[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 7
Page
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Budget
Oversight Hearing................................................. 1
National Park Service Budget Oversight
Hearing.......................................................... 95
Bureau of Indian Affairs/Bureau of
Indian Education Budget Oversight
Hearing.......................................................... 173
Environmental Protection Agency Budget
Oversight Hearing................................................ 247
Smithsonian Institution Budget
Oversight Hearing................................................ 341
_________________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
________________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-144 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
----------
Tuesday, March 15, 2016.
UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUDGET OVERSIGHT HEARING
WITNESSES
DAN ASHE, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
CHRIS NOLIN, BUDGET OFFICER, UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
GARY FRAZER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, UNITED STATES
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert
Mr. Calvert. Good morning, and welcome to the
subcommittee's oversight hearing on the President's fiscal year
2017 budget for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I am
pleased to welcome back Dan Ashe, Director of the Fish and
Wildlife Service, and Chris Nolin, the Service budget officer.
The President is proposing a $59 million, 4 percent
increase for the Fish and Wildlife Service, an increase which
relies on gimmicks to skirt the cap on nondefense discretionary
spending agreed to less than a year ago.
So while the Service's proposed budget is insightful
insofar as the service priorities, it is not realistic. The
subcommittee's challenge will continue to be to work within our
allocation to ensure that the Fish and Wildlife Service has the
budget necessary to carry out, first and foremost, those
actions required by law, as opposed to those actions simply
authorized by law.
The greatest concern continues to be the Endangered Species
Act budget. Despite the law's many mandates, actions continue
to be driven by lawsuits. Other mandates such as recovery
plans, 5-year reviews, and status changes are put on a back
burner.
That is why listed species tend to stay listed, and why
people are so frustrated by the Endangered Species Act. If the
government is not prepared to carry out its full
responsibilities under the law, then it should not be listing
species in the first place.
Granted, the Fish and Wildlife Service deserves credit for
delisting 15 species over the past 8 years. But there is still
a backlog of 49 waiting to be down-listed or delisted, 318
awaiting 5-year status reviews, and 1,159 awaiting recovery
plans. We will ensure that the agency has the budget needed in
fiscal year 2017 to continue to whittle away at these backlogs.
We also ensure that the agency continues to whittle away at
the maintenance backlogs at national wildlife refuges and
national fish hatcheries. The National Wildlife Refuge System
backlog, for example, has declined annually since 2012, but
still exceeds $1.1 billion. The fiscal year 2017 budget is not
enough to keep driving that number down, so the subcommittee
will appropriate an amount that will.
It is irresponsible for the Federal Government to add to
its estate if it cannot even maintain what it already owns.
Last but not least, we will continue to arm the service
with the resources it needs to combat international wildlife
trafficking. The escalation of trafficking in recent years has
put many iconic species in grave danger and has fueled the
activities of those who are a threat to our national security.
Closer to home, the extended drought in California
continues to threaten the Nation's food security. California
produces nearly half the Nation's fruits, nuts, and vegetables.
It is the Nation's largest dairy State. I am sorry to point
that out to Minnesota.
The drought has cost us $1.8 billion in economic losses and
10,000 jobs. People are desperate. Unemployment and suicide
rates are now among the highest in the Nation.
Now some people believe that California should return to
the desert it used to be, but the fact is that the Nation
cannot afford to feed its people without California, and long-
term reliance on food imports makes our Nation vulnerable. We
must save California's agriculture.
Witnesses in previous hearings before the subcommittee have
testified that the problem is simply not enough water. If that
was really the case, then we should have been able to pump and
store a good portion of this winter's El Nino rains. Instead,
we pumped less than last year--less.
If the Fish and Wildlife Service had simply allowed the
Bureau of Reclamation to pump the maximum allowable under the
biological opinion, we could have pumped enough water to serve
2 million people for an entire year, the population of San
Diego and San Francisco combined. Instead, that water went out
to sea, and it is not coming back.
El Nino has proven that the problem is not the quantity of
water but the regulation of water. So much of the regulation is
dictated by the Fish and Wildlife Service under the mandates of
the Endangered Species Act, with wide latitude afforded
scientific uncertainty and save-at-any-cost policy that borders
on dogma.
Enough is enough. For the sake of the people of California
who fuel the Nation's largest economic engine, who grow the
Nation's largest fresh food supply, and who push the Nation to
the cutting edge of technology, we must reconsider what the
Federal Government is doing with our water. We must reconsider
calling on the Endangered Species Committee.
I get that the Fish and Wildlife Service feels its hands
are tied, which is why this is yet another policy matter
banging on the front door of a statute long overdue for the
reauthorization process. This is not about the Fish and
Wildlife Service. It is not meant to be criticism of any of the
thousands of outstanding scientists and other employees of the
service who are faithfully executing the laws of the United
States on behalf of the people and natural resources we highly
value.
Along those lines, in closing, let me take a moment to
recognize some of these employees in another part of the
country that was recently featured so prominently in the news.
I want to give a short shout-out directly to the men and women
of the Fish and Wildlife Service who are working at or in
support of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon.
No doubt it was and continues to be a difficult ordeal for
you and your families. I hope you will take some comfort in
knowing that while the Nation was glued to the press, your
refuge neighbors, ranchers, came to your defense and made
Congress aware that cooperative conservation can work when
landscape neighbors truly work together.
For your collective efforts, we commend you.
I am now pleased to yield to our distinguished ranking
member, Betty McCollum, for her opening remarks.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum
I also would like to welcome Director Ashe to the
subcommittee this morning. Thank you for being here.
And I would like to extend my congratulations to National
Wildlife Refuge System, which yesterday celebrated 113 years of
wildlife conservation. Happy birthday. Happy anniversary.
Congratulations.
This year, Fish and Wildlife Service has some great
accomplishments to celebrate. The Yellowstone grizzly bear has
been successfully recovered and proposed for delisting. The
Monarch butterfly population grew 255 percent, showing signs of
effective conservation efforts with our partners.
You engaged everyone in the United States for Monarch
protection, and it is working.
Sadly, however, the Service also faced challenges. This
January, as the chair pointed out, armed occupiers took over
the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, keeping dedicated
employees from carrying out their mission. There should be no
tolerance for threats of violence and intimidation against
public servants who are the conservators of America's nature,
or denial of the opportunity for any citizen to safely enjoy
America's public lands and waters.
