an increase in damage to public property,
whether it is things that are clearly unlawful or just people
just not using common sense? What should we be doing to work
with you to make sure that damage is not starting to impact
your budget in a negative way? Your budget dollars are so
tight. We are trying to work on backlog. The climate has
changed out there for some of the responsibilities and some of
the things that the Department of Interior is starting to
experience now, and the Forest Service, and BLM. What do you
need?
Secretary Jewell. I am going to answer at a higher level,
and then I going to turn it to Kris who oversees our Office of
Law Enforcement and Security.
Let me say this, you are right about the kinds of jobs they
do. They are first responders. I did a hike in Shenandoah up
Old Rag, and as I was coming down they were launching a rescue.
They were actually physically going to have to carry somebody
down a mountain that had slipped and had a bad dislocated
shoulder. They needed 20 people to be able to do that
evacuation. They were calling them in from all over,
volunteers, search and rescue, and so on. That is quite common.
In fact, on that particular hike it happens multiple times
every week.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has relatively few folks, and
a lot of times what they are doing is ensuring people are
abiding by the hunting and fishing laws, so really more like
game wardens. In the case of the Malhuer Refuge, there was one
person assigned to that refuge, and clearly lots and lots of
reinforcements had to be called.
In BLM, we have roughly one law enforcement person per
million acres in the BLM. Most of the people that are out
enjoying BLM lands in parts of the West are armed. So when you
are by yourself patrolling, it is risky. We are deploying GPS
devices for all of our BLM rangers out in the field so that
they know we know where they are. In some cases, we are
patrolling with two together, which means we are patrolling
half the area we were before, but their safety is obviously of
paramount importance to us as is public safety.
I think the situation at Malheur and some of the increasing
risk we see on public lands is something we need to be very
aware of, and our people are very vulnerable. We have had
threats, guns fired in the air where people were doing surveys
to chase them off the land. We have obviously left. We have had
situations where armed militias have been called in when we
have tried to enforce mining laws. That is in the State of
Oregon also.
So there is increased heat, I would say. Part of the answer
to that is going to be working with communities as we have done
in Harney County before, which I think was very helpful, and as
we are doing in communities across the West. But our law
enforcement people could use improved devices like the GPS. I
would not want to militarize them. That is not what they are
for.
As we have more visitation, we have a greater need for law
enforcement. We are not necessarily able to respond, but we do
try and have cooperative relationships with local law
enforcement that helps. But, Kris, do you want to talk more
specifically?
Ms. Sarri. Sure, I would be happy to. Thank you very much
for the question. Within the Office of Policy Management and
Budget, we have the Office of Law Enforcement and Security. It
is the office that sets national policy across all our land
management bureaus, and we look very closely at safety of our
employees, also working with all the bureaus to do security
assessments of their facilities.
We have some increases in the 2017 budget across all of our
law enforcement bureaus. A couple of other initiatives that we
are pursuing is along the southwest border obviously working
closely with CBP, we have a lot of lands where drugs are
smuggled across the border. We have worked on a southwest radio
interoperability initiative there so we, working with other
Federal agencies--Forest Service is part of that--make sure we
have really good radios in place, and they are interoperable.
We are looking into how we can expand that as a pilot across
the Nation.
We have some increased money in the BLM budget for that
purpose because they are kind of the governance structure for
that to support all of the other bureaus. Efforts like that
where we can improve our technology, get better
interoperability are also things that both help keep the public
safe and keep our employees safe as well.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. A point to Ms. McCollum, we have this growth
in marijuana groves, not just on the Forest Service property,
but on BLM property, all kinds of property. I have been told by
law enforcement it is primarily two major drug cartels coming
out of Mexico. Every once in a while they shoot each other, and
people get caught in the crossfire. So it is something we need
to keep an eye on and to deal with.
Secretary Jewell. Sometimes they set up booby traps for our
people, too, including at national parks, like Sequoia and
Kings Canyon. So it is a high risk.
Mr. Calvert. Right. And I am hearing a lot about it lately.
It seems like it is a growing problem, not one that is going
away.
ANTIQUITIES ACT
I want to talk a little bit about the Antiquities Act. On
Friday, February 12th, President Obama used his authority under
the Antiquities Act to establish three new national monuments
totaling nearly 1.8 million acres in my region of southern
California. I was driving down the freeway and heard about it
on the news. Unfortunately I was not provided the courtesy of
being notified of the President's action by your Department or
the White House in advance of the announcement. Neither was
Congressman Cook. By the way, over 70 percent of his district
was impacted by that decision. He represents the Mojave Desert.
And I do not care, which Administration it is. Members of
Congress deserve to be notified when something like that is
happening where we could at least be prepared for the onslaught
that comes, and I know that Paul Cook certainly got some, so we
do not have to read about it in the Washington Post.
Secretary Jewell. I apologized on the phone. I will do it
in front of the cameras as well. I am sorry that you did not
receive a call and neither did Congressman Cook, from the
Administration.
Mr. Calvert. As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the
President has used authority under the Antiquities Act 22 times
since 2009 to bypass Congress and designate 40 million acres as
national monuments. So obviously this is going to have some
fiscal impact, budget impact. How are we going to pay for all
this?
Secretary Jewell. In a budget like the BLM budget, we have
increases for national conservation lands in general. The
national monuments that are on BLM lands are typically within
the national conservation lands. The monument designation in
and of itself does not immediately increase the cost to
maintain these landscapes, but over time as there is increased
visitation, there is an expectation we will likely have an
increased cost.
We are doing private philanthropy in some cases in some of
the monuments that have been designated. In fact, in some cases
the monuments themselves have been a donation to us with
endowment or support to continue to support what they need as
they welcome additional visitors. But like national parks and
monuments that are created by Congress, to the extent that they
increase costs, those will be reflected in future year
operating budgets once we have done an assessment of the needs
and have an operating plan. So to the extent that goes up, we
would ask for that in a future budget.
Mr. Calvert. I am going to discuss now the Owyhee National
Monument in Oregon. A number of groups have been urging the
Administration to create this 2.5 million acre national
monument in southeastern Oregon, an area that is larger than
Rhode Island and Connecticut combined, and even Yellowstone
National Park. These efforts included high-level meetings with
the White House Council on Environmental Quality and other
agencies.
The proposal and campaign has generated strong opposition
from the area local residents, local governments, certainly the
local congressman, and I have heard from him, with Malheur and
other surrounding counties strongly opposed to this
designation. Potential restrictions for access and grazing use
on these lands is a strong concern that was mentioned earlier,
where multigenerational family ranching make up the backbone of
the local economy.
I understand that there are conversations taking place now
between the BLM and some of the interested parties. There are
also certainly requests for the Administration to make public
its position and plans for the Owyhee Canyon lands. I guess
nobody is hearing anything, you know, the biggest creator of
fear is silence.
Are there any Department of Interior personnel assisting
anyone in the White House, the Council on Environmental
Quality, or elsewhere in the Administration with technical or
other support related to the designation of a national monument
around the Owyhee River in southeastern Oregon?
Secretary Jewell. As I said to Judge Grasty from Harney
County and also to Congressman Walden, I am not aware of, you
know, any efforts that are going on right now with regard to
Owyhee Canyon lands in our Department. There has been an
interest expressed by Congressman Blumenauer from the Portland
area, from Keene Footwear, as part of a live monumental
campaign. But I have not seen any information, nor have we held
any community meetings or discussions with people around Owyhee
Canyon lands to my knowledge. Mike, do you know of any? No?
Mr. Calvert. Would you please confirm whether any such
assistance is being given and provide a written response back
to the committee based upon that conversation so we can have
that and I can share that with Mr. Walden?
Secretary Jewell. Yes, I did share it with him yesterday at
the hearing as well.
[The information follows:]
National Monument Designations
Designation of monuments under the Antiquities Act is a
Presidential, not Departmental, action. When examining whether to
recommend particular monuments for Presidential action, the Department
engages in consultation with national, state, local, and tribal
stakeholders, in keeping with the President's commitment.
Mr. Calvert. Okay, great. Well, thank you. Any other
questions? Ms. Pingree.
INVASIVE SPECIES
Ms. Pingree. Thank you again, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your
time in front of the committee and answering such a wide
diversity of questions. I just want to talk a little bit plants
in the Park Service.
As you know, I know you have been to Maine, and I think you
visited Acadia National Park. This is our centennial as well as
the Parks, so it is a very exciting year. And we appreciated
Ranking Member McCollum has been able to visit us. We are
hoping maybe the chair and other committee members can come to
one of the most spectacular, most visited parks in the country
and enjoy our lobster dinner, which is coincident with visiting
the park. They pretty much just walk up to you when visiting.
It is the simple things.
I just want to talk briefly. We talk about so many
important parts of our spectacularly beautiful national parks,
but one thing we do concern ourselves with are native plants
and flowers. I know you are increasingly concerned about
invasive species and the questioned presence of the emerald ash
borer and the variety of other things that can interfere with
keeping our native plants strong and present.
About a quarter of Acadia's flora is non-native, and 25
species in the park are listed as rare. So if you would just
talk briefly about the National Park Service program for native
plant restoration in our National Research Stewardship Budget.
Can you tell us a little bit about how you work on this effort,
where you have had success stories in reversing some of the
challenges of species lost, and the importance of species in
our ecosystem overall.
Secretary Jewell. I will talk at a higher level, and, Kris,
I do not know if you can come up with numbers specifically on
this while I am saying a few words.
This is a huge challenge across the national parks. Emerald
ash borer, woolly adelgid, which wiped out the hemlocks largely
in the Smokies. The pine park beetle, which is a native
species, but because of climate change and a few degrees higher
temperature, it is wiping out a lot of the pine forests in the
Rocky Mountains in particular and other parts.
This is a huge issue, and we cannot keep up. We can do
damage control. Early detection and rapid response on an
invasive species is part of our budget here which will be
across the landscape not specific to the National Park Service.
The use of Youth Conservation Corps crews and local volunteers
to actually do some of the hard work on invasive species
removal is continuing.
I would say that invasive species in general are winning,
so it becomes a triage effort. Where can we protect a growth of
trees and treat those trees or treat in the immediate area when
we cannot treat the whole landscape, so we are not losing the
species entirely, but we cannot stop the onslaught, especially
for some of these insects that are taking advantage of slight
changes in climate, which would include the tick population you
mentioned also, just slight increases.
Kris, do you have any numbers you want to share?
Ms. Sarri. So the one thing I would also just mention is
last week we did a framework on early detection and rapid
response, which is actually very critical in terms of trying to
have a national framework to look at addressing invasive
species. But what the Park Service is requesting is $18.3
million overall for control and management, but I will get back
to you on the record for specifically what is happening in
Acadia.
[The information follows:]
Invasive Species
In FY 2015, the NPS spent $18.3 million in on-the-ground education,
outreach, detection, and control and monitoring work to combat invasive
plants and animal species. The NPS plans to continue this level of
effort in FY 2016 and FY 2017. The National Park Service is working to
manage invasive species on park lands through a suite of national and
local programs, each based upon the following strategies: cooperation
and collaboration, inventory and monitoring, prevention, early
detection and rapid response, treatment and control, and restoration.
At the national level, NPS has fostered a successful invasive plant
management program with the creation of the Exotic Plant Management
Teams (EPMT). These 15 teams provide highly trained mobile assistance
in invasive plant management to parks throughout the National Park
System. The EPMTs serve more than 282 parks over a broad geographic
area and work to identify, develop, conduct, and evaluate invasive
exotic species removal projects. The NPS is using various approaches to
control invasive exotic species populations in parks and to protect
sensitive resources from destruction by invasive exotic species,
including integrated pest management supported by current scientific
information and best management practices. In FY 2015, EPMTs worked
with 1,331 young people who contributed 100,470 hours to invasive plant
management control and restoration efforts across the country. In
addition, EPMTs treated 3,559 acres and inventoried and monitored
24,150 acres.
At Acadia National Park almost 25 percent of the park's flora is
non-native and about 25 species are state-listed as rare plants. As is
the case for many parks, Acadia has been able to control a number of
invasive plant species and they have seen a recovery of native plant
communities. For example, the park began its invasive plant control
effort 30 years ago by targeting purple loosestrife. At the time,
purple loosestrife was recognized as one of the most threatening of the
known invasive species because of the high-value, ecologically-
important wetlands where it was a rapid colonizer. Today, the species
has been controlled within the boundaries of the park, allowing native
plants to rebound. Park staff continues to survey and treat new
occurrences that move into the park from adjacent property.
The park also has expanded its invasive plant management program
through partnerships with governmental and non-governmental agencies
and has been very successful in controlling other high priority
invasive species, including giant hogweed, spotted knapweed, Japanese
knotweed, and glossy buckthorn. However, new invasive plant species
appear on the horizon all of the time so acres under control are a
moving target. Additionally, any of the acres infested are infested
with multiple species, and thus are not considered controlled if some
of the priority species have not yet been addressed. For example,
purple loosestrife and glossy buckthorn have been controlled, but
Norway maple has not yet been managed.
Ms. Pingree. Great, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Calvert. I will just point out before I go onto Mr.
Amodei better management would go farther to stop the pine
beetle. We have tremendous overgrowth in some of the forests in
the West, and there are just too many trees per acre. That is
causing distress with the lack of water, which is helping
increase the problems.
Mr. Amodei.
ANTIQUITIES ACT
Mr. Amodei. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Madam Secretary, since
you are kind of checking into that monument stuff, I would
appreciate it you could check and see what your folks did, if
anything, in support of the designation of the Basin Range
National Monument before the actual designation. So if there
was any sort of workups or anything else like that, just a
general description of what you did pre-designation.
[The information follows:]
Basin Range National Monument
The President designated Basin Range National Monument, located on
public lands in southeastern Nevada, as a national monument on July 10,
2015. This national monument--located in one of the most remote and
undeveloped areas of the state--exemplifies the rich cultural history,
varied wildlife and vast open spaces with stunning views for which the
state is known. The designation also preserves current uses of the
land, including traditional ranching practices and ongoing military
training operations, while ensuring that the land remains unspoiled for
future generations.
Prior to this designation, the Administration engaged in
consultation with national, state, local, and tribal stakeholders. For
example, in February 2015, Interior Deputy Secretary Mike Connor and
Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Director Neil Kornze visited Las Vegas
at the request of Senator Harry Reid and Congresswoman Dina Titus to
hear from the community about its vision for conservation in southern
Nevada.
The BLM will prepare a management plan for the monument in formal
cooperation with the State of Nevada, local governments, and tribes.
The plan will be developed in an open process with maximum public
involvement.
Mr. Amodei. And the final point is this. I know you have
made a point of saying, hey, we work with communities and stuff
like that. There actually was a meeting before the Basin and
Range designation, but I would represent to you that the
attendance at that meeting was highly selective, and did not
include some of the folks you would assume, counties affected,
county commissioners, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And so, while there may have been an indication to you,
like, listen, we met with folks in the community, that is
probably a true statement, but it might help to say what is the
cross-section as opposed to like where do they live. Do they
actually live in the community, and do they represent, because
I know you guys are pro-diversity, diverse interests in the
community.
So with that, I yield back. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Just one quick little comment on
this pumping issue, Mike, so you will know this issue.
[Laughter.]
DELTA WATER
Thirty-four days out of 80 from December 1 when the season
started, the flows through the delta ranged from 20,000 CFS to
50,000 CFS. You had days where literally 98 percent of the
water was flowing underneath the Golden Gate Bridge. It begs
the question, how much water is necessary for a smelt
population. And, you know, how long is this season where we
have not been able to pump water. I hope that is over by now. I
hope that this season is over with the smelt so we can start
pumping this water.
You do have the authority once you are convinced, that the
smelt are no longer near the pumps, where you can pump in
excess of 5,000 cubic feet per second. In case we do have
significant storms, we have to take advantage of this. I am
following this every single day.
Mr. Connor. I never doubted that for a moment. [Laughter.]
Mr. Calvert. Okay. All right. Thank you very much. We
appreciate your coming, Madam Secretary, and have a wonderful
day.
Secretary Jewell. Thanks for the hard work of the committee
and the staff. You guys do a really, really good job. Thanks.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. We are adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[
Thursday, March 3, 2016.
BUDGET HEARING--OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND ENFORCEMENT
WITNESSES
JOSEPH PIZARCHIK, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND
ENFORCEMENT
GLENDA OWENS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND
ENFORCEMENT
RUTH STOKES, BUDGET OFFICER, OFFICE OF SURFACE MINING RECLAMATION AND
ENFORCEMENT
Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert
Mr. Calvert. The hearing will come to order. Good morning.
Director Pizarchik, at yesterday's hearing, the Secretary
committed to everyone at this table--sorry. Hold on here.
Excuse me.
All right. I have got to start off with my first opening
statement. Yes. I haven't had my coffee yet.
The committee will come to order. Good morning, and
welcome, Director. Thank you for joining us to discuss the 2017
budget request for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement. I believe fiscal year 2012 was the last time we
had a budget hearing with you. So thank you for coming back.
We have seen many similar budget proposals from your office
since then, and you have seen many similar responses from the
committee in return. Last year, however, the budget proposed
the POWER Plus initiative to accelerate Federal funding for the
reclamation of abandoned mine land areas and to promote
economic development in those local economies.
Chairman Rogers, Congressman Jenkins, and I took a look and
supported the overall concept. Several administrative
components generated concerns, which prompted a retooled,
streamlined approach that we thought should be tested in a few
States before making changes to the underlying law.
The Subcommittee has high expectations for the success of
the pilot, including in the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus, and we
will want to discuss our vision for successful implementation
today.
STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN ROGERS
I know that Chairman Rogers would like to be here today,
but unfortunately, he has some other pressing commitments at
this time. We ask that his testimony be entered into the
record.
[The statement of Chairman Rogers follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Calvert. As you know, his district in Kentucky is
experiencing an unemployment crisis, and he asked me to convey
his thanks for your partnership in implementing this AML pilot
project.
Despite these good faith efforts and recognition by the
administration of the dire straits in coal country, I share in
the chairman's disappointment that the Administration continues
to pursue a ``keep it in the ground'' policy when it comes to
coal. While innovative economic development initiatives are
part of the solution, the Chairman knows we will not be able to
turn this situation around or provide meaningful support to the
10,000 coal miners in his district who are out of work without
regulatory relief.
The Stream Protection Rule is a prime example of this
overreach, and I trust you have seen the letter that Chairman
Rogers and I sent to Secretary Jewell on February 4th,
regarding the directives in the fiscal year 2016 Omnibus
related to this rule. As we discussed with the Secretary
yesterday, these directives reflect an agreement between
Congress and the Administration that OSM has not been working
with the States as partners. We would like to discuss how that
will change this year.
It is also timely that we have this hearing today so as we
may recognize the Budget Officer, Ruth Stokes. Today is her
last day, and it is only fitting that we offer her our
gratitude for her many years of service to our country.
I understand there is some room for interpretation
regarding whether you are saying good-bye after 38 years versus
39 years. We will just round it up, just say 39 years, and I
hope you have some good, independent trips outside of the
budget cycle ahead of you, and we wish you the best in your
retirement.
With that, I would like to yield now to our ranking member
from Minnesota, Ms. McCollum, if you would like to offer any
opening remarks?
OPENING REMARKS OF MS. MCCOLLUM
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
I would like to welcome the Director to the Subcommittee,
and I would like to thank you for being here.
And congratulations to Ms. Stokes, and I wish you all the
best in your new phase of life. Let us put it that way. I don't
think women ever totally retire.
The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement is
one of the smaller bureaus that the Department of Interior has,
but it plays a vital role protecting society and our
environment from the adverse effects of surface coal mining.
Last year, we provided $90 million for reclamation and economic
development grants that will all go to three Appalachian
States. This was a significant funding infusion, increasing the
budget by 60 percent.
These funds will support important necessary environmental
restoration and economic development in some of the Nation's
most disadvantaged areas. These lands had been ravaged by the
damaging effects of mountaintop mining.
The legacy of poor environmental practices and lack of
restoration has devastated communities, forcing them to contend
with polluted drinking water, flooding, and the threat of leaky
sludge dams.
Now I agree that the Federal Government should step in and
help these people who have been failed by mining companies that
spoil the land and abandon their responsibilities. However, I
do not think the Interior Bill is the appropriate place to fund
this grant program.
And Mr. Chairman, Minnesota has a history of mining
taconite ore and logging. And in the 1930s, after we had almost
clear cut from northeastern Minnesota all the way to the
Canadian border and dug open pit mines and devastated our
rivers, lakes, and streams, we realized we needed to come up
with another plan. Part of it was to figure out a way to mine
in a sustainable way. Part of it was to heal back the scars
that we had created on the surface of Minnesota. And so the
IRRRB was formed, which is funded very differently than how we
are talking about funding today.
But I say this, Mr. Chairman, because I know firsthand the
devastation that continues from the loss of mining jobs up in
northern Minnesota, the amount of money the State of Minnesota
and the Federal Government has had to come in and spend in
doing land reclamation sometimes when the timber companies and
mining companies walked away from it.
So I offer that in the spirit of wanting this to work, but
I do want to be clear that I think there is another revenue
stream or other ways in which we can move forward in the work
that needs to be done in these Appalachian counties.
And with that, I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
Director? Oh, excuse me, Director, you are recognized for
your opening statement.
Opening Remarks of Director Pizarchik
Mr. Pizarchik. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
McCollum, and Congressman Jenkins. I appreciate the invitation
to testify here today on behalf of the Administration's fiscal
year 2017 budget request for the Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement.
The Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977
established OSMRE for two basic purposes. Our primary
obligation is to ensure coal mines are operated in accordance
with the law to protect citizens and the environment during
mining, and to restore the land and water after mining. The
second basic purpose is to implement an abandoned mine land
program to address the hazards and environmental damage caused
from historic coal mining.
SMCRA strikes a balance between protecting people and the
environment while enough coal is mined to meet our energy
needs, but prohibits the issuance of permits to mine coal where
the land and water cannot be restored.
Nearly 39 years have passed since SMCRA came into play, and
coal remains an important fuel. It is used to generate about 34
percent of our nation's electricity. OSMRE is committed to
proper implementation of the SMCRA, together with the States
and Tribes.
SMCRA has been a success at improving land reclamation, but
when it comes to protecting our water and streams, we have
significant opportunities to do better. We know more today than
was known 40 years ago, and we continue to strive to completely
implement the law to protect the people and the environment.
The States, Tribes, and OSMRE have been successful
restoring abandoned mine lands. For example, over 380,000 acres
of high priority abandoned coal mines have been reclaimed. To
put that in perspective, if all of those abandoned mine lands
were in one place, it would cover an area about 10 times larger
than Washington, D.C.
Similarly, there were 3,443,188 feet of dangerous high
walls, basically manmade cliffs, that were created by coal
mining and abandoned mine lands that have been eliminated. If
all of those high walls were lined up end to end, they would
stretch clear from Washington, D.C. to Detroit, Michigan.
We can take great pride in what has been accomplished, but
it will take several billion dollars more to complete the job
of reclaiming the abandoned coal mines. Please remember every
community that has polluted waters or rivers or dangerous pits
has been waiting at least 4 years to have their environment
restored.
In fiscal year 2016, we gave the States and Tribes $224.6
million of abandoned mine reclamation funds, but we were
required to withhold more than $13 million of their money
because of sequestration. The people of coal country should not
be shortchanged by sequestration when we have their money.
In this case, the Budget Control Act imposes impacts on
some of our most needy people, and it does so in a way that
actually, in my opinion, counteracts the goals of the Budget
Control Act. I urge you to end this penalty on coal communities
because since that law came into effect, we have been forced to
withhold almost $71 million of money that we collected from the
industry to provide to coal country, and there is, in my mind,
no good reason why we should continue to do so. We ought to get
that money on the ground where it can be used.
Standing in stark contrast to the sequester is the $90
million, Mr. Chairman, that you referenced regarding the AML
economic development funds provided in the Omnibus Bill. I
commend Chairman Rogers and Congress for their efforts to help
coal country communities. I commend each of you who voted for
this appropriation. Your actions in this regard truly give
meaning to the phrase of ``Government of the people, by the
people, for the people.''
Working together, we can pass a budget that supports
responsible coal mining and reclamation, and which protects
coal miners and their families who have been abandoned by the
mining companies.
The 2017 budget request totals $157.9 million in
discretionary spending, a decrease of $82.6 million from the
2016 enacted, and that is because of the one-time $90 million
pilot project for grants to three Appalachian states for the
reclamation of AML sites in conjunction with economic and
community development. We believe our 2017 proposal more than
offsets that with the $1 billion legislative proposal to
promote reclamation of abandoned mine lands, to accelerate the
disbursement of that money out of the AML fund.
I again, commend Chairman Rogers and everyone who has
joined him in sponsoring the RECLAIM Act. I think that is a
very good step in the direction to help these communities that
need assistance. And more importantly, we have their money.
The discretionary budget provides full funding for the
State and Tribal regulatory grants. It enables OSMRE to address
existing legal obligations and demands, such as technical
assistance to the States and tribes to help them do their jobs,
to meet increased NEPA workload requirements for environmental
assessments and environmental impact statements for mine plans
and that area of evolving law, and to process State program
amendments. It also invests in technology for the future. It
proposes to expand the coal mine geographic information system
and to enhance digitization of underground mine maps in order
to protect miners and the public from the dangers of the
abandoned underground coal mines.
We propose to expand reforestation of our former mine lands
to create job opportunities for our youth. We know that we have
well in excess of 1 million acres of ground across the country
that had been formerly forested, but it is basically grassland
since mining and reclamation.
On the abandoned mines, we propose $914.4 million in
permanent appropriations. Of that is the $200 million a year
that we propose to accelerate from the disbursement of the AML
fund for power & projects. We propose funding the United Mine
Workers of America Health and Benefit Trust Funds and for the
1974 pension plans for a total of $540.1 million, which
includes the $375.4 million for the new proposal. That will
provide healthcare for people who are losing their healthcare
because of various bankruptcies in the coal industry. It will
provide funding to OSMRE to provide to the Pension Benefit
Guaranty Trust Corporation to shore up the 1974 pension plan,
which is on the verge of insolvency and where the median
retirement benefit is $270 a month.
On this proposal and the legislative proposal to revitalize
our communities for accelerating that disbursal, again I look
forward to working with Chairman Rogers and every Member of
Congress to accelerate the disbursement of that money out of
the fund.
There are also three other proposed changes to the current
law. One would eliminate the payments to certified States and
Tribes. Those are States and Tribes that have certified they
have completed the reclamation of all of their abandoned coal
mines. That is projected to save about $520 million over the
next 10 years.
There is a legislative proposal to restore the reclamation
fee to the original levels from 1977, and that would generate
about $49 million additional in 2017 that would go to the
States in 2018 to reclaim high-priority abandoned coal mine
sites.
And there is a proposal to establish a hard rock AML
program with a fee so the industry's problems that were created
prior to the regulation of mining can be addressed, as the coal
industry is planning to clean up the legacy that it had
created.
Finally, on February 4th, Chairman Rogers, Chairman
Calvert, and others sent a letter to the Secretary raising some
questions regarding the Stream Protection Rule, and in regards
to those questions, the number one was ``What is OSMRE's plan
and schedule for providing the information to the States?''
We have been collecting the reference documents from the
proposed rule, and beginning on Monday, we started to upload
those to regulations.gov to make them available to the States
who have requested information and anybody else, for that
matter.
Earlier this week, we sent a letter to 16 different States
providing those details. We are not uploading the copyrighted
material because, by law, if we were to make that available or
copy it, we would be violating the copyright law. What we have
provided are explanations and guidance to the States on how
they can access those copyrighted materials, as well as working
with them to provide those copyrighted materials in a way we
can. We have offered the services of our librarian in that
regard.