As was pointed out by the chair, you are much appreciated
and respected in that part of Oregon. You did have your
neighbors stand up and say enough is enough.
The fiscal year 2017 Fish and Wildlife Service budget
requests a modest increase to expand opportunities to
experience nature and rebuild urban areas, and to rebuild
capacity and make targeted increases to address some of the
Service's most pressing challenges.
The budget increased support for the National Wildlife
Refuge System by $25 million, of which $2 million will be going
toward refuge law enforcement, adding much-needed Federal
wildlife officers to protect visitors, staff, and our natural
resources. Another
$5 million will increase support for refuge maintenance.
The Fish and Wildlife Service has been working for several
years to bring down its maintenance backlog, and this increase
will continue momentum to relieve some of the strains on their
facilities.
I am particularly interested in the $6 million increase for
the Urban Wildlife Conservation Program. Urban refuges are the
most important part of youth engagement, serving as an outdoor
classroom for thousands of children. Over 80 percent of
Americans live in cities, so it is essential that our youth
engagement initiatives, such as the Urban Wildlife Refuge
Partners, connect those children with wildlife and nature so
that they become the next generation of good stewards of this
land.
There is also a growing body of scientific research that
finds a connection between nature experiences and public
health, such as reduced stress and improved physical and mental
wellness. Americans of every age can benefit from this proposed
investment in healthy ecosystems.
Additionally, the budget combats invasive species, builds
on science programs, works to build more collaborative efforts
with partners, and provides appropriate resources to make
timely listing determinations, process permits, and expedite
project reviews to avoid delays, which could negatively impact
economic growth and job creation.
I am also pleased that the service is proposing increases
for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants program. States are
important partners, and these funds support their conservation
and management of wildlife and habitat.
This budget request is reasonable, and it will move the
Fish and Wildlife Service toward meeting its commitment to
preserve and protect our living natural resources.
Director Ashe, thank you for the work you do. Thank you to
all the employees of the Fish and Wildlife Service for all that
you do for all of us here.
So thank you for your testimony. I look forward to hearing
it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
The full committee chairman is not with us today, so, Dan,
you are recognized for your opening statement.
Opening Remarks of Director Ashe
Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ms. McCollum,
subcommittee members. Thank you very much for the opportunity
to be here with you today.
I will try to provide a little bit of context for where the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is today. When you think about
the Fish and Wildlife Service, you should think about an
organization where the heart and soul of the organization is in
something that we collectively call the field. We are a
decentralized organization. The core of the organization is in
what we call our field structure, our field offices, national
wildlife refuges, national fish hatcheries, ecological field
services, field stations, and fish and wildlife conservation
offices. These are the people, the women and men, of the Fish
and Wildlife Service who make our success possible.
Mr. Calvert, Ms. McCollum, you both mentioned the situation
at Malheur. I will speak to that just momentarily. We saw 41
days, beginning January 2, where we had something that was
unimaginable really for us, an armed occupation of one of our
Nation's national wildlife refuges.
I do believe, as you both have mentioned, that what we saw
there in a way was amazing, where the community there,
regardless of whether people felt sympathy for the motivations
of the occupiers, they overwhelmingly rejected their methods
and they said to them, we are working with the government in
the context of a comprehensive conservation planning process at
the refuge and in the context of candidate conservation
agreements with assurances within Harney County, at large.
So we saw the benefits of that field structure, that
engagement of local people and communities. That is what the
$59 million increase, Mr. Chairman, that you mentioned, that
$59 million will help us enrich and reinvigorate our field
structure, so we can continue to produce that kind of success,
that kind of community engagement that is the hallmark of the
work of our people in the field.
You mentioned ESA. Of course, it is an important law, one
of our Nation's bedrock environmental laws. It does not come
without controversy, but I do believe we have shown we can make
it work with the application of dollars you have thankfully
provided us. We have seen recovery working by making strategic
investment. We have seen cooperative and voluntary conservation
working, as we saw in Technicolor with the sage-grouse refuges.
Again, you mentioned backlog and maintenance, but I think
what we have shown with the National Wildlife Refuge System is
we can grow the National Wildlife Refuge System. The refuge
system has grown orders of magnitude larger than any other land
management system during the last 8 years.
We have reduced our deferred maintenance backlog by nearly
one-half, not whittled away at it. We have taken big chunks out
of it. We have done that by strategically using the dollars
that you gave us through the American Recovery and Reinvestment
Act, and by tactically managing our maintenance backlog.
So we can see success. I think the urban refuge initiative
that Ms. McCollum mentioned is one of the most exciting efforts
within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to take wildlife
conservation to our great urban centers, and build a new
generation of conservationists that will help us solve problems
like conservation of the Monarch butterfly.
We have been able, again with your help, to deal with our
fish hatcheries system. And probably for the first time in the
4 years that I have testified before this committee, hatcheries
and hatchery maintenance is probably not going to be a large
part of the dialogue that we have here today, because we have
worked, with your help, to put our National Fish Hatchery
System on good footing. Again, the budget that we are
presenting this year, particularly with regard to maintenance,
will help us ensure that continues.
I do want to thank you. I want to thank you for the happy
birthday wishes. Yesterday morning I was at Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge in Florida celebrating the 113th
birthday of the National Wildlife Refuge System.
And again, thank you for the kind words that you have said
about our people. When you think about that $59 million, please
think about those people in the field, because that is what
allows us to be successful.
[The statement of Director Ashe follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
DELTA SMELT
Mr. Calvert. Thank you for your testimony. I have some
correspondence here from Senator Feinstein, calling for
increased pumping to capture water from these El Nino storms
that I would like to submit for the record, without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
DELTA SMELT
Mr. Calvert. As I said in my opening statement, I am deeply
concerned about the choices the Federal Government is making
with California's water. Instead of harvesting El Nino rains to
irrigate the Nation's produce and refill our reservoirs, the
government is sending El Nino water underneath the Golden Gate
Bridge and out to sea.
Any preconception California had had about El Nino rain
providing some relief for the drought has turned out to be
mostly false. And California is looking for an explanation.