On the second question, it was ``What is the manner we plan
to accommodate State requests for meeting?'' As I indicated, to
date we have had, I think, 16 requests from the States to meet.
In my response to the States that went out earlier this
week, we have proposed to schedule time at the upcoming
Interstate Mining Compact Commission in mid April for the
States and OSMRE to meet. We believe it is the most efficient
way for everybody to get together. It will allow all the States
who are planning on being there to have the benefit of having
that meeting with us without any additional cost or expense.
And the third question was ``How will the results of the
meeting be incorporated into the administrative record?'' Our
plan is to prepare a summary or summaries of that and have it
included in the administrative record that we are producing for
that rule.
With that, Mr. Chairman, the last point is I thank you
again for the opportunity to be here today. My full statement
has been provided for the record, and at this point, I am
available for questions.
[The statement of Director Pizarchik follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
STREAM PROTECTION RULE
Mr. Calvert. Thank you for your testimony.
Yesterday, we had the Secretary testify, as you know, and
she committed at this table that the department would fully
comply with the stream buffer directives in the fiscal year
2016 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. There were multiple
opportunities for the Secretary to inform Chairman Rogers and
this Committee that you sent letters to the States this week
outlining what information is publicly available and where the
States may find it if they look in the right places.
Unfortunately, we were not told until after the hearing,
and it is not clear as to whether that decision was strategic
or circumstantial. Regardless, it casts a cloud on what would
have been a good faith effort to begin to repair a 5-year
dysfunctional relationship with the States and finally work
with them as partners. Instead, it appears to be business as
usual for those who have been working on this issue day in and
day out.
Further, as my good friend Ms. McCollum can attest, there
are times when the laws enacted by Congress may require some
clarification, especially when there is give and take on both
sides to reach an agreement. That happens, and we are always
happy to provide clarification of the offices under our
jurisdiction so we are all on the same page.
To quickly review how fiscal year 2016 transpired, the
Committee directive to OSM started as a directive to stand down
on the Stream Buffer Rule because OSM failed to work with the
States as cooperating agencies. For years, OSM has broken its
word to the States.
Where Chairman Rogers and I come from, you are only as good
as your word. And that means something. We are kind of old
school in that regard. OSM had broken the trust of its State
partners, and States with both Democratic and Republican
leadership withdrew from the process as their voices were
repeatedly ignored.
The common denominator was OSM. In order to put a final
appropriations package together for fiscal year 2016, the
Congress, the White House, the House, the Senate, and the
Committee as a whole had to agree on how to resolve this issue.
While there may have been some disagreement on the initial
approach, the Committee as a whole agreed that OSM needed to
reengage with the States as partners in this process.
So, Director, in order to avoid any confusion, any
ambiguity, or any alternate interpretation of the Committee's
direction or intent, Chairman Rogers and I and my fellow
Committee members fully expect you to work with the States as
cooperating agencies, as you have collectively agreed in 2010.
The source documents you have, they will now have, not Web
links and not an address of a library where they may obtain the
information. The analysis you have, they will have. The
conclusions you reach, they need to agree with. Equally, the
conclusions they reach, you need to agree with.
Otherwise, there isn't going to be a rule. For 5 years,
OSM's work on this rulemaking has been proven to be a one-way
street. That is over. The Congress and the Administration have
agreed that you collectively need to work together.
I trust that your letters to the States this week serve as
the first step in the process of information sharing, and April
18th will be the first of many meetings with the States in
order to foster a substantial dialogue and exchange of ideas.
But I need to verify that.
Can you please do so for the committee? Can you please
verify for us that the letters this week are the first step to
reengage in a meaningful partnership with the States, including
the first exchange of data and the first of many meetings?
I don't want our first exchange at this table to be one
where I find you in violation of a directive of this committee.
Mr. Pizarchik. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have provided documents and made them available
beginning last summer when we published the proposed rule. In
October, we have also extended an invitation for the States to
reengage on the preparation of the EIS, and we have had at
least 15 meetings with various States on comments that they
have provided during the comment period to get more
clarification on that. Assistant Secretary Schneider has
visited Alaska and is planning on visiting North Dakota as
well.
The letter that I sent out yesterday is another step in our
process to reengage the States. The States were involved in the
beginning of the process. They provided many substantive
comments. Their comments were very helpful in fashioning the
final EIS, and we again extended the offer to meet with them.
We did it in October. We did it again yesterday. We will
continue to attempt to engage with the States and to work with
them to get their input.
Mr. Calvert. And they want to work with you. They have made
it very clear that they want a meaningful partnership, and so
are you committing that you are going to work with the States
and have a number of meetings and exchange information with
them?
Mr. Pizarchik. We have already extended that invitation
back in October, and again, the one I sent out yesterday is to
the 16 States that have requested. But we are willing to meet
with any of those States because of that special relationship
that we have between my Agency and the States as the primary
regulators.
We will meet with them. If they want to meet before then,
fine. But we are attempting to get their input and to reengage
them in it. Right now, I have made the offer, and yesterday I
spoke with Greg Conrad, the Executive Director of the
Interstate Mining Compact Commission, and he indicated to me
that he would be talking with his members to see what their
response would be.
We have made the offer. We made the offer in October. We
made the offer again, and they will have to accept for us to
have a meaningful exchange. You know, I can only keep offering,
but I can't have a meaningful exchange if they choose not to
meet with me.
Mr. Calvert. Well, I am sure we will be hearing from the
States to determine what they think.
Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Not at this time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Jenkins.
SPENDING ON THE STREAM PROTECTION RULE
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director, thanks for being here.
The question came up yesterday. The Secretary was asked how
much money had been spent on the Stream Protection Rule. I
assume over the last 24 hours you all have had a chance to nail
down that number, and hopefully, you are prepared to tell us
how much has been spent on the Stream Protection Rule over
these last 5, 6, 7, years?
Mr. Pizarchik. Thank you, Congressman Jenkins.
Yes, we have been tracking that. There has been interest in
it. And we have spent approximately $6.5 million for contract
support on preparing the rule with the draft environmental
impact statement and the regulatory impact analysis, and then
we also have spent $4.1 million for our staff time working on
documents, attending public hearings, responding to comments,
meeting with the States, et cetera.
Mr. Jenkins. So, the total amount spent in its entirety
from its initiation many years ago, OSM has spent $10.5
million?
Mr. Pizarchik. Actually, I think it is about $10.6 million.
STREAM PROTECTION RULE--INFORMATION TO THE STATES
Mr. Jenkins. Now, back to the issue that the Chairman
raised. I want to point out the operative words in the language
that, again, the Secretary yesterday said the Department would
fully comply with. Those are, as the Chair said reengage,
meaningful manner, before finalization. Reengage, meaningful,
and before finalization. I really want there to be emphasis on
each of those as we move forward.
The States received this March 1st letter from your office,
and I have listened to your testimony carefully, and I have
listened to your answers to the Chairman's questions. I think,
clearly, you are not satisfying the first two and, hopefully,
not the third piece of this.
Number one, the idea that you would send just a letter and
then simply include over 100 pages of bibliography. Then
putting it in the laps of the States to say here is a
conference or here is a document or here is a book or here is a
study, and if you want to go out and check it out, fine. What
we said is OSM is directed to provide the States with all
technical reports, et cetera.
So my question to you is do you believe, based on this
letter, based on what has already been uploaded, and based on
what you say will continue to be uploaded, do you think you
have complied with the directives of providing all of the data
and reports? Is all you are going to do is post things, or are
you going to be packaging up the items that we have asked for,
and actually send them to the States?
Mr. Pizarchik. Congressman Jenkins, we had a number of
requests that came in from the States. And I believe, if I
remember correctly, a number of them asked for us to provide a
list first, and then they would decide which ones they wanted
copies of.
We have gone beyond that by uploading things to the
regulations.gov site so they have access to it. We had heard
some concerns that perhaps some of the Web sites or links that
were referenced in the published documents were not working. We
have taken steps to make sure they have access available to all
of those.
I am not sure that the States would have appreciated having
huge volumes of written materials submitted to them. We are
giving them the opportunity, pursuant to a request, to look at
what it is they want, and we are working with them to try to
give them access in a reasonable manner so that they have the
opportunity to look at these.
Mr. Jenkins. Well, I will be satisfied if what you are
describing is that you are allowing the States to decide how
best they would like to review everything. I think I just heard
you say if West Virginia, for example, my State, requested all
of the material pursuant to this in writing, in document form,
you would provide that?
AVAILABILITY OF COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
Mr. Pizarchik. We have it already provided and up on the
Web site or on the plate where every document that is not
subject to copyright is available for them.
Mr. Calvert. If the gentleman would yield on that point?
When you say something that is not subject to copyright, if the
United States Government enters into an agreement with a
contractor to provide a technical report, who is it owned by?
The author of that report or by the United States, who paid for
that report?
Mr. Pizarchik. I believe if you are talking about the
report itself that was prepared by the contractor, I think that
would be owned by the Government.
Mr. Calvert. I just want to clarify that. Then a report
that is done on behalf of the United States Government is owned
by the Government, and I don't believe that would be subject to
any copyright rule.
Mr. Pizarchik. I am not a copyright expert on that. I will
defer to your judgment on that. But my understanding is that is
not what we are talking about. Some of the report that we
prepared references a variety of studies and reports. Some of
those documents were subject to copyright.
Mr. Calvert. If those reports are being used to create a
conclusion in order--which we are talking about, then those
reports should be made public and made part of the information
to provide it to the States.
Mr. Pizarchik. Mr. Chairman, all I can say is in discussing
this with our lawyers, my understanding is if we were to take
copyrighted material and make copies of it and distribute it to
folks, that we would be violating copyright laws.
Mr. Calvert. I find that----
Mr. Pizarchik. And I don't think anybody wants us to do
that. I know I certainly don't want to be doing that.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, maybe we should ask CRS, which
has a Copyright Division, to get back to this Committee on
that? Would that be helpful to all of us?
Mr. Calvert. Yes. I would like to find that out
specifically.
Ms. McCollum. Let us direct the committee staff to find
that out then for us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. If it is information that potentially is being
withheld, we need to know that. Yes, thank you.
Mr. Jenkins. In your testimony, you said one of the reasons
you were pursuing this course is that you didn't think the
States ``would appreciate'' just sending a lot of material.
What that tells me is that you would be willing, if they did
appreciate you sending all of the materials, that you would do
so.
So don't suggest you thought what they would appreciate and
then turn around and say but even if they do want it, we are
not going to do it.
STREAM PROTECTION RULE--MEETING WITH STATES
My next question is the issue of SPR meetings. Part of the
fundamental operation of this directive is the fact that each
State is unique, when you go back 30 years and look at why this
process was formed in the first place. I hear you talking about
a process, and I want to try to be very clear.
With regard to your offer of having a group meeting, once
the States have had a chance over these next weeks and months
to view 100 pages of bibliography in whatever form they can
ultimately get the documents in, each State is going to want to
sit with you and have a discussion and talk about the
implications for their State. Can you reassure me that it is
not the position of OSM that the meeting on this particular
date that you have suggested in April satisfies the meeting
request requirement of the congressional directive?
And then if my State of West Virginia wants to reengage--
which they have already sent you a letter that they do--and
wants to meet after looking at this in April or May or June,
that you will afford them the individual opportunity and that
you will not just check the box for the meeting requirement at
the April meeting?
Mr. Pizarchik. Thank you for that question. We received
your State's request I believe yesterday and responded to it.
And at this point, we have the invitation out to the States to
meet. We are waiting for them to respond.
I am still waiting for the States like your State and other
States to respond to the invitation I sent in October to
reengage. None of them have responded to that. And at this
point, you know, we are making our effort to do that, and I
apologize for making an assumption on what maybe the States
were thinking.
We have made all the documents or are making all the
documents available that are not subject to copyright so they
have access to those and they have the opportunity to look at
those documents themselves and to evaluate which ones they want
to review.
Mr. Jenkins. Let us go back to the meeting. I hear that we
have addressed the document. If, after a thorough examination
of these documents, our State wants to sit down with OSM at an
appropriate time, one on one, reengage with our State, whether
that be in April or May or June, to have a substantive
discussion, are you willing to do that?
And I just want to make sure that you do not think that you
can check the meeting requirement box based on this proposed
April meeting.
Mr. Pizarchik. Mr. Congressman, in regards to meeting with
folks from your State, we had the invitation back in October.
We met with them. My Deputy Director and Assistant Secretary
met with them. I believe it was in February.
Mr. Jenkins. But the states didn't have these documents
back then. We didn't have all the things that you are still
loading. I understand this needs to be a process. We put it in
the requirement in the law. You are still uploading it. Even by
your own admission, the documents are not all up yet.
You have over 100 pages of bibliographical references. If
you are really sincere about reengaging and working together,
give us time to work through the documents, analyze, study
them, and then sit down with you and talk about the
implications to our State. Would you do that?
Mr. Pizarchik. Congressman, many of those documents have
been available to the States since July.
Mr. Jenkins. But not all. Have all of them?
Mr. Pizarchik. Not all, and they will be.
Mr. Jenkins. Not all of them. Then give us time. Give us
time.
Mr. Pizarchik. And we are doing that. We have--they are
being uploaded. They might even already be done today. I
haven't checked this morning with the staff on that, but those
ones that are being uploaded----
Mr. Jenkins. I have got one more question, Mr. Chair.
Clearly, you can't bring yourself to say we are going to give
you a chance to look at all the documents, and give the states
a chance to sit down with you individually and talk about it.
You keep talking about what is already up or what OSM is still
putting up.
So I will follow up with you, but my clear belief is the
requirement in the law that Secretary Jewell says you will
comply with is to reengage, provide all the material, and meet
with the States individually before finalization.
I was very concerned during your testimony when I heard
that you would provide a summary of the engagement from the
States. What I expect is that the product where States work
with you--in whatever form or fashion--that the individual
State's comments are submitted for the administrative
rulemaking record. Further, you should give substantive
responses just like a normal comment period.