The Central Valley project is capable of pumping 11,000
cubic feet of water per second. Last week, 50,000 cubic feet of
water per second moved through the Delta. But pumping was
restricted to 5,000 cubic feet because of the Delta smelt.
Today, 100,000 cubic feet of water per second is moving
through the Delta, but pumping is still restricted to 5,000
cubic feet because of the Delta smelt.
The agencies are considering further restrictions tomorrow,
as I understand it, because of salmon. In other words,
yesterday, 90 percent of the Delta water was off-limits. Today,
95 percent of the water is off-limits. Tomorrow, the percentage
goes higher, as much as 97 percent of the water.
No matter how much water is moving through the Delta, it
seems, the fish always need more, and the Federal Government,
hamstrung by the Endangered Species Act, gives it to them.
At what point, Director, does 100 percent of the Delta's
water become off-limits because of the Endangered Species Act?
Mr. Ashe. I do not know the answer to your question, Mr.
Chairman. I think what I would tell you, and I know you do
realize, is the Delta smelt is literally on the verge of
extinction. The same is true for endangered salmon that NOAA
Fisheries has principal responsibility for.
These fish are literally teetering on extinction. As you
and I have discussed before, our population estimate for the
Delta smelt is now a range estimated at 18,000 plus or minus
18,000, which means that we know there are some fish out there,
but the population is literally teetering on the brink of
extinction.
Mr. Calvert. What else are we doing besides restricting
pumping to try to recover smelt? And is it working?
Mr. Ashe. Well, it is not working. Nothing that we are
doing is working for the smelt.
The largest source of take and disturbance for the Delta
smelt is pumping of water to meet human needs. That has been
the principal focus of our efforts to date, because we have to
do that in order to ensure the project operates.
We have used a lot of flexibility over the last 2 years to
allow pumping to occur, but it is clear now that our use of
that flexibility has not worked to the advantage of the fish.
So we are just out of flexibility right now.
The law does not allow us to turn a blind eye to a species
that is about to go extinct. So we are in a situation, Mr.
Chairman, where we just have no flexibility. That is a
difficult place to be. I know it is challenging for you
personally, as it is for me.
Mr. Calvert. In 2008, your Service regional director said:
Just as releasing Delta smelt into a degraded Delta will fail
to restore them to self-sustaining levels, so will habitat
restoration efforts fail if there are not enough fish to
rebuild the population.
Unfortunately, that is a very real possibility, as you
point out, because the current data suggests Delta smelt
populations might already be so low that they cannot be
recovered without supplementation.
The Service broadcast that it was in the initial stages of
planning for a new hatchery facility to propagate Delta smelt.
Just last week, the Service said it is still in the planning
stage. What are we waiting for? Why is this taking so long?
Mr. Ashe. What I can do is get you a timeline for
completion of those plans. We do have at least one fish
hatchery that is capable of producing Delta smelt, and I
believe is producing Delta smelt. So we have capacities that
are available to serve as refuges for the population in the
event that that is necessary.
[The information follows:]
The Service, in partnership with the University of California at
Davis (UC Davis), and the California Department of Water Resources, has
developed the capacity to spawn and rear Delta smelt in captivity at
Livingston Stone National Fish Hatchery (LSNFH). Currently, there are
two refugial populations of Delta smelt: the primary population being
maintained by the University of California at Davis at the State's
pumping facility in Tracy, and a backup population maintained by the
Service at LSNFH in Shasta City. These populations are managed to
include the range of genetic diversity observed in the wild population.
Unlike Tule Chinook Salmon, the Delta smelt produced in captivity are
not released into the wild. Instead, they serve as a source of fish for
research. Captive bred Delta smelt could be used for future
reintroduction or supplementation, should either of those actions be
determined necessary to recover the species.
We have not, Mr. Chairman, considered supplementation as
part of a strategy, because the habitat is not there to support
them. Supplementation, putting fish into an environment where
they cannot survive, is not a recovery strategy.
But we do have refuge capacity, if we need to maintain fish
in a captive state. As you know, our available staff spend all
of their time trying to deal with the project and operation of
the project, and the California Water Fix. The Governor of
California expects us to support the California Water Fix and
the project operations, so that is what our staff are doing.
That is what they spend all of their time doing.
Mr. Calvert. One quick question, and then I am going to
turn it over to the ranking for questions, because we are going
to have another round on this.
One thing that has always bothered me is the nonnative
striped bass, which is a predator fish, which has pretty much
wiped out the native California bass and is primarily the main
predator for the Delta smelt, wiping them out as we speak.
Do striped bass prey on smelt? We all know that they do.
And if so, does the mandate to conserve striped bass conflict
with the mandate to recover Delta smelt?
Mr. Ashe. We do not have a mandate to conserve striped
bass, so we are not----
Mr. Calvert. But there are those in the area that are
preserving the striped bass population.
Mr. Ashe. Sure. Striped bass prey on all lifestages of
Delta smelt. They are voracious predators. Largemouth bass is
an introduced species also, a great predator of smelt and other
species.
But, again, our biologists do not see that as a limiting
factor in terms of Delta smelt population and recovery at the
population level. They do not see predation as a significant
limiting factor. The most significant factor is the operation
of the California State and Federal water projects.
Mr. Calvert. I will get back for another round. This is not
a partisan issue.
Mr. Ashe. Right.
Mr. Calvert. Senator Feinstein feels as strongly about this
as I do. This is destroying the Central Valley as we know it,
as I said in my opening statement.
I will turn it over to Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I would like to yield at this time
to Ms. Pingree from Maine.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you. Thank you to the ranking member.
And thank you very much, Director Ashe, for being here
today. It is nice to see you. You and I have spent a lot of
quality time together in your tenure here, and I do really
appreciate the work that you do, the work of the Fish and
Wildlife Service, and all of your employees. I know you have
had a lot of challenges in the past year, and I really
appreciate how you have handled them all.
ECHINODERMS: IMPORT AND EXPORT
I will say something briefly about sea urchins, since you
and I get to talk about that quite a bit. I have been very
concerned about the inspection requirements for urchins that
are processed in my State and exported to Asia. The committee
has heard me talk about this quite a bit.