Can you assure me that all the States' input, each and
every State, will be conveyed individually and not in summary
format? I am reacting to when you said ``prepare summaries and
put it in the administrative record.'' That clearly does not
meet with our expectations.
Will you assure us that it will not be just simply
summaries, and that you will allow for specific input of the
comments and then the feedback from each and every State into
the administrative record?
TIMING OF THE STREAM PROTECTION RULE
Mr. Pizarchik. Congressman Jenkins, as I understand your
request, basically, you are asking us to reopen the comment
period, and unfortunately, no, we are not going to reopen the
comment period. The comment period was open back last summer.
We extended it. We had the documents available for the States.
Beginning earlier this year, we got some of the requests
in. So we are making all those documents available, and the
links may not have worked on that. We will meet with the
States. We will obtain their input. But we are not going to
reopen the comment period, and we are going to get this rule
done.
Mr. Jenkins. Well, when will the rule be done?
Mr. Pizarchik. Our hope is to have it done this summer.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you know what the date is?
Mr. Pizarchik. I do not. I have learned many times in this
process that it is not possible for me to predict when a rule
will be proposed or finalized on that. There are too many steps
in the process outside of my control.
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Joyce.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE STREAM PROTECTION RULE
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Pizarchik, certainly you recognize that the
imposition of the proposed Stream Protection Rule has the
potential impact and regulatory cost that will force thousands
of miners in Ohio to lose their jobs and companies to go
bankrupt. What are your plans to cope with the significant
reclamation liability that will be realized as a result of
excessive mine defaults?
Mr. Pizarchik. Mr. Congressman, I would have to disagree
with your assessment. The Stream Protection Rule is only
proposed. It has not caused any bankruptcies. It has not caused
any job losses. It is not in effect yet. We are still working
on consideration of the comments that we have received on the
proposed rule, and we will be making changes as appropriate in
response to the comments that have come in on that.
Mr. Joyce. None of these companies are going to come back
into existence.
Mr. Pizarchik. I believe that if they have gone out of
business, there are other forces that are at play. There are
market forces, cheap shale gas. Cheap, plentiful shale gas is
taking market share away from coal. You have the economic
downturn around the world. You have the Chinese economy slowing
down. Their imports are dropping on that. They have been
overproducing coal.
This rule has not had any impacts on the industry. This
rule isn't even final yet. So from the standpoint of any
impacts or job losses on that, that is not here.
And then with the analysis that we have completed that was
peer reviewed by outside experts, our calculations are that
what was proposed, at most, would be about a wash. It would be
about 270-some jobs that would be lost over a 21-year period,
with about 250 or 260 new jobs created over that same 21-year
period.
This rule does not have and will not have significant
adverse impacts on employment.
Mr. Joyce. That is interesting.
Mr. Calvert. Will the gentleman yield for a second? Are you
saying that this regulation, as you interpret it, has no impact
on employment in coal country?
Mr. Pizarchik. No.
Mr. Calvert. Just for the record, we would like to have
that.
Mr. Pizarchik. What I have said is that based on the
assessments that have been performed.
Mr. Calvert. And you agree with those assessments?
Mr. Pizarchik. We hired outside experts to perform that
analysis because we believe that it would be more credible with
the public and everybody else if those assessments were
performed by outside experts.
Mr. Calvert. But you agree with those assessments?
Mr. Pizarchik. Those assessments are in the draft
regulatory impact analysis, et cetera. And from the standpoint
that was proposed and the whole purpose of the rulemaking and
the proposed process is to get comments on that, that will be
factored into it. We will see what changes are appropriate to
be made based on public input.
Mr. Calvert. I will take that you agree with those
assessments, and obviously----
Mr. Pizarchik. I do not disavow them.
Mr. Calvert [continuing]. The industry, when they
anticipate a regulatory cost, they must be wrong about that
because, based upon your assessment, there is no cost.
Mr. Joyce.
BASELINE DATA REQUIREMENTS
Mr. Joyce. How will the primacy State regulatory agencies
be able to cope with the added responsibilities and authorities
being proposed in the Stream Protection Rule? It seems obvious
that the cost in time and money to the States and the miners
will be increased as a result of the SPR. How would this not be
the case?
Mr. Pizarchik. The way the States can adjust to that is
they have an option under the rules. They can either gather the
baseline data to determine what types of resources are in the
streams out there prior to mining, do the monitoring, et
cetera, and then ensure that the streams are restored after the
mining.
A mining company has the option to choose whether they want
to mine through the stream or the States can give literal
interpretation to their existing rules and not allow the
streams to be eliminated through mining or being buried. And if
they do that, that is a less effort on their part. They won't
have to gather as much baseline data. They won't have to get
into some of the other new standards that are designed to
protect streams.
And let us face it, the law has always had a provision in
it that prohibits permits from being issued where it is not
possible to restore the land to its original conditions and
productivity. And land without water or land with polluted
water does not meet those requirements.
What we are proposing is to gather the appropriate
information so that we know what is in these streams before
mining, the water quality, the critters that are living in it,
and so we can measure whether the mining reclamation is
successful or not. And in some areas I am sure that mining will
be able to be restored, and other areas I am sure that they
cannot get a permit and should never have gotten a permit to do
that mining because it does not comply with the Federal legal
requirements.
Mr. Joyce. That is why you feel it is necessary to be
involved in stream biology?
Mr. Pizarchik. The stream biology is a good indicator of
what is happening in the stream. If the critters can live in
the stream prior to mining and during mining and after the
mining, then we have been successful in the mining reclamation.
If the critters living in the stream were there before mining,
but during mining they get wiped out, and after mining, they
are wiped out, then obviously there was a failure to comply
with the regulatory and the statutory legal requirements
governing coal mining reclamation.
Mr. Joyce. I have exceeded my time, I know, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Ms. McCollum.
PROTECTION OF WATER RESOURCES
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have been part of this discussion for a while now, and
there is a lot of tension and conflict surrounding the Stream
Protection Rule. But the basic part of this rule is to protect
water resources.
And as we sit around the table, we don't place a value on
water until it is gone or we can't drink it--Flint, the drought
in California, some of the other places where water crises have
happened around the country. Then all of a sudden, water has a
value.
Water has a value then because, whether it is for
agriculture sustaining us through food or whether it is
sustaining us through drinking water, then we start talking
about water as a right. And I believe access to clean drinking
water is a human right.
Therefore, we have a responsibility to make sure that we
work with industry, that we work with States, that we work with
local units of government to protect the ability for all of us
in this country to have the right to clean drinking water, the
right to have water available for agriculture, the right to
have water available for recreation and for fishing, or for the
health of the fishing industry.
I believe that right to clean water is at the heart of this
rule, and I know that there is tension on how we get there. But
if we don't assess that water does have a value to begin with,
it is very easy to discount this gift that has been given us
that is life sustaining.
I know all of us around the table want to get to the point
where we find that balance, and it is hard to find it
sometimes. We must find that balance where industry can move
forward, agriculture can move forward, recreation can move
forward. But the bottom line is, future generations will judge
us on how we protected this basic life source of water.
The tension is natural, but we have to remember when we
start this equation we don't have a dollar value on water when
we talk about it. It is only when it is gone or it is so
polluted that we can't use it that all of a sudden we say,
``What happened to the water?''
Could you tell me a little bit more about the goals and the
objectives just for public health--forget the recreation for
now--that you are trying to accomplish?
Mr. Pizarchik. One of the primary purposes of the rule and
the standards is to establish what kind of water is out there
to begin with. And our law has always prohibited causing
material damage to the hydrologic balance outside the permit
area. That is a mouthful. But we have never defined that.
We are proposing to define that based on the existing
conditions that are out there and to gather the baseline data
to prevent those water resources from being polluted, and
protect people's health. We know that in some areas selenium
can be mobilized by mining. It bioacculumates. It causes
reproductive problems in the aquatic community, and it can
cause health problems at too high levels in people. And if
people are drinking that water or eating those fish that have
high levels of selenium, it can have adverse impacts.
There are also any number of studies that purport to show
that there are adverse health effects near where there is
extensive coal mining going on. We need to get answers to these
questions in order to make sure that the people there are not
being accidentally poisoned or to assure people that there is
no danger. Whichever the case is, we have to get to the bottom
of that.
But protecting the water, taking the measures and requiring
identification of what is there and to prevent the mining from
causing pollution that causes those kind of water problems is
the first step. And we feel that if you protect the most
sensitive critters that are living in those streams, that you
are going to be protecting the water so that the people who
live in those communities are protected as well.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Mr. Chair, we found
out taconite tailings in our State, from mining, caused cancer,
and we had to go through a very extensive process.
So I am actually glad we are being proactive in studying
these impacts. We have to find a balance, Mr. Jenkins. But we
have to be proactive because some of the things that are
lurking out there are potential carcinogens.
Thank you.
UNBIASED SCIENCE
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Quick comment, and I am going to
recognize Mr. Jenkins.
I used to chair the Environment Committee on Science, and
one thing we need to make sure of, no matter what your position
may be in some of the various issues that we have before us,
that the science is untainted. Because I have seen a lot of
science on both sides that have a political ramification to it.
So science is science. It should be unbiased and not for a
particular purpose.
Mr. Jenkins.
COMPLIANCE WITH OMNIBUS LANGUAGE
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to summarize real briefly. I think this hearing
and having you here is a real opportunity to let us air out and
have an open discussion about expectations. I just wanted, for
the record, to make it very clear that I think a Web site, a
two-page letter with 100 pages of bibliography, a meeting in
April, and then a summary of comments is not meaningful.
So, I look forward to working with the Chair of this
Subcommittee and the full Committee to try to reengage OSM so
we can reiterate what truly would be a meaningful process to
satisfy what everybody agrees is mandatory.
So I think we have cleared up here that, in my opinion,
what you are proposing does not satisfy the meaningful
requirement. So we look forward to working with you to try to
work towards an understanding of what would be meaningful.
AML ECONOMIC AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Secondly, relating to AML, the $90 million pilot program.
One of the questions that has risen is are those projects that
that money will be able to be used for, are they restricted to
just those, those pre-1967 sites, or can it be sites post-1967?
So the $30 million for West Virginia, are the properties
that a project that has an AML nexus, can the funding be used
even if it was an abandoned mine from 5 years ago, not 50 years
ago?
Mr. Pizarchik. Congressman Jenkins, that is a very good
point to make. The Surface Mining Act drew the line at August
3, 1977, when it became effective.
Mr. Jenkins. '77?
Mr. Pizarchik. Yes.
Mr. Jenkins. Are you applying that '77 line for this
special $90 million project? I am hoping you don't.
Mr. Pizarchik. I am going to follow the law, and the way
the Surface Mining Act is written, there are two distinct
categories. There is Title 5, which deals with active mining.
That is all mining that has occurred since August 3, 1977, and
AML money, this $90 million, cannot be used on those types of
sites.
The law only allows us to use it for sites that were mined
and abandoned prior to August 3, 1977. So that is where the
nexus is, and that is the standard. You know, we have to carry
out the law, and that is how it is provided.
Mr. Jenkins. From the follow-up discussion with Chairman
Rogers and myself, have you all come up with ways in which to
expedite and facilitate getting projects approved, getting this
money out there?
Mr. Pizarchik. We are working on that. And as one of the
follow-ups, we are drafting guidance to help with that, and we
are putting together some meetings with the State AML folks,
with EDA and ARC and the State economic development folks, to
get everybody together to help identify those projects so they
can move forward more quickly.
The process that we use for funding the grants is the
expedited grant process, and we continue to do that. We will do
it in a manner that will allow those projects to go as quickly
forward as possible in light of the various other legal
requirements that come into play. But, yes.
Mr. Calvert. If the gentleman would yield for a moment?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. Calvert. The pilot made no distinction on the pre-1977
sites or sites after 1977. So I want to make that clear. So I
want to make sure that there is a difference between the pilot
program that has passed in law versus the AML.
Mr. Pizarchik. Mr. Chairman, we will go back and I will ask
the lawyer to take a look at it. But my understanding from the
previous analysis that was performed where the addition was
made is that it is pre-1977.
Mr. Calvert. Well, certainly if you want the intent of this
Committee, the Committee's intent is that the pilot program
language is what is in law.
IMPORTANCE OF SCIENCE
Mr. Pizarchik. Thank you for sharing that. If I may, on
your comment about the science, about needing to have a good
basis. Secretary Huffman from West Virginia several months ago
had asked for help on assessing some of the science that is out
there, as whether or not health problems are being caused by
coal mining in West Virginia.
And we have reached out to the National Academy of
Sciences, and we are working with them to try to bring them
onboard to bring in the appropriate experts to look at the
science that has been done and evaluate that for the purposes
of making a determination is that good science or not?
AML PILOT PROGRAM
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Jenkins.
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, thank you for bringing that up,
and I appreciate your sensitivity. I know you have been fully
engaged. I share your feelings. We have sat with OSM directly
to raise our concerns that they are imposing additional
criteria, standards, and requirements for this pilot project
that are applicable under traditional AML funds. I know that
was not the intent. It was not the letter of the law.
We are trying to politely encourage and prod OSM to not
treat it in the traditional way, but in the manner in which we
intended. And we are trying to make progress. But thank you for
that comment. This was not intended to be restricted to pre-
1977.
ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE STREAM PROTECTION RULE
My last comment, Mr. Chairman. You raised your attention to
the jobs issue. This is why this whole issue is so important,
relating to the stream protection rule, stream buffer zone.
By their own analysis or by their supposed independent
analysis, they think that there will be 260 lost jobs
nationally, 260, and there would be 250 jobs created by
compliance and that the entire net impact is 10 jobs. We have
independent studies that suggest that the jobs impact just in
Appalachia will be 50,000 and 60,000 jobs.
So when you are talking about a net 10 jobs nationally
versus just in my neck of the woods, 40,000 and 50,000 jobs,
there is a gulf of disagreement. That is why we need true
reengagement, and getting these documents that OSM hasn't been
willing to share before despite repeated FOIAs. We have got to
get to the bottom of this. And this idea that we are rushing to
September of 2016 after 6, 7 years of effort, we know why they
are rushing. It is obvious.
But we put directives in the law and Secretary Jewell says
it is a requirement. OSA needs to reengage. It needs to be
meaningful before you finalize the rule. So, once again, do not
finalize until you satisfy what the Secretary agrees is a
requirement that you must reengage in a meaningful manner. I
have said it clearly from my perspective here, what you are
outlining, what you have clearly stated is--in my opinion, is
not meaningful.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Any additional questions, Ms. McCollum?
APPLICATION OF AML PROJECT REQUIREMENTS IN PILOT PROGRAM
Ms. McCollum. Well, not a question, just a comment: I
understand the discussion about the pilot program, and I get
the difference between post-1977 and legacy mining. But, for
the record, I want to reiterate again that this $90 million
coming out of the Interior budget is concerning to me because
we have so many unmet needs.
And I would point out that Minnesota figured out quickly
that the taconite companies had to be part and parcel of the
future, of moving forward and being part of the reclamation.
Appalachia is feeling a lot of pain right now, and I agree that
we want to see this issue be resolved. But I also want to be
very clear that funding going forward to do this can't be
literally at the expense of other communities. Other mining
communities have figured out other ways to reclaim some of this
money.
So I look forward to working with you, Mr. Jenkins.
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you. Can I very politely--would you
yield for one moment?
Ms. McCollum. Yes.
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you very much.
The distinction is, in my opinion, this money--and you are
very appropriate if we were taking money from AML that would be
potentially used for other projects. The $90 million is not
coming from AML. While it is going through Interior, this came
from the Treasury.
So this is not AML money. It is not taking from Peter for
Paul. So that is our issue is it is the source of this money.
While the mechanism involves OSM, it is not traditional AML
money.
Ms. McCollum. And I understand that, Mr. Jenkins. But as
things change and as budget discussions happen, I just want to
lay a marker that it not come out of Interior.
Thank you very much.
And thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. I thank everybody. I apologize. I know that
this is a very important subject, but we have a BLM hearing
that is starting right after this, and so I must adjourn this
hearing.
Thank you for your attendance. I appreciate it.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Thursday, March 3, 2016.
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
WITNESS
NEIL KORNZE, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert
Mr. Calvert. The committee will come to order. We are going
to have some votes here shortly, so what I want to attempt to
do is to get through the opening statements, and then we will
be able to come back for our Q&A after votes.
I want to say good morning to Director Neil Kornze, and I
want to welcome him and his wife, Beckett, and their new 3-
year, or 3-month-old baby, I should say. [Laughter.]
Okay, 3-month-old baby.
Ms. McCollum. Super cute, you can add that.
Mr. Calvert. And super cute, as amended.
Mr. Kornze. Mara and Beckett are right over there.
Mr. Calvert. Okay. Well, again, good morning. Today we have
our hearing on the President's budget request for the Bureau of
Land Management for Fiscal Year 2017. I would like to welcome
Neil Kornze, the director of Bureau of Land Management, to the
subcommittee. Thank you for being here.
As the manager of more than 245 million acres of the
Nation's land and 700 million acres of its subsurface mineral
state, BLM is on the forefront of every land management issue
facing the Nation today. BLMs programs, policies, and
decisions, especially affect Americans in the West and
certainly in my own home State of California.
The President's budget proposes $1.3 billion for BLM for
Fiscal Year 2017. Overall this is a $7.1 million increase over
Fiscal Year 2016. However, this seemingly moderate increase
actually is much larger because of the fee proposals in the
request.
We have many topics to discuss today regarding BLM's
management of public lands and its funding request. I am
certain we will cover the fee proposals, funding increases for
hydraulic fracturing, and other oil and gas regulations, and
the status of the Sage-grouse conservation effort. We will also
cover the proposed improvement to the Wild Horse and Burro
Program, and BLM's plans for newly designated national
monuments in California.
Once again, I have to express my disappointment with the
proposals to collect $16.5 million from a new fee for grazing
permits and $48 million for a new fee for oil and gas
inspection. We all know that Congress has rejected these
proposals in the past. I expect that we will reject them in the
Fiscal Year 2017 budget. The appropriations process is not the
appropriate forum to debate these issues. They are best left to
our colleagues in the authorizing committees.
BLM is proposing a $15.2 million increase to implement new
rules and regulations for its onshore Oil and Gas Program.
Well, not all of this is for the new rules. I do find it
somewhat presumptuous to ask for an increase when the hydraulic
fracturing rule is stayed and may be for some time, and the
methane and waste reduction rule is in the early stages of its
comment period.
When these two regulations are considered along with the
proposed changes to the planning process, BLM sure seems to be
focused on a lot of new regulations these days. Although we did
not expect to be able to make significant investments in BLM's
programs when we first started the Fiscal Year 2016 process, I
am pleased that we were able to do so in a few places.
Most significant was the $45 million increase for Sage-
grouse conservation. The budget requests an additional $19
million, including $5 million to implement the National Seed
Strategy for Fiscal Year 2017. The funding provided last year
was primarily intended to put into place on-the-ground
conservation measures to help restore Sage-grouse habitat and
the sagebrush ecosystem. We will need to know whether progress
is being made with the existing funding as we wait for the
request for additional funds.
Some States continue to have concerns with the resource
management plans for Sage-grouse and proposed mineral
withdrawal. Thank you for your letter responding to the
subcommittee's report language and explaining how BLM worked
with the States. I encourage you to continue these efforts and
develop additional guidance, which would help clarify the
implementation process and provide certainty to the States and
other partners.
Before I close, I would like to mention the proposal to
establish a BLM foundation. This subcommittee is interested in
this concept. It has proven to be a successful model for the
Department of Interior and Department of Agriculture agencies.
It also has the potential to supplement and complement BLM's
work. However, Congress needs a legislative proposal in order
to move forward, and I hope that is coming soon.
Again, I want to thank you for being here today. I look
forward to your testimony, and I yield to my good friend, Ms.
McCollum, for her opening remarks.
Opening Remarks of Ranking Member McCollum
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, and I would like to welcome
Director Kornze to the subcommittee. Thank you for being here
this morning, and for bringing a delightful treat along with
you, your new child.
The BLM has one of the most challenging missions within the
Department of Interior. BLM is responsible for 247 million
acres of public land and a broad spectrum of natural resources
that those lands provide. For Fiscal Year 2017, the Agency is
proposing a modest budget that is $7 million more than Fiscal
Year 2016 level, while strategically directing funding to the
high priorities and proposing reasonable user fees to cover the
cost of oversight.
The proposed budget continues BLM's commitment to Sage-
grouse conservation, requesting additional funds to restore the
stage steppe ecosystem. Additionally, the budget requests $5
million for the National Seed Strategy to support collection
and research activities for seeds that are critical to BLM's
ability to restore lands damaged by drought, invasive species,
and catastrophic wildfires.
I am also pleased to see that the budget includes an
increase for cultural resource protection in the Natural
Conservation Lands. These heritage resources and ecological
treasures are part of America's history and should be cared for
and preserved for future generations.
BLM's budget builds upon the robust investments we made
last year to the Land and Water Conservation Fund to promote
protection and conservation of natural landscapes and
resources. The LWCF also supports access by hunters and
anglers, which is something Chairman Simpson and I agree is a
key priority for public lands.
The budget includes investments for the Oil and Gas
Program. The Administration once again has proposed new
authority for BLM to collect onshore oil and gas inspection
fees. Resulting revenue would cover the cost of BLM's onshore
inspections and activities to help ensure that the extraction
operations are safe, environmentally responsible, and ensure a
fair return to the taxpayer. This new fee authority would also
bring parity to how the Federal government treats offshore and
onshore oil and gas inspections.
Appropriately managing American people's lands and ensuring
that these precious resources are available for both current
and future generations is a solemn responsibility you carry
out, sir. We depend on our public lands for a variety of uses,
including ranching, energy development, recreation, hunting,
and conservation. The way we use our public lands have grown
and changed over the years, and will continue to evolve in the
future.
And it is understandable that there will sometimes be
competing and often conflicting ideas on how we should
prioritize and use our lands, but these disagreements should be
discussed and debated peacefully and lawfully. There should be
no tolerance for threats of violence or intimidation against
public servants who are truly the caretakers of our lands. No
one is above the law.
So, Director, I appreciate the work that you and all the
employees of the Bureau of Land Management do, and I look
forward to your testimony. And I thank you for the courtesy of
an opening statement, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Ms. McCollum, with your
concurrence, I think we should just recess for a few minutes,
go and vote, and we will come back for your opening statement.
So we will be in recess.
[Recess.]
Opening Remarks of Director Kornze
Mr. Calvert. Reconvene. Director, you may begin your
opening statement.
Mr. Kornze. Thank you very much, Chairman, Ranking Member,
members of the Committee.
I think as you know, the Bureau of Land Management manages
13 percent of the Nation's lands and about a third of its
minerals and soils. We manage these lands under the dual
framework of multiple use and sustainable yield, which is a
mandate from Congress, which hits its 40th anniversary this
year.
Our professionals throughout the country, but particularly
in the West, have very hard choices to make every day, and they
work diligently to make sure that the public has a serious role
and voice in the work that we do. We are proud to play a major
role in the Nation's economy supporting oil and gas
development, all kinds of recreation, ranching, hunting and
fishing, helium production, forest management, wildland
firefighting. We even have weather stations, and we work with
reindeer herders in Alaska. We do a little bit of everything.
The Agency in total helped support more than 450,000 jobs
last year. Additionally, we are one of only a handful of
agencies in the entire government that brings back more revenue
than we receive in appropriations. In fact, for every dollar
that you provide to us, we return about five.
Now, I want to highlight a few areas from our budget, and I
will move quickly through these, but I will start with greater
Sage-grouse. This one is for you, Mark. [Laughter.]
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Neil.
Mr. Kornze. The BLM has made great strides in the past year
helping to lead a West-wide effort with governors from 11
States to strengthen management of Sage-grouse habitat and
avoid the need for listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. But our work is far from done. The President's budget
asks for a $14 million increase over the $60 million that you
were very kind and gracious to support us with last year. We
very much appreciate it.
We are expanding our BLM conservation efforts partially
through the work on a national seed strategy. And the basic
idea there is, getting the right seed to the right place at the
right time. Too often we have situations where maybe in Burley,
Idaho they need to restore some lands, but they're sourcing
seed from eastern Montana or northern Washington State. We need
to have more seed growers, more diversity than what we're
offering so that we can come back and come back stronger.
Collectively, with these requests, the BLM's resources
dedicated to Sage-grouse conservation will total $79 million in
Fiscal Year 2017, and represent a critical investment in
Western communities and Western values.
Now, on the energy front, the Oil and Gas Program at the
BLM is performing very well. Industry currently has nearly 4
years' worth of permits in their hands that they could use
today. Many people will tell you that there's efforts afoot to
slow down oil and gas development in this country on behalf of
agencies like the one that I have the privilege to lead. But we
have 4 years of permits that we've been working very hard on.
The backlog is coming down. The front log is growing. We put 4
million acres of lands available out for lease last year.
Industry picked upon only 15 percent of those lands.
Now, at the same time we have a great responsibility to
ensure that these oil and gas operations are carried out
responsibly. There's a proposal this year as it was last year
in the budget ask for permanent support for an inspection
program. We have about 160 inspectors in this Nation. We need,
about 220. Having the type of support for a permanent program
would be essential to achieving many of the goals, not just in
inspection, but around our larger oil and gas program. I was in
front of the authorizers yesterday and had a good discussion
about this issue, and I appreciate your support and hope that
we can get this done this year.
National Conservation Lands are another highlight of our
budget, and I do want to thank you for the $5 million increase
that you put into last year's budget. These are lands in the
Nation that people are very excited about. So over the last 20
years or so, the BLM has been the face of conservation in terms
of action that Congress has taken and action that the President
has taken.
We have nearly 900 conservation units across the country.
These are places where visitation is heavy. People are excited
to go there. They are excited to have them near their
communities, and it's we think part of the best of what we have
as a Nation, so we appreciate your support for that program.
And this year we're asking for $50 million in support, which
really is for the basics.
We want to have an assigned manager, a full-time staff for
each of the major units, National Conservation Areas and
National Monuments. That's step one in addition to all the
other responsibilities we have in these areas.
Wild Horses and Burros is another hot topic for us and very
important for us to figure out the right next steps. In short,
we have the recommended total population around the West which
should be just under 30,000 horses. We have about 60,000 horses
on the range today, and we have another 50,000 horses that we
have removed and are in pastures or corrals.
Now, when those horses get removed, we spend up to $50,000
on that horse over the course of its lifetime. I think there
are some opportunities for us to be creative, potentially
looking at tax credits or other programs to incentivize
adoption. But a specific proposal we have in this year's budget
is in relation to our productive relationship with the Border
Patrol. I've actually been to the border, had two or three
rangers come up on formerly wild horses and burros, and visited
with those folks. And you can see the freeze brand. And we send
about 30 horses to the Border Patrol each year.
But they cannot accept them as an Agency. The individual
rangers have to adopt them in their personal capacity. And
also, we are still, because of the way the Wild Horse and Burro
Act is written, we have to go back and check on them. We have
to second-guess the Border Patrol's management and care for
those horses. We'd like to change that, so we have a proposal
that we're looking for your concurrence in allowing us to
convey directly horses to other Federal, State, and local
agencies that have a need for workhorses, and would use them,
you know, for those purposes.
So we're trying to take a small step forward, but look for
other conversations. You know, we're also heavily engaged in
research, looking at spay and neuter, looking at long-term
birth control efforts.
Lastly, I'll mention two other legislative pieces. One is
the BLM Foundation. Congressman Lowenthal and the ranking
member were leaders in putting in legislation just a few days
ago to make that a reality. And we appreciate that support very
much, and we hope that we can gather some more support and get
some momentum behind that legislation. I think we can make some
important differences in some of the bigger programs that
people care about within the Bureau of Land Management.