As you know, they are highly perishable and the inspection
process is very difficult for the urchin dealers. We first
started talking about it I think in December 2014, and you have
spent a lot of time, and your department has spent a lot of
time, working with us on this. We have not completely worked
out the solution, but I am optimistic we are making progress,
and I am determined that we will solve this problem once and
for all, and I can go home safely to my district.
Mr. Ashe. That is a high priority.
Ms. Pingree. Yes, and say we worked out some of these
challenging issues.
Mr. Ashe. Thank you. I am glad to hear you say that. I
think we are close to a solution. I think we will get there.
Ms. Pingree. Yes, if it goes my way, I think we will be
great. [Laughter.]
Mr. Calvert. Do you want some smelt over there?
Ms. Pingree. Keep your fish out of our State.
AQUATIC ANIMAL DRUG APPROVAL PARTNERSHIP
I actually want to talk about a couple other fish things.
You know, we take fish very seriously in my State. We are proud
of our fishing industry. We are proud of our aquaculture and
sport-fishing industry. And all of these areas are of deep
concern to us.
But I want to talk about the aquatic drug approval
partnership. I have heard about this program from some of the
researchers who are working on it daily, trying to understand
the diseases that affect our fish and also establish some of
the safe and effective treatment programs to protect against
them.
As you are aware, the budget cuts to the AADAP in recent
years have threatened the future of both the program and new
drug approvals for United States aquaculture. In the 2016
omnibus appropriations bill, we were pleased to support the
language that requires not less than $400,000 for the Aquatic
Animal Dr. g Approval Partnership.
So one of my questions is, can you talk to me a little bit
about your thoughts on the importance of this program? And will
we have adequate funding to do it, since there is some
flexibility in there?
Mr. Ashe. Thank you. Actually, AADAP is a good example. The
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is, at this point in time skin,
bone and muscle. There is nothing left. So every time we talk
about reducing something, it is significant.
AADAP is one of those things that is very, very important
to not just the Fish and Wildlife Service in our hatchery
capacity, but to our State counterparts running hatcheries, and
to private aquaculture industry. They provide a very vital
service.
So you think a $400,000 effort, well, maybe we can get rid
of that, but it is like everything else. You pull on a thread
and everything starts to unravel.
I think we are actually in a good place with AADAP. We have
raised the fees for participation, and we got a little bit of
grumbling about that, but I think the community, at large,
realizes we are all in this together. So the $400,000 in base
funding the committee provides us with, in combination with the
increase in fees, has put the AADAP program on a good footing.
We have a good balance there, and we are going to be able
to maintain and expand the capacity in AADAP in the coming
years.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you for that. I hope that is true,
because there are an awful lot of drugs that need approval.
Mr. Ashe. I would say that, in the committee's broader
responsibilities, the Food and Dr. g Administration has been
helpful in providing some grant funding for AADAP as well. So
continuing that support through FDA is going to be an important
ingredient in success in the future.
FISH PASSAGE
Ms. Pingree. Great. I am going to ask you one other quick
thing, and I will keep that in mind about the FDA, since that
is my other committee that I am about to go to.
Just about fish passage programs, certainly that has been
an important part of some of the changes in Maine. Removing
something like the Veazie Dam has given us a chance to have
sturgeon, alewives, salmon, fish that we really want to see
coming up the river, not some of the challenging fish.
The budget has level funding, and it is really important
that there is some kind of expanded footprint for this program.
Are there any opportunities to do more with it using nonfederal
funds? Have you thought about how to do more with that?
Mr. Ashe. Sure. I believe we have an increase, $1.5 million
for the National Fish Passage Program.
We had a signature success with the Penobscot River in
Maine. I would say that is the key ingredient, where we
strategically used our funds in the State of Maine with the
Penobscot Tribe and the Nature Conservancy, and other people
coming to the table to open 1,500 river miles to fish that
previously could not get there.
So great, great opportunities exist for us to replicate
that success on a big scale, like the Penobscot, and on a small
drainage scale. The Service has developed engineering
capability. We have fish passage engineers that are coming out
of schools, like the University of Massachusetts Amherst.
It is a great opportunity to restore fisheries on a large
scale. And this program is the catalyst that often helps bring
people together to provide key stimulus.
The increase we have requested for this year is very
important for building upon that success.
Ms. Pingree. Great. I am glad to see there is an increase
in it. It is impressive how you brought so many parties to the
table for a unique goal that has really made a big difference
in our State. So thank you for that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Simpson.
MALHEUR NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Director Ashe, for being here today. It is
always good to see you. Let me add my thanks to the Fish and
Wildlife employees that have been under duress lately out in
Oregon and other places. They are good people just trying to do
the job that we have asked them to do. If we do not want them
to do that job, they should not be there. We should not hire
them.
Mr. Ashe. Public statements from officials like Governor
Butch Otter were very important. He made some public
statements, saying that we all have grievances, but this is not
the way to prosecute your grievances. Having statements like
that from very responsible public officials certainly helped.
Mr. Simpson. Yes. From those public officials and ranchers
in the area and others.
MONARCH BUTTERFLIES
I also want to thank everybody for mentioning the Monarch
butterfly in their opening statements. As I told you last year,
that is the state insect of Idaho, so it is almost as good as
talking about potatoes, but not quite. [Laughter.]
Mr. Simpson. Now, I do not know who it was who said there
are only two things that are certain in life, death and taxes.
There is a third one, and that is that no matter what decision
Fish and Wildlife Service makes, they are going to be sued by
someone.
Mr. Ashe. That is pretty true.
Mr. Simpson. Have you ever done a delisting that you have
not been sued on?
Mr. Ashe. I think we have, but your point is well-taken.
GRAY WOLVES
Mr. Simpson. Somebody is going to be on the opposite side
of this issue. In fact, that was one of the reasons, when
wolves were delisted in Idaho and Montana--people say that
Congress delisted the wolves. We did not delist the wolves.
They say it was done without any science. We did not delist.
All we did is tell Fish and Wildlife Service to reissue their
order of delisting and that it was not subject to judicial
review.
Mr. Ashe. Correct.
Mr. Simpson. Fish and Wildlife did the science and
everything else.
Mr. Ashe. We originally proposed the delisting based upon
our review of the science and our conclusion that wolves were
recovered. What Congress did in that case was direct us to
republish our rule, and waive the judicial review.