And I will tell you, yesterday at my hearing with the
authorizers, I got a number of questions about land disposal.
And we have had a proposal in the budget for a few years for a
very poorly named act, the Federal Land Transaction
Facilitation Act, or FLTFA. Basically what this does is allows
us to take lands that are sold, capture that revenue partially
for conservation inside the State where it's sold, but also to
have a source of revenue to work on future land sales. So it's
a win-win for all parties, and we would be very excited to see
that reenacted and stood up within this year's Congress.
I appreciate your time. This committee has been wonderful
to work with, and I look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Director Kornze follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
SAGE-GROUSE
Mr. Calvert. I thank you for coming out today, Mr. Kornze,
and let us just start off, since you brought it up first, I
will bring it up, too, Sage-grouse. In the omnibus, Congress
directed BLM to issue guidance to its State offices on how it
will update Sage-grouse habitat maps, adopt new scientific
information, and engage partners. I believe guidance would
allay much of the unnecessary or uncertainty regarding how BLM
will implement their resource management plans.
So the first question is, how or has BLM issued any
guidance.
Mr. Kornze. We are working on a range of guidance. I
believe we have 12 different guidance documents that you will
see in the coming months. We are working closely with the
Western Governors Association Sage-Grouse Task Force and others
to make sure that we are getting the right eyes on and thoughts
into those documents. So we will be moving aggressively over
the next 3 months or so to make sure that those are all issued.
Mr. Calvert. How about these maps, the Sage-grouse habitat
maps? Have you updated those maps? Are you working with the
States, too?
Mr. Kornze. We are absolutely working with the States. So
in the case of the State of Nevada, the Congressman from my
hometown is sitting to my left. The State of Nevada is working
with the USGS to update their map. Mr. Coats, I think, is
leading that effort. And so, we have received a sort of high-
level version of that map, but we do not have the GIS layers
yet. So we are using it to the degree that we can, but looking
forward to the formal updated version.
Mr. Calvert. Well, as you know, we put a significant
increase in dollars in your budget because for the reason we do
not want this species listed. We do not want to have you coming
to us later on and say there is some reason we have to do this.
We want to do everything we can to make sure that that does not
happen.
With that, Ms. McCollum.
CHALLENGE COST SHARE
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for the
recognition of Mr. Lowenthal and I having a bill to authorize
the Foundation for the BLM.
But I have to say I was disappointed that the budget
proposes to eliminate the Challenge Cost Share Program.
This program is in place right now to allow BLM to partner
with local organizations, to do on-the-ground habitat,
recreation, and cultural resources work. Can you tell us why
this program is scheduled to be eliminated? The leverage of
private funds to help engage the public and the work that you
do is very important.
VENTING AND FLARING
The other question I have is on the oil and gas rule. The
Administration on January 22nd proposed a rule that would limit
the rate of flaring at oil wells on public and tribal lands. In
addition, the proposed rule would modify the existing royalty
rate and provisions to better align BLM's authority and to
enhance flexibility, but the rule would not raise royalty
rates. So I think of it as a commonsense regulation.
I did share with this committee a year ago, maybe some of
you remember, a satellite photo that showed lights flaring from
the Bakken fields that were almost as bright or brighter than
the entire Twin Cities metropolitan area. So I think these
regulations are needed.
Could you talk about the Challenge Cost Share Program, what
you are hearing from industry, and what you expect this rule on
the flaring to be able to accomplish for us? Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Kornze. You bet. So the Challenge Cost Share, that
really comes down to hard choices. Over the last 5 years or so,
we have lost about 12 percent of our full-time equivalent
positions in the Agency, so we are stretched. And part of that
is because the Wild Horse and Burro budget has doubled in size,
right? It is literally being eaten. We are spending more than
$50 million a year on housing the horses that have been taken
off the range, so that is why that is such an important issue
to get our arms around.
CHALLENGE COST-SHARE
In terms of Challenge Cost Share, it is very productive.
When we can put money into that, it pays dividends. But at this
point we have so many needs in terms of Sage-grouse, and
improving our energy programs, and modernizing, really trying
to take a leap forward with the Agency and bring it forward.
And even, you know, sort of eclipse perhaps some of our partner
agencies in getting information out there and emphasizing the
ability to access the public lands. So that's on that one.
VENTING AND FLARING
On venting and flaring, the core issue there is that, you
know, we have more than hundred thousand oil and gas wells on
public lands. Nearly 400 million dollars' worth of gas is
wasted each year through venting, through flaring. So some
States like North Dakota, Colorado, and Wyoming have started to
step in to this space, and we have been working to have
regulations that work with theirs and build on their strengths,
and to make sure that we are sending this energy into a
productive pathway. It is enough energy if harnessed to power 5
million different homes, so it is pretty significant, and we
feel like it needs action.
There is a royalty provision in that regulation which would
essentially take off the handcuffs of future secretaries, so it
is unlikely that this Secretary would be able to use it. But
currently we are locked at 12 and half percent as a ceiling by
regulation, and so this would allow future Secretaries to look
at current economic conditions and figure out if there is a
reason to adjust up or down. Prior to 1988, the Secretary had
the ability to do that, and there were often royalties on a
sliding scale based on production.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I understand that. I mean, wild
horses and burros, that has been a problem forever. I was under
the impression that when Jefferson did the Louisiana Purchase,
he wanted to include Nevada because he said that is a place we
are going to need to put wild horses and burros eventually, but
maybe I was wrong on that. [Laughter.]
I am just kidding.
Voice. You are mistaken.
STEENS MOUNTAIN COOPERATIVE MANAGEMENT AND PROTECTION AREA FENCE
Mr. Simpson. Yeah, I am mistaken. First of all, I
understand there is an issue that deals with the Steens
wilderness and fencing that you have been looking at, and are
going to address Congressman Walden's issue dealing with the
ranchers and the fencing out there. Is that correct?
Mr. Kornze. We have been in touch with Congressman Walden
just this morning, and are working on the NEPA process to
complete that action and set aside the money to work on the
fence project.
SAGE-GROUSE
Mr. Simpson. Good. Thank you. Let me talk for just a minute
about Sage-grouse and focal areas because as I talked to
governors, at least my governor, and people who worked on the
Sage-grouse plans and other things for the States, you always
come to the focal areas, that these were thrown in on top of
these State plans that they have been working on and that they
knew nothing about them, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
I have heard a different take on it. The original plans
that Fish and Wildlife came up with had no disturbance areas,
and they were pretty large areas, and BLM said we are going to
have a problem with this. And Fish and Wildlife went back and
reduced those areas down to the high priority areas that they
call focal areas. So they are a portion of what would have been
a much larger no disturbance area. Is that an accurate
statement?
Mr. Kornze. That is roughly accurate, yes. The Fish and
Wildlife Service, we sat down with them and they had very broad
visions of potentially withdrawing all lands from Sage-grouse.
And we knew that probably was not a viable path forward, so we
encouraged them to think on a refined basis. And they came
forward with the focal areas that we have now.
Mr. Simpson. How do focal areas impact grazing?
Mr. Kornze. Focal areas, they do not impact grazing in
terms of changed standards. What we are doing is in our grazing
program we have a great need for support there because we have
18,000 permits nationwide. 6,000 of those are in backlog
status, right? So what we have to do is we have to prioritize,
and what our sage-grouse plans say is that the focal areas will
get priority. That is essentially what it is.
Mr. Simpson. How do the priority habitat management areas
impact grazing, and also the general management areas?
Mr. Kornze. So similarly, we are looking at them as a
tiered process, so you start in the focal areas. You head to
the broader priority habitat, and then you go to the general.
So a lot of what comes out of the Sage-grouse plans is that
rather than looking at the landscape all the same, we now have
a way to delineate priorities based on landscape.
Mr. Simpson. I have got county commissioners and so forth
and some ranchers that have said that they are going to lose 40
or 50 percent of their grazing lands, with this sage-grouse
proposal. Is that accurate?
Mr. Kornze. I do not think it will be. We have heard some
concern from the cattle industry, and so one of the things you
are going to see from us in a few months is we are going to
have workshops in the western States where we are going to sit
down with the grazing community and talk through exactly how
this works. I think it is very workable and, frankly, we spent
a great deal of time in the finalization steps of the plan
making sure that the grazing piece in particular was going to
work for western communities.
GRAZING ADMINISTRATION FEE
Mr. Simpson. As far as the proposed increase that both you
and the Forest Service have, the $2.50 administration fee for
AUM, and the potential fee to go up the maximum of 25 percent,
that has been proposed before, and the committee has rejected
it. You know, as I talk to cattlemen, they understand that the
AUM price needs to go up, that there ought to be an increase in
that. What they would like to see and have repeatedly stated is
they would like see is, you know, a 5-year, 10-year plan of how
we are going to increase so it is a gradual sort of increase
instead of a potential doubling overnight of the fee.
So far, nobody has ever come back to us with a gradual sort
of increase in fees, and I would encourage the Administration
to give us something along those lines that we could look at
with Resources Committee. So there is a gradual, predictable
increase in AUM fees because most ranchers understand that it
has been where it currently is, and that naturally it needs to
go up. And I think the cattle industry agrees with that.
EASTERN SNAKE PLAN AQUIFER
One last issue. Have you been in contact at all with the
State of Idaho relative to recharging the Snake River aquifer?
Mr. Kornze. I am not aware of that issue.
Mr. Simpson. They are just starting, and I did not know if
they got to the BLM yet. They have been talking to the BOR, and
they are going to put forth a recharge plan. And it is not
fully settled yet, so I would not expect them to have anything
that you could actually look at yet.
But recharge areas are going to cross BLM grounds. There
are issues of rights-of-ways on canals that are going to go
through BLM property, and that go through there now. But they
are used for irrigation purposes and those types of activities.
But I told them that they need to get in touch with the BLM
and with BOR and start working so that they can have a plan
that we can look at because I would like to recharge the
aquifer that is going down substantially. And there are periods
of time when we have excess water that we just flush down the
river now because it is just there, and it would be nice to
recharge that aquifer.
But I would encourage you and your office to work with the
State of Idaho and with our office in developing some plans
that might work.
Mr. Kornze. I will be happy to look into that.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
GRAZING ADMINISTRATION FEE
Mr. Kornze. And one note on the grazing issue. I appreciate
the invitation for a broader conversation. I think part of what
we struggle with is that, with the system having so many
strains on it with a third of the permits being in backlog
status. Part of that comes from the fact that the grazing fee
goes 50 percent back to the county where it was raised, and 50
percent is range improvements. Zero dollars go to supporting
the grazing program.
Mr. Simpson. Right.
Mr. Kornze. So I think there are a lot of pieces that need
to be examined.
Mr. Simpson. Well, we ought to look at that whole program.
Mr. Kornze. Absolutely.
Mr. Simpson. Yeah, thank you.
Mr. Kornze. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Israel.
WILD HORSES AND BURROS
Mr. Israel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Director.
Director, the President's budget includes a proposal to
make it easier for the Department of Interior to transfer wild
horses to local, and State, and other Federal agencies to be
used as work animals. I am concerned that if the proposal is
not effectively implemented, it will simply make it easier for
those horses to ultimately be sent to slaughter. And I would
appreciate it if you would tell us what safeguards will be
instituted so that we know that these horses will remain safe.
Mr. Kornze. So when folks adopt horses right now, they have
to sign a contract with us that indicates their intention and
commitment to not send that horse to be slaughtered or go into
products related to that. So we could work out something
similar with these agencies, or if Congress wanted to insert
language that would make that a requirement, we would welcome
it.
Mr. Israel. The proposal as it is currently constructed
does not have that requirement?
Mr. Kornze. Well, the proposal says that essentially if you
are working with a trusted public agency and they are looking
for a work animal, that we should be able to title that animal
over.
Mr. Israel. I want to make sure I understand this. So when
somebody adopts a wild horse, as I understand what you just
said, there is a requirement that they commit not to send that
horse to slaughter. Are you saying that there is a distinction
if the animal is transferred to a public agency, that
requirement is not currently----
Mr. Kornze. It is not in the current language, and we would
be open to seeing that language.
Mr. Israel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Stewart.
COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and, Director, thank
you for many years of service I think the relationship that we
have developed, we have had opportunities to work together on
some things, and I thank you for that.
As we discussed yesterday, I think the prairie dog in
southern Utah is a good example of some collaborative efforts,
although we have had some hiccups along the way as a result of
the lawsuit. We still expect to be able to work with you
regardless of how that lawsuit may turn out on appeal. And as
we discussed yesterday as well, we look forward to working with
you on some of these issues in Washington County with the
Resource Management Plan. We met with Mr. Ashe after our
meeting, and I believe there is a pathway for us to have some
success in addressing concerns of the local officials there as
well.
So having said that, I am going to kind of shotgun this if
we could because there are so many issues that we would like to
discuss with you, and I will address them very quickly maybe,
but some of them in a little more detail.
WILD HORSES AND BURROS
I appreciate you bringing up the horses and the burros
which is, you know, an enormous concern in my district. And if
you care about horses, you cannot look at these herds and feel
good about the outcome for these animals. If you care about the
range, you cannot look at this and feel good about the outcome-
unhealthy herds and some of these horses are starving to death
as you know, and it is destroying much of the range. So we
appreciate your concern there, and I know you are sincere in
that.
Now, I have a bill, it is several years old now,
appropriately called the WHOA bill, Wild Horse Oversight Act,
which deals with allowing some of the States to accept some
control over these animals, maybe even transferring control of
these animals to the States. States manage our deer
populations. They manage elk. They manage turkey, you know. Why
is the Federal government only and exclusively responsible for
managing these wild horses and burros?
Would you support that act? And I know you do not have it
before you, but I mean just in general principle, would you
support the idea of the States having more control over these
animals?
Mr. Kornze. Well, I think it is an interesting issue, and I
often explain to people there are three types of animals in
this country. There is wildlife, which are regulated by
governors. There are endangered and threatened species, which
are regulated by the Fish and Wildlife Service. And then there
are lot of horses and burros.
Mr. Stewart. And heaven knows these are not endangered, no.
Mr. Kornze. Yeah. And then there are wild horses and
burros, which land with the Bureau of Land Management. So I
think it is an oddity that deserves to be looked at. Part of
our effort with the language that we put forward this year is
to see if we can eliminate the sense that working on wild horse
and burro issues is a third rail of politics.
Mr. Stewart. Yeah.
Mr. Kornze. I think there is a lot of commonality to be had
between both sides of the aisle on this. So we welcome a
conversation about the road ahead. I do not have that bill in
front of me, so I cannot comment specifically.
Mr. Stewart. Yeah, but in general principle it is not
something you would oppose.
Mr. Kornze. We need more partners, States, other
organizations, because we are overwhelmed at this point.
NATIONAL MONUMENT DESIGNATIONS
Mr. Stewart. Okay. Switching subjects quickly if I could,
and that is, and I am going to repeat myself from yesterday a
little bit, although I will do it more briefly. And I am not
doing this because I do not have something to say. I am doing
this because what I said is what I really believe.
And that is, you know, if you go to my district, as you and
I have talked about many times, we talk to miners who are
losing their jobs. We talk to teachers who are losing their
jobs because their schools are dying, and the reason their
schools are dying is because the families are leaving. It is
not like people suddenly quit having kids. They are still
having children, but the families are leaving because timber,
mining, ranching, all of these, you know, these lifestyles, not
just jobs, but actual lifestyles just do not exist any longer.
You talk to ranchers I have to elaborate on this just a
little bit because I always remember this, meeting with a
rancher. He is an older gentleman, you know, a humble man with
a humble family. Shows us this piece of paper, as Mr. Simpson,
I am losing 50 percent of my BLM grazing permits, and he is
scared to death of the Federal government. You know, he is not
a rebel. He is not going to go out and join some militia. But
he is scared of the Federal government and does not know how to
respond to that.
And finally a businessman who had a thriving business, and
now their economy transitioned over to a tourist industry
economy or tourist based. And now his business is only open 3
and half months a year. All of that, and this is the key, all
of that because of one Federal decision to create a monument,
and those are the impacts because of that. So, you know, as we
have discussed, we are fearful of another monument being
created in Utah without the input of those people who will be
most affected by it.
I wonder if you would respond to that, if you could, your
intentions on monuments in Utah. We know what Ms. Jewell said
yesterday. I would be interested in what you think.
Mr. Kornze. Well, I think monuments have an important place
on the landscape. They have been hugely productive for a lot of
communities, but it is important that those are done through a
public conversation.
Mr. Stewart. And I appreciate that because that really is a
key to this, having that, you know, local input. And it
concerns me a little bit when we see outside groups who come in
and claim to be local groups when they are not. And we have
seen that with some of the tribal interests in this case as
well as others.
And I will not describe to you why I am asking this
question. It would take a little bit too long, so I will just
ask the question and let you respond to it. And that is, we
have heard some, I do not want to say rumors, but some thought
among some of how this potential monument would be managed. And
my question to you is, would it be lawful to transfer
management of a monument to an entity outside of the BLM, or
would the BLM always have to claim management for that
monument?
Mr. Kornze. I do not know. Absent direction from Congress,
I am not sure what authority we would have in that space, so I
would have to look into the details of what you are putting
forward here.
Mr. Stewart. I tell you what. Maybe I will follow up with
you individually. But can we agree on this, that if the BLM
were to designate or the Federal government were to designate a
monument, the default position would be that BLM or some other
government entity, Federal government entity, would manage that
monument?
Mr. Kornze. I am not aware of any situation in which it has
been done otherwise.
Mr. Stewart. Otherwise, okay. Would you support in theory a
situation where someone might, other than the Federal
government, manage that monument?
Mr. Kornze. We would need to be talking about something
specific.
ALTON COAL MINE
Mr. Stewart. Okay, all right. We do not have a clock, Mr.
Chairman. I am sorry. I will hit one very quickly, and then,
Neil, ask you to respond, and that is we talked about this
yesterday as well. We have this one mine who did a very good
job in restoration and, you know, mitigating some of the
impacts. And as a result of that, the Sage-grouse moved into an
area where they did not exist before. And now because of the
presence of Sage-grouse and because they did the responsible
thing with restoration, you know, they are probably going to be
shut down because Sage-grouse now exists. It is as we said, the
most southern lek that we know.
What do I say to those guys? I mean, the perverse incentive
there is ironic beyond my ability to say, well, congratulations
you did a great job, and now you are going to reap the benefits
of that. Help me understand what I should say to those folks.
Mr. Kornze. Well, I think you are referring to the Alton
Coal Mine.
Mr. Stewart. Yeah. Yeah.
Mr. Kornze. And, yeah, this is a tough situation we have,
you know. There are two serious hurdles to that project. One is
the pause in the coal program for any project that does not
currently have a record of decision unless you can fit it into
various emergency categories. So that is one thing that we have
discussed that can be looked at. The other is the fact that----
Mr. Stewart. And by the way as we discussed, we think we
are okay on that. We think they would fit within the criteria
of the emergency exception, which is good. But now we come to
the second one.
Mr. Kornze. The second one, which is as we work West-wide
on Sage-grouse issues, you know, one of the key parts of the
responsibility of the Bureau of Land Management is we have
multiple use and sustained yield. Those are the two core tenets
that this Congress asked us to manage on. And part of the
sustained yield is related to renewable resources, which
include wildlife habitat.
And so, you know, during the course of my lifetime, greater
Sage-grouse populations have dropped 40 percent. And so,
somewhere that suggests that the BLM and others have perhaps
not maintained that renewable resource of wildlife habitat to
the degree it should be.
And so, as we went through our planning process and worked
with States to identify the best habitat, one of the places
that Utah said was the best habitat is this site. And it does,
in fact, have the southernmost lek in the United States. And
so, as you identified, you know, I think this presents a very
hard situation for us to work through.
Mr. Stewart. And I appreciate what you are saying. I would
just say in conclusion that this probably is not the only
example or potential example where someone looks at this going,
if we restore, if we create habitat, if we help to protect the
species, well, there may be a negative outcome for us in doing
that. And if that is the case, I hope we could consider that.
So thank you.
And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Voice. Microphone.
SILVER PEAK
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Neil, thanks for your
continued willingness to meet with us.
I am going to start out with a couple of things. I am not
going to take the committee's time up, but I want to kind of
highlight them for you because they will be coming to your
staff.
We have got a situation in Nevada with the lithium property
in Silver Peak that has got a little protest going on in terms
of ownership and transfer. And there are some issues with
respect to when that can happen and how that can happen that
emanate through your solicitor's office in Sacramento that I am
going to be asking you for a briefing for offline----
Mr. Kornze. Okay.
PLANNING 2.0
Mr. Amodei [continuing]. There is some stuff that we need
some more facts on.
Also your Planning 2.0 effort is one that sends a lot of
information out in terms of stuff that we learn from going
through the resource management plan updates for the 11 States.
We want to see where you are going on that. I have read what
NACO puts out on it, and there are two sides to every story. So
I would kind of like the other side on that if I could.
SAGE GROUSE
The final one briefing wise is the Secretary laid out a
deal about science yesterday, and more money in Interior for
science and stuff like that. And so, I want to pass that on to
you that we are concerned that a lot of the science about the
Great Basin, as you well know, Sage hen crossroads of the West,
the majority of the Great Basin, sagebrush steppe ecosystem.
And every time I talk to the Desert Research Institute folks
and the folks in the College of Agriculture at the University,
and even sometimes NRCS, and even USGS, has anybody been
talking about these chicken issues from Nevada. And while the
director has said I am happy to work with them, I have not seen
much of that. So I want to revisit that and go I am not telling
you to do what the Nevada science says, but I think they ought
to have a seat at the table when we are talking about this. So
we would kind of like a briefing on that, and thank you guys
for your willingness to do that.
I want to follow up on the focal area stuff real quick. In
preparation for the hearing, we asked Fish, and the Forest
Service, and you guys, where do the boundaries come from. And
we did that about 60 days ago, and the only response we got was
from the Forest Service, and I am quoting them, ``Sagebrush
focal boundaries were given to us by U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service.'' Were they given to you by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
Mr. Kornze. All right. So a range of questions. I will work
through them quickly.
Mr. Amodei. No, no, the other ones I want briefings on.
Mr. Kornze. Okay.
Mr. Amodei. I do not want you to work on. Your first
question is, the Forest Service said they got their sagebrush
focal area boundaries over their real estate from Fish and
Wildlife Service. Is that true for BLM?
Mr. Kornze. Yes.
Mr. Amodei. Okay.
Mr. Kornze. So we asked the same question, and the Fish and
Wildlife Service said we got our experts in the room, and this
is the map that we came out with.
Mr. Amodei. So it is fair to me, if I want to talk about
how that got created and where the boundaries are, I need to
talk to Dan Ashe about it.
Mr. Kornze. That is right.
Mr. Amodei. Okay, great. Thank you. I also want to touch on
Secretary Jewell said, hey, I am talking with Governor
Sandoval, which is a great thing, and I said, okay, so what is
the framework for that. Do you have like secretarial discretion
or whatever? And her answer, I think I heard her say is, well,
he is kind of highlighting things for me, and I am passing them
down to Neil, and they are going to John Ruhs, and there you
go. And that Neil has specific authority under that stuff.
All well and good in my mind. But when we talk about things
like maps that were brought up earlier, and it is like, okay,
we got a new map that has a PJ and an urban overlay to it, and
the RMP amendment process is not nimble. And I am not saying
that critically. I am just saying it is as a historical
observation. We do not amend those things every couple of
years.
And when I first go out to the field and I am in three
district offices, it is like so how do we account for the fact
that the White Pine Public LandsManagement Act has 15,000
acres--I believe you had a hand in that--for economic
development between Ely and McGill. And now we have got one of
the iterations of map that says that is now chicken habitat.
It is like before we even get to well, this one was signed
by the President and this one was signed by the Secretary, you
know, it is like how do we react to those things because I got
to pass a new law, lands law, which a lot of us are too old to
probably see that come to fruition, go amend the RMPs, or one
of them said, hey, I have got some discretion in that if I find
it.
What is the guidance in terms of how these people react to
things, and not that maps should get smaller because we know
from instances over the summer that there are areas of habitat
that were not marked that should be marked. And so, my concern
is when you talk about real-time stuff, whether it is grazing,
whether it is whatever, to amend those is not an easy process
if we look historically. Anything new in the making for
amending those?
Mr. Kornze. So very quickly, and part of the mapping I
think comes down to best available science.
Mr. Amodei. Right.
Mr. Kornze. So we wanted the best available information. We
are excited to be working with the State and USGS on getting I
think the now third iteration of the Nevada maps.
Mr. Amodei. Right.
Mr. Kornze. So and we are waiting for that to be peer
reviewed, I understand is where it is at with the State of
Nevada, which is why we only have a high level concept of what
that map looks like right now.
The plans themselves are designed to have some flexibility
in them, you know. So we have priority habitat. We have general
habitat. But beyond that, there are pathways to development
based on different criteria in the maps, including disturbance
calculations. When it comes to, for instance, some of the
issues that have been litigated in Nevada in White Plain
County, you know, we have been able to work through the
allowance in the plan to make certain steps possible.
PLANNING 2.0
And in terms of speed on amending the plans, Planning 2.0
is, you know, going to feel very obscure. We are looking to
update our planning regulations. But BLM does not do anything
without a plan underneath it, and those are taking way too
long, and way too slow, and they are way too expensive.
So the concept here is we asked our team, we took some of
our brightest people and put them in a room and said, figure
out how to make this work better. And what they came back with
was counterintuitive, but I think somewhat brilliant, which is
they said, let us add a couple of extra steps into the process.
They said, let us start by raising our hand and saying please
bring your best information and your best science to the table
so that we do not get surprised by somebody with information
two-thirds of the way down the road and we have to start over,
which happens a lot.
And the other piece is, you would have that information
call. You would have your scoping meetings to talk about the
big issues. Then before we get to a draft plan, usually we go
away. People do not hear much from us between the scoping
meetings and a draft. We would have a halfway step where we
would put out a simple, let us say, a 20-page document with
some meetings where we would describe what we are thinking
about doing.
Mr. Amodei. If I might, I will get the rest of that
offline, but I appreciate that.
Mr. Kornze. You bet.
MINERALS EXAMINATION
Mr. Amodei. Focal areas are going to require quite a bit of
minerals examination I understand. The minerals examiner
population in BLM is not impressive, and it is older than me,
which there is ``R'' word ``retirement.'' I would like to talk
to you about that offline in terms of if we got 5,000 of these
things to do and we have not got a lot of examiners and
minerals examinations, I just kind of want to get a feeling for
how that is going to go.
And with that, I think in view of how much fun we are
having this morning, I will yield back and look forward to
talking to you and your folks offline about that. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
WILD HORSES AND BURROS
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. I would just like to get back to
wild horses and burros real quick. [Laughter.]
We spent a lot of time on this issue. We spay and neuter
cats and dogs, and we certainly should be doing that with the
horses and burros. Where are you at on that? Tell us where you
are at.
Mr. Kornze. Some of the research projects that we have
stood up in the last few years are looking specifically at
this. Spay and neuter is going to be very important. We do not
have a drug right now that lasts more than 1 year, and we
cannot touch all----
Mr. Calvert. Well, there are things that you can do that
permanent. [Laughter.]
Mr. Kornze. Yeah, and that is why we have to look at that,
right? So at some point maybe we have a drug that lasts for 5
years or is permanent. But right now we are going to have to
look at spay and neuter in the short to medium term because it
is really one of the only tools we have.
Mr. Calvert. Well, I think that we ought to, I mean, not
just look at it. I mean, have a broad approach to apply it in
the field. Do you intend to do that?