Mr. Simpson. Well, last year, you told the subcommittee
that the gray wolves in Western Great Lakes and Wyoming were
recovered, did not warrant listing, and the States in those
areas have responsible management plans.
Unfortunately, a provision similar to the one for Idaho and
Montana was not included in the final bill--it was in the House
appropriations bill, but was not included in the omnibus--that
would have exempted the listing decision from judicial review
in the Great Lakes and Wyoming.
As I understand it, Fish and Wildlife Service has been
sitting on a proposed rule to delist wolves range-wide. Is that
true? And if you were to propose that rule, and what is holding
it up from being proposed, would that not solve the problem,
other than you are going to get sued?
Mr. Ashe. The Fish and Wildlife Service proposed a rule to
delist wolves range-wide. I will just say it was roundly
criticized.
Mr. Simpson. Imagine that.
Mr. Ashe. We have gone back to the drawing board. I only
have so many people to put on so many things. So my view on
wolves is that we are in a pickup truck that is in the mud up
to the running boards. I cannot go forward. I cannot go
backward. I have no good option. And I have other more
important things to work on.
We are at a point with wolves where it is manageable. The
States are doing a good job. I realize that is not a good
answer for particularly a State like Wyoming, where we have
endangered wolves. Fortunately, for Wyoming, they are in the
10(j), the experimental segment of the population, so we have
some management flexibilities.
We now have wolves moving into the Western part of Oregon
and Washington where they are fully endangered, fully protected
wolves. That presents a challenge.
Mr. Simpson. Do those States have management plans?
Mr. Ashe. They do.
The wolf population is robust. We have about 1,700 wolves
in the Rocky Mountain portion of the range, which is about the
same number of wolves as we had when we delisted them. So the
States are doing a good job of managing that population.
The range of wolves is increasing. They have been moving
west into Oregon and Washington, and into Northern California.
So we have a bigger range for wolves than we had when we
delisted them.
We have more wolves, because now we have I think 130 or so
wolves in Washington and Oregon.
So the population continues to grow. The range continues to
grow. The States are responsibly managing them. We continue to
believe that wolves are recovered, both in the Rocky Mountains
and in the Great Lakes, and no longer warrant the protections
of the Endangered Species Act.
We are appealing judicial decisions in Wyoming and in the
Great Lakes. We expect to prevail. So right now, that is our
principal course, to press the legal case forward.
Mr. Simpson. It would be nice if we could use the resources
we are spending on all these lawsuits to actually go out and
protect the species that need protection under the Endangered
Species Act when the species are recovered, like wolves,
instead of having to fight that battle forever and ever and
ever.
I suspect you will probably see some language in an
appropriations bill coming out of somewhere. I do not know
where.
MINIDOKA REFUGE COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN
There are a couple other questions I am going to submit for
the record on the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the
Minidoka refuge. Our office would like an update on what is
going on there and what that looks like.
[The information follows:]
The Service is working on the request for information on the
Minidoka CCP and will provide the material to the Committee with our
responses to the Questions for the Record.
MITIGATION POLICY
Secondly, could you briefly tell me what the new mitigation
proposal policy is that was announced about a week or so ago?
Can you tell me about the proposed rule that you are
implementing, and what the implications of that are? You hear
from both sides that it is terrible.
Mr. Ashe. I would say the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is
the natural resource management agency that has the greatest
breadth of experience in dealing with mitigation. What we
announced a couple weeks ago was a modification to our
mitigation policy. Our mitigation policy was written in 1981,
when I was a graduate student at the University of Washington
in Seattle.
It is an update of that policy, which provides us a kind of
broader cast, so we can look at mitigation opportunities on a
landscape scale rather than a project scale. I think that
provides us with much more flexibility and discretion to work
with the project applicants and to leverage mitigation efforts
so that we are achieving success on a bigger scale.
I think it is very consistent with where we are with sage-
grouse and lesser prairie chicken and other species.
It will empower a new generation of work with industry that
I think will help us manage at the project scale. With species
like golden eagle or bald eagle, we can more easily permit
activities at a local scale, but do mitigation on a broader
scale, so that we are actually achieving better results for the
species.
It is an update of an existing policy. It is something that
we have had substantial experience with, and I think the policy
will take us to a better place.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Kilmer.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the
Ranking Member.
Thank you, Director Ashe, for being with us.
WASHINGTON STATE HATCHERY COMPLIANCE
As you know in Washington State, salmon and steelhead
hatcheries are critical to supporting our Federal trust
responsibility to the to treaty tribes in our State, including
11 in my district. The hatcheries are also important to our
commercial and recreational fisheries, which are really big
economic drivers in our State and, frankly, throughout the
entire West Coast.
Unfortunately, these hatcheries and the livelihoods that
they support are at risk. The issue here is HGMPs, Hatchery
Genetic Management Plans. The very significant backlog of these
HGMPs has exposed the hatchery operations and the Federal
Government to litigation under the Endangered Species Act.
In fact, the 60-day waiting period on the first of two
separate notices of intent to sue is about to end, so there is
a real and imminent threat that we are going to see hatcheries
actually close this year unless significant progress is made in
reducing this backlog.
I know that the Fish and Wildlife Service has an important
role to play in working through this backlog to ensure that the
331 Pacific salmon and steelhead hatchery programs on the West
Coast can continue to operate.
So I guess my question to you is, what does the service
need, in terms of funding and personnel, in order to work
through this backlog and bring our hatcheries into compliance
under ESA as quickly as possible, so we do not see the
hatcheries get shut down and risk the livelihoods of people who
depend on them?
Mr. Ashe. Our most important need is what I was talking
about before, field capacity. People in the field and
scientific capacity are needed so we can better understand
questions at the genetic scale.
The increases we have asked for recovery, for instance, for
cooperative conservation, for science applications, and
particularly for this issue, consultations, those are the
capacities that we are going to need.
I think we are making progress. We are getting the
biological opinions done. We have been working with NOAA
Fisheries on this task, and we expect to have biological
opinions in place for five watersheds this spring. In April,
they will be able to do stocking.
I think we are making progress and will continue to make
progress. But that field capacity is critical for us,
particularly I would say in this area, the recovery,
cooperative conservation, and science applications. Those are
the ingredients of success for this effort.
Mr. Kilmer. And based on what the service has asked for in
the budget, is it your expectation that we will see significant
progress made in dealing with the backlog and specifically on
the ones where we have a real threat of litigation?
Mr. Ashe. Yes. What I would like to do is come talk to you
personally about what we can envision going forward. What I am
told is that we will see five watersheds where we will see
stocking in April.
So that is success. We need to build upon that.
I will go back and get a forecast looking forward,
especially if we get the dollars we are asking for, on what we
can expect in terms of additional success.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Kilmer. I would appreciate that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ashe, it is always good to see you. I appreciate you
and your organization. I think you try in sometimes difficult
situations.
I am going to start with a supposition. I am not going to
ask you to agree or disagree, because I think that you do
agree. If not, feel free to tell me otherwise.
We believe that local people, including the States, want to
do the right thing when it comes to restoration and protection
of species.
Mr. Ashe. Yes, I agree.
Mr. Stewart. I think we would agree as well that, in many
cases, local populations or the States are capable of taking
actions that would protect endangered species.
Mr. Ashe. I agree.
UTAH PRAIRIE DOG
Mr. Stewart. Now, in light of that, we also recognize we
have Federal mandates that you have to comply with. That is
your job, to enforce the Federal law and Federal regulations.
And sometimes those two are in conflict.
We have an example in my State that we have talked about
many times since I have been in Congress, regarding the prairie
dog. We know there has been litigation regarding that. Whether
that actual finding for the State is upheld will be seen this
summer.
But assuming that it is not, that your lawsuit is
successful, can you ensure us and ensure the people of my
district that we will not go back to square one with the
administration with the prairie dog? That Utah has demonstrated
a capability of protecting the species, they have demonstrated
a desire to protect the species, and that we can have a
partnership there that does not take us back to square one and
some of the real draconian economic effects of the Federal
plan?
Mr. Ashe. I think we can. I want to say thank you for your
personal leadership and engagement on this. I think it has made
a difference. Like everything, I think we had people on both
sides who were maybe stuck in a bit of rut on this issue.
I think the lawsuit has, unfortunately, stalled progress.
We are appealing that decision. We expect to win.
What we are working on in the meantime is a general
conservation plan. I think with continued help from the State
of Utah, we will resolve this. I will see Greg Sheehan later
today at a meeting in Pittsburgh. We will be talking to Greg
about how we can best position ourselves so that we and the
State of Utah, and hopefully the counties in the range of the
prairie dog, can work together in a positive way.
We are committed to moving forward with the prairie dog and
to working with those local communities. We need a little bit
of help. Again, your engagement has been a very positive
influence on that. I hope my engagement has been on the Fish
and Wildlife Service side. I think we can continue to move into
a good direction.
Mr. Stewart. I hope so, and I appreciate that.
It has just devastating impacts on the small community for
something they have very little ability to control, because it
was so mandated by Federal policy.
MEXICAN WOLF
Shifting gears quickly, if I could, toward the introduction
of the Mexican wolf into Utah, or the Fish and Wildlife Service
proposing to place Mexican wolves in Utah.
Again, stating for the record and that is this species is
not native to Utah. In fact, you seemed to indicate that maybe
that is not true. I would be interested if that is not the
case, because my understanding is that 90 percent of the
habitat is not native to Mexico, with some encroachment in some
of the Southern States, but not into Utah.
This is at the same time that we just had a conversation
regarding the gray wolf. And it would seem to me problematic to
have the introduction of one protected species while we are
trying to delist another species. Again, our concern being that
the Mexican wolf is not native to my State.
I have two questions on this. The first one:
hypothetically, are there other potential species that are not
native to the U.S. that we would have a responsibility to
protect? Would there be a species in Australia or New Zealand
or some other place that they may not be doing a job of
protecting it, and we would accept that responsibility? That
seems like an incredibly difficult thing to ask, but it may be
the case here with the Mexican wolf. I would ask you to respond
to that, if you would please.
Mr. Ashe. Well, the Endangered Species Act does protect
foreign species, like elephant and rhino and tiger. We use the
U.S. influence in trade to ensure that our actions are not
undermining conservation in foreign countries.
The Mexican wolf is an example of a species that----
Mr. Stewart. That goes cross-border.
Mr. Ashe. That goes cross-border. So, historically, we
basically extirpated wolves. Now we are bringing them back.
In the U.S., wolves operate as what biologists call a meta-
population. One large population with different sub-species
that intermixed.
I think it is probably correct that what we now call the
Mexican wolf, their principal range was in Mexico and extended
into Arizona and New Mexico to some extent. They probably
ranged up into and intermixed with what we now call Rocky
Mountain wolves. Where that mixing zone was, we really do not
know.
As we craft a recovery plan, we need to understand the
science of wolves better.
We are not proposing to reintroduce wolves into Utah.
Mr. Stewart. The Mexican wolf.
Mr. Ashe. The Mexican wolf. Well, any wolf, really.
We will need to sit down with the States to develop a
recovery plan cooperatively.
I have asked the States not to come with preconditions. I
am not coming with any preconditions. You should not come with
any preconditions. We should look at the science of the wolf.
And right now what we have is an agreement to move toward a
population of up to 325 wolves, and their range would be south
of Interstate 40. We have an agreement that if wolves go north
of Interstate 40, that we will go and recover them.
So that is where we are today. We are asking Colorado and
Utah to sit down with us, along with New Mexico and Arizona, to
develop a long-term recovery plan.
Mr. Stewart. I appreciate that approach, as does I think my
State. We certainly want to do that with you. I appreciate
though that right now your plan is not a proposal for
introduction of the Mexican wolf into Utah. That is
appreciated. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. Sure. I do not think wolves in Utah would help
the prairie dog population. [Laughter.]
Mr. Calvert. With that, Ms. McCollum.
ASIAN CARP
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the courtesy of
allowing two of our members who had hearings at 10:30 to go
first with their questions.
If we can have a second round, I will just do one question
now, so your members can also ask theirs.
We have talked a lot about endangered species, protected
species, and now let us round it off with invasive species.
The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources has reported
over 60 captures of invasive Asian carp in Minnesota's portion
of the Mississippi River since 2008. Last year, the furthest
upstream catch was made on the St. Croix River near Stillwater.
As you know, we have a lot of confluence between our rivers in
Minnesota and our waterways.
Minnesota waterways support a fishing industry that
generates $2.4 billion a year and provides 35,000 Minnesota
jobs. So we are very concerned about the impacts of carp on
clean water, healthy ecosystems, outdoor recreation and
fisheries. All of that is essential in Minnesota.
In fact, our Governor recently held a water summit, which
was broadly attended in Minnesota, and part of what our DNR did
was a breakout session on invasive species and its effect on
Minnesota waters.
So, Director Ashe, I would like to get a little bit of an
update from you on how the Fish and Wildlife Service is
leveraging funds with USGS and other Federal, State, and local
governments. As you know, Mr. Joyce and I, along with many,
many other people who care about this issue thought U.S. Fish
and Wildlife, because of the way in which you collaborate and
leverage such good work, would be the appropriate lead agency
on this.
Two other things I would like you to follow up on. eDNA was
very, very controversial in its early stages. eDNA would have
indicated carp was already in the upper areas of the
Mississippi River, because of fish droppings and other such
things. I know you were working with the scientists on
developing better markers with eDNA. If you have any update on
that now or if you could get it to our office later, that would
be great.
Then could you update us as to your research collaborations
and what is going on with electronic sensors, biological
controls, acoustic deterrents, as well as planting trackers on
some of the carp so that you can better understand their
habitat? I am intrigued by this whole idea of using the markers
to track, so we learn more about the fish.
I think it is something USGS and Fish and Wildlife are
working on in the Everglades with the pythons, too.
If you can stay a little more focused on Asian carp, the
chair and I will go look at pythons later ourselves.
Mr. Ashe. I think the collaboration on Asian carp has
really been one of the unheralded successes of the past decade
between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, EPA, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the States
involved. There has been enormous cooperation to mobilize
efforts to restrict the range of these prolific fish.
It is a formidable challenge.
I recently asked our deputy regional director, Charlie
Wooley, who is our expert, if he really thought that we were
going to be able to keep Asian carp out of the Great Lakes.
That is, ultimately, the principal objective. He confidently
says yes.
So eDNA is a critical tool for us. It is helping not just
detect carp but learn things about fish and how they move.
Expanding our ability to use eDNA markers on black carp is one
of the next important steps, so that we cover the suite of all
the Asian carp species, and we can use that eDNA to its
greatest potential.
The subcommittee has been very helpful in providing us with
funding to support this effort. I think the collaboration is
important and generates the ability for us, especially in the
science applications arena, to provide key support to our State
partners. Over the last several years, we provided over
$800,000 in support for our State partners to do scientific and
mobilization work. That capacity is important.
The new tools that you talk about, like this kind of mixed
noise technology, acoustic barriers, electronic barriers, and
sensor technology, is similar to pit tags in hatchery fish. We
can use pit tags to detect the fish as they pass by a detection
sensor.
We think applying these new techniques could be helpful to
Asian carp prevention as well.
Again, the funding to do that, the science to support it,
so that we are doing the analysis as we go, is very important.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Amodei?
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hey, Mr. Director. How are you doing?
Mr. Ashe. Good to see you, Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Amodei. You, too.
To the extent the chairman is going to manage my time, I am
going to endeavor to manage yours, although I would appreciate
the opportunity to get together afterward so we can have some
in-depth discussions.
SAGE STEPPE/SAGE GROUSE
Most of my questions concentrate on, as we went through
this sagebrush process in Nevada and the Governor established
the sagebrush steppe ecosystem council, and they produced a
plan and report, which essentially in the final EIS adopted by
BLM was rejected--those are my words nobody else's.
One of the things that was included in that final EIS was
obviously the Sagebrush Focal Areas, which was not in the
Nevada plan. Just so it is clear for people, why the heck is he
asking these questions, I want to have an understanding of the
basis of the establishment of those focal areas in Nevada. No
offense to the other States they are in, but quite frankly,
that is not in my wheelhouse, so I do not want to speak for
them, or anything else.
Your office answered some questions for me earlier that was
pretty strong on the policy, but I am concerned with the
process, the mechanics. There were some statements made that,
basically, we asked Forest Service, where did you get the
boundaries that you included? And they said from Fish and
Wildlife.
We asked Director Kornze in his hearing in here earlier,
where did you get the boundaries? From Fish and Wildlife. Okay.
And I am looking at your stuff, and I am seeing this stuff
where there are references to literature and there are
references to other things. I am sitting here going, okay, I
guess maybe what literature and stuff like that?
But before we get to that, I want to ask you, what is your
opinion of the Nevada Department of Wildlife? Do they do good
work? Are they credible? Are they not credible? Do you guys
think they are an authority on Sage hen in Nevada?
Mr. Ashe. The Nevada Department of Wildlife is an
outstanding wildlife conservation organization, and they are
led by an outstanding individual, Tony Wasley.
Mr. Amodei. I agree.
And I guess when I look at some of these answers, and I see
in the COT report, which your folks refer to: Conservation
objectives must be developed and implemented at the State and
local level with involvement of all stakeholders.
And I also have talked to NDOW and nobody talked to NDOW
about that Sagebrush Focal Areas map.
Then I talked to NDOW, and NDOW tells me that they have
produced a best of the best sage hen habitat in Nevada, and
that it does not bear much resemblance to the area that is in
Nevada.
And so I am sitting here going, we are going to talk to
local folks. NDOW does a good job. I agree with you. And this
is not for purposes of saying, so what the heck?
Remember, the purpose here is how did we get those
boundaries in that area of Nevada.
So when I look in your report, and I see: It is important
to note that BLM and Forest Service, not Fish and Wildlife,
designated the SFAs and codified them in the final conservation
plans. We defer to BLM and Forest Service regarding the
technical products and processes.
I have to tell you, I have the impression recently from
contact from both those agencies that they got those boundaries
from Fish and Wildlife. So I am not going to open Judge Judy or
anything like that, but it is like, well, you made some
recommendations. I assume they had lines on a map. Where did
the lines come from?
Mr. Ashe. So the answer, of course, is all of the above.
Mr. Amodei. Well, let me stop you, because Fish and
Wildlife said that they were not consulted. So maybe we need to
get them in the same room.
Mr. Ashe. You mean NDOW.
Mr. Amodei. This is just Nevada.
Mr. Ashe. I will see Tony later today and tomorrow, and I
will be happy to talk to Tony about that.
The original stronghold maps, what we called strongholds,
came from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Mr. Amodei. So let me focus you, because my clock is
ticking. How did Fish and Wildlife Service draw those lines?
Mr. Ashe. We had delineated priority habitat, what in the
COT report was delineated as priority areas for conservation of
the sage-grouse. We took a subset of that. We looked for large,
contiguous, connected expanses of habitat. We looked at where
there was principal Federal ownership. We looked at breeding.
We looked at bird density and breeding densities to come up
with what we called the best of the best. This is the very best
of the best habitat.
Mr. Amodei. In your opinion, that was the best in Nevada.
Mr. Ashe. Correct.
Mr. Amodei. Okay. If NDOW has a different opinion on where
the best of the best is, they have a different opinion.
Mr. Ashe. Professionals often do disagree. I do not think,
though, that we disagree with NDOW about the substance of the
maps. We might disagree on the peripheries, but I do not
believe that we are in substantial disagreement with NDOW about
whether what we mapped as the strongholds represents the best
of the best habitat. I do not believe that.
Mr. Amodei. Do you think BLM accepted what you mapped, or
do you think that they modified it?
Mr. Ashe. They definitely modified it.
Mr. Amodei. What is the basis for that belief?
Mr. Ashe. Between the time that we published the stronghold
maps and when BLM took them into consideration in the
completion of their plans, people were asking questions. People
were asking questions about areas that were on the peripheries
of the maps, whether they needed to be included. People were
asking questions about whether some areas that were included
were actually high-priority habitat. People were looking at the
maps and asking if they could make adjustments.
Mr. Amodei. Define people for me. What people? Was NDOW
somebody who asked to modify them?
Mr. Ashe. NDOW, yes.
Mr. Amodei. So the answer to my question is, NDOW asked you
to modify the boundaries of the SFAs.
Mr. Ashe. They asked BLM to modify them.
Mr. Amodei. So they asked BLM. Do you know if BLM modified
them?
Mr. Ashe. They did.
Mr. Amodei. Did they ask you before they modified them?
Mr. Ashe. They did.
Mr. Amodei. And is it true that BLM's statement that we
were told that if we did not have these, it would be listed, is
that input that you gave to the bureau in terms of focal area
establishment?
Mr. Ashe. I would say that is a simplification, but it is
basically right. The strongholds were a key facet in our
decision to get to a ``not warranted'' determination. That is
because we could look at the habitat, and we could look into
the foreseeable future, and we could see that these
strongholds, the sage-grouse focal areas, would be protected
and sage-grouse would persist in a large, connected, contiguous
piece of the Western landscape.
Mr. Amodei. Final one for this round, Mr. Chairman, if I
may.
Did you do an analysis for Nevada and said, okay, this is
our sagebrush focal area. It is 3-ish million acres, an
analysis between what was considered priority habitat, what was
considered non-habitat, or was it just basically we want this
area and we are not sure if we have included stuff that had not
hereto been habitat in there? Was there an analysis done by
Fish and Wildlife before putting out this additional
conservation method?
Mr. Ashe. I can just say when you think about strongholds,
or sage-grouse focal areas, you should first see a map in your
mind's eye that is priority habitat. Our opening salvo in the
discussion with BLM was priority habitat needs to be protected.
We need to know there is going to be no disturbance of priority
habitat.
BLM came back and said that was too big of a bite, can you
shrink that down? So we said we would take a look at that.
To build sage-grouse focal areas, we started with priority
habitat and then we picked from that the highest quality
habitat and put the strongest protections on this habitat,
because we have to maintain it. So strongholds, sage-grouse
focal areas, are a subset of what we originally identified as
priority habitat.
Mr. Amodei. So the answer to my question is, there does not
exist an acreage breakout that adds up to 3 million in Nevada
saying this is priority, this is the next step, this is the
next step, and this is stuff that is not habitat at all.
Mr. Ashe. There was a map. We had maps that depicted
priority habitat, general habitat, and non-habitat.
Mr. Amodei. No, no, a listing that says, here you go, out
of the 3 million acres, here is what it is comprised of, as far
as habitat designation----
Mr. Ashe. The 3 million----
Mr. Amodei. Let me finish, please. Or being designated as
non-habitat. Is there a listing like that in U.S. Fish and
Wildlife records for the Nevada stronghold areas?
Mr. Ashe. I do not know. I can find out the answer to that
question. We could break out the sage-grouse focal areas into
priority habitat, general habitat, and non-habitat.
It would almost entirely be priority habitat. But at a
small scale there is some general habitat, and there is some
non-habitat, because we built contiguous blocks around the best
of the best.
So that means there are some little pieces within that
contiguous block that would be general habitat, and some that
might provide no habitat. But what we needed from the
strongholds was a contiguous block. So the vast majority of
that is going to be priority habitat.
Mr. Calvert. You can drill down on that in the second
round.
Mr. Jenkins, you are recognized.
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director, thank you for being here, and thank you for your
testimony.
I do, like other members of the committee, recognize the
Fish and Wildlife Service's good work in many areas. You
certainly have a large footprint in wild and wonderful West
Virginia. You have a field office in Elkins. We have wilderness
areas, Canaan Valley and Ohio River. So you have a real
footprint in our State.
We obviously had a water contamination issue you all
stepped up and helped with. Thank you very much for that.
I hear consistently about positive working relationships
with your office.
STREAM PROTECTION RULE
One of the things I would like to focus my brief amount of
time on is asking about what role Fish and Wildlife and your
agency has had working with the Office of Surface Mining
relating to their stream protection rule.
Did you help draft that rule? In particular, what was the
role Fish and Wildlife had in the drafting of the Stream
Protection Rule, as being considered and put forth by OSM?
Mr. Ashe. We have had years' worth of kind of discussions
with OSM about stream buffer protection, so yes, is the general
answer to your question, we have been involved with OSM. I
would need to get back to you in terms of the specific role
that we have played. I can do that for the record, or I can see
if there is someone here who can answer it more fully for you
now.
Mr. Jenkins. So you describe some discussions but not sure
exactly to what extent the specifics are.
While you have had discussions, OSM has put forth