Mr. Kornze. It looks like we may be headed in that
direction, you know, out of force of necessity.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, on this point, between the spaying
and neutering, is one less expensive and is one quicker? You
talk about both, so if one is quicker and less expensive to
make a bigger dent in the population, should you just go with
one of the forms of permanent birth control for a while?
Mr. Kornze. That is a great question, and I want to come
back to you with an answer in terms of speed and cost.
[The information follows:]
Wild Horse and Burros
Neutering stallions is a quicker and less expensive procedure
compared to spaying mares. Unfortunately, neutering alone would not be
an effective means of controlling herd population growth unless most of
the stallions in a herd were neutered. This would be hard to accomplish
considering the difficulty of capturing an entire herd in expansive and
often rugged terrain. The BLM believes that for effective population
management of wild horse and burro herds, the BLM will need to use
multiple population growth suppression tools on males and females as
the conditions on the ground warrant.
Ms. McCollum. I think I might have an idea, but I will not
be indelicate at the hearing. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Yeah. Well, obviously we have an over
population on the range, and Mr. Stewart brought out that this
is not good for the horses, and it is certainly not good for
the ranchers, and it is certainly not good for the environment.
So I would think that is more of a permanent solution. If we
can start moving in that direction, I think that we should get
support for that.
Mr. Kornze. And let me mention quickly that, you know, as I
look at the $50,000 per horse cost, I think there is room for
creativity there, right? This is not the Ways and Means
Committee, but I would imagine that someday I would hope Ways
and Means or others would look at that and say maybe part of
that $50,000 could be used to incentivize adoptions. And a fair
amount of money, whatever is left over after you pay that
incentive would be savings to the U.S. government.
It would be good for the rangeland. It would be good for
the folks that are adopting the horses. So I think there is a--
--
Mr. Calvert. I think that is part of the solution. I think
that is certainly worth looking into. But right now we need to
stop, you know, the number of horses that are being born out on
the range.
Any other comments or any other questions? I know we have a
series of votes. And so, we appreciate your being here, and I
am sure you will be hearing more from members individually.
With that, we are adjourned.
Mr. Kornze. Thank you very much.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
W I T N E S S E S
----------
Bavasi, Chris.................................................... 125
Connor, Mike..................................................... 149
Dixon, Tony...................................................... 1
Fowler, E. A..................................................... 59
Hartz, G. J...................................................... 59
Jewell, Hon. Sally............................................... 149
Kornze, Neil..................................................... 331
McSwain, Robert.................................................. 59
Owens, Glenda.................................................... 289
Pizarchik, Joseph................................................ 289
Sarri, Kristen................................................... 149
Smith, Mary...................................................... 59
Stokes, Ruth..................................................... 289
Tidwell, Tom..................................................... 1
I N D E X
----------
U.S. Forest Service
2017 Budget Request
February 24, 2016, Rayburn B-308
Page
Abandoned Mine Lands............................................. 15
Airtankers ....................................................27,30,44
Big Horn Sheep................................................... 27
Biography--Antoine ``Tony'' Dixon................................ 12
Biography--Chief Tom Tidwell..................................... 11
Budget Cap Adjustment ........................................... 18,26
Climate Change................................................... 56
Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLRP)............... 18
Convertible and Non-Convertible Forest Products.................. 39
Data Centers..................................................... 40
Data Quality Act................................................. 43
Department of Defense: Wildland Fire Support..................... 34
Emerald Ash Borer................................................ 31
Endangered Species Cooperation................................... 57
Every Kid in a Park Initiative................................... 56
Federal Lands ................................................... 20,25
Fire Fighting Technology ........................................ 29,41
Fire Transfer.................................................... 17
Forest Roads..................................................... 19
Forest Service Stewardship Program .............................. 24,42
Good Neighbor Authority.......................................... 33
Grazing ......................................................... 13,43
Grazing and Water Rights......................................... 14
Grazing Fee Proposal............................................. 35
Hazardous Fuels.................................................. 38
Knutson-Vandenburg (K-V) Authority............................... 54
Labor Rule and Overtime for Outfitters and Guides................ 13
Land Acquisition................................................. 42
Landscape Scale Restoration Funding.............................. 48
Marijuana Eradication............................................ 34
Military Aircraft................................................ 35
Monongahela National Forest...................................... 25
Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert.............................. 1
Opening Remarks of Chief Tidwell................................. 3
Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum.................................. 2
Questions for the Record from Chairman Calvert................... 38
Questions for the Record from Mr. Amodei......................... 44
Questions for the Record from Mr. Israel......................... 56
Questions for the Record from Mr. Jenkins........................ 48
Questions for the Record from Mr. Kilmer......................... 54
Questions for the Record from Mr. Stewart........................ 43
Questions for the Record from Ms. McCollum....................... 49
Questions for the Record from Ms. Pingree........................ 52
Recreation....................................................... 49
Spreading of Invasive Species.................................... 32
State Action Plans............................................... 24
State and Volunteer Fire Assistance Funding...................... 28
Statement of Chief Tidwell....................................... 5
Stewardship Contracting.......................................... 36
Terrestrial Condition Assessment (TCA)........................... 38
Tree Farm System................................................. 52
Unmanned Vehicle Fire Suppression................................ 47
Urban and Community Forestry..................................... 32
Watershed Health................................................. 50
White-Nose Syndrome.............................................. 22
Wildfire Suppression and State Stewardship....................... 45
Indian Health Service
2017 Budget Request
February 25, 2016, Rayburn B-308
Access to Quality Medical Providers.............................. 102
Accurate Data for American Indian/Alaska Native Health........... 115
Advanced Appropriations.......................................... 99
Behavioral Health................................................ 80
Biography--Elizabeth A. Fowler................................... 73
Biography--Gary J. Hartz......................................... 74
Biography--Mary L. Smith......................................... 72
Biography--Robert G. McSwain..................................... 71
Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund (CHEF)........................ 101
Contract Support Costs ..................................... 85,86,110
Current Services................................................. 97
Dental ...................................................... 85,86,90
Emergency Rooms.................................................. 119
Enrollment in Other Federal Health Programs...................... 99
Great Plains Area .............................................. 75,110
IHS Employee Settlement.......................................... 116
Joint Venture ................................................... 75,83
Measuring Progress ............................................. 79,86
Medical Inflation................................................ 98
Medicare and Medicaid .......................................... 87,119
Mental Health .................................................. 77,113
Offsetting Collections........................................... 101
Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert.............................. 59
Opening Remarks of Mr. McSwain................................... 62
Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum.................................. 60
Operations and Maintenance....................................... 104
Population Growth................................................ 98
Purchase/Referred Care .................................... 105,118,119
Questions for the Record from Chairman Calvert................... 93
Questions for the Record from Ms. McCollum....................... 118
Reprogramming.................................................... 90
Special Diabetes Program for Indians .......................... 117,120
Staffing and Housing ........................................... 76,108
Staffing of New Facilities....................................... 104
Statement of Mr. McSwain......................................... 65
Strategic Plan................................................... 79
Substance Abuse .............................................. 78,83,89
Substance Abuse: Opioid ..................................... 81,87,122
Telemedicine..................................................... 86
Unobligated Balances............................................. 97
Urban Health..................................................... 114
Youth Initiatives................................................ 121
Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation
2017 Budget Request
February 25, 2016, Rayburn B-308
Annual Range Management Costs.................................... 135
Biography--Christopher J. Bavasi................................. 132
Close-out Date ................................................ 133,141
Contracting and Inspection Procedures............................ 139
Eligibility Appeals Process ................................... 137,142
Housing Conditions............................................... 139
Housing Program.................................................. 136
Judgement Fund................................................... 138
New Lands........................................................ 145
Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert.............................. 125
Opening Remarks of Executive Director Bavasi..................... 127
Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum.................................. 126
Planning......................................................... 142
Quarterly Status Reports......................................... 133
Questions for the Record from Chairman Calvert................... 141
Questions for the Record from Mr. Simpson........................ 147
Relocation Process ........................................... 140,143
Relocation Report................................................ 147
Spider Mound and East Mill Communities........................... 144
Statement of Executive Director Bavasi........................... 128
Status Update.................................................... 136
Transfers to Other Federal Agencies.............................. 134
Department of the Interior
2017 Budget Request
March 2, 2016, Rayburn B-308
Antiquities Act ............................................... 221,225
Arctic Council--U.S. Chairmanship 2015-2017...................... 283
Asian Carp .................................................... 218,219
Basin Range National Monument.................................... 225
Biography--Kristen Sarri......................................... 186
Biography--Mike Connor........................................... 185
Biography--Secretary Sally Jewell................................ 184
BSEE Well Control Rule........................................... 227
Budget Request................................................... 155
Bureau of Indian Education....................................... 195
Bureau of Indian Education: Construction ...................... 193-232
Bureau of Indian Education: Reprogramming........................ 195
Bureau of Land Management: Changes to Resource Management........ 280
California Drought............................................... 190
Climate Change ................................................ 201,282
Coastal Climate Resilience Fund.................................. 206
Delta Water...................................................... 226
Endangered Species Act ........................................ 214-230
Federal Coal Leasing Program .......................... 231,268,269,278
Federal Impacts ............................................... 207-208
Grand Canyon National Park....................................... 190
Great Lakes...................................................... 217
Great Lakes Science Center....................................... 276
Increasing Visitation............................................ 272
Invasive Species .......................................... 193,223,224
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) ........................239,240
Land Buy-Back Program............................................ 204
Land Titles...................................................... 212
Landsat 9........................................................ 257
Law Enforcement................................................ 219-262
National Heritage Areas.......................................... 189
National Monument Designations .................................208-223
National Park Service: Centennial................................ 244
National Park Service: Director, Jon Jarvis...................... 254
Online Systems for Department of Interior........................ 271
Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert.............................. 149
Opening Remarks of Chairman Rogers............................... 152
Opening Remarks of Mrs. Lowey.................................... 154
Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum.................................. 151
Opening Remarks of Secretary Jewell.............................. 155
Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT)................................. 234
Pensions for Coal Miners......................................... 215
Public Lands Initiative.......................................... 209
Public Lands: Management and Planning Authority.................. 278
Puget Sound...................................................... 205
Questions for the Record from Chairman Calvert................... 227
Questions for the Record from Mr. Joyce.......................... 274
Questions for the Record from Mr. Kilmer......................... 286
Questions for the Record from Mr. Rogers......................... 268
Questions for the Record from Mr. Simpson........................ 270
Questions for the Record from Mr. Stewart........................ 278
Questions for the Record from Ms. McCollum....................... 282
Sage Grouse ............................................196,213,236,270
Salton Sea....................................................... 258
Science Coordination............................................. 212
Statement of Secretary Sally Jewell.............................. 158
Steens Wilderness................................................ 196
Stream Protection Rule ................................ 187,198,215,238
Tick-Borne Diseases.............................................. 201
Tiwahe Initiative................................................ 195
Tribal Broadband Access.......................................... 286
USGS Earthquake Early Warning System .......................... 256,279
Violence Against Women Act....................................... 203
Water Quality Monitoring......................................... 274
Wildfire Funding .............................................. 235,270
Wildland Fire.................................................... 196
Wildlife Trafficking............................................. 210
Wildlife Traps ................................................ 188,189
Wolves .................................................... 197,201,202
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE)
2017 Budget Request
March 3, 2016, Rayburn B-308
AML Pilot Program ......................................... 316,320,328
AML Pilot Program: Application of Project Requirements........... 317
AML Pilot Program: Economic and Community Development............ 315
Availability of Copyrighted Material............................. 308
Baseline Data Requirements....................................... 312
Biography--Director Joseph Pizarchik............................. 302
Biography--Glenda H. Owens....................................... 303
Biography--Ruth E. Stokes........................................ 304
Compliance with Omnibus Language................................. 314
Duplicative Oversight............................................ 327
Importance of Science............................................ 316
New Budget Initiatives........................................... 320
Offsite Impacts.................................................. 327
Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert.............................. 289
Opening Remarks of Director Pizarchik............................ 293
Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum.................................. 292
President's Request to Hire More Federal Inspectors.............. 318
Protection of Water Resources.................................... 313
Questions for the Record from Chairman Calvert................... 318
Questions for the Record from Mr. Jenkins........................ 327
Questions for the Record from Mr. Joyce.......................... 324
State Bonding Requirements....................................... 321
Statement of Chairman Rogers..................................... 290
Statement of Director Pizarchik.................................. 297
Stream Protection Rule .................................... 305,322,324
Stream Protection Rule: Economic Impacts ...................... 311-316
Stream Protection Rule: Information to States.................... 307
Stream Protection Rule: Meeting with States...................... 309
Stream Protection Rule: Spending................................. 307
Stream Protection Rule: Timing................................... 310
Unbiased Science................................................. 314
Bureau of Land Management
2017 Budget Request
March 3, 2016, Rayburn B-308
Alton Coal Mine.................................................. 352
Aquifer Recharge in Idaho........................................ 372
Biography--Director Neil Kornze.................................. 344
Challenge Cost-Share ......................................... 345,346
Collaborative Efforts............................................ 350
Cost of Litigation............................................... 368
Data Center Consolidation........................................ 369
Eastern Snake Plan Aquifer....................................... 348
Grazing Administration Fee .................................... 348,349
Land Acquisition................................................. 370
Law Enforcement.................................................. 369
Minerals Examination............................................. 356
National Monument Designations ................................ 351,369
Native Plants/National Seed Strategy............................. 362
Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert.............................. 331
Opening Remarks of Director Kornze............................... 333
Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum.................................. 332
Planning 2.0 ...................................................353,355
Questions for the Record from Chairman Calvert................... 358
Questions for the Record from Mr. Simpson........................ 372
Questions for the Record from Mr. Stewart........................ 374
Resource Management Plan Changes................................. 374
Sage Grouse ....................................... 345,347,353,358,373
Silver Peak...................................................... 353
Statement of Director Kornze..................................... 337
Steens Mountain CMPA Fence....................................... 347
Venting and Flaring ......................................... . 345,346
Wild Horses and Burros ................................ 349,350,356,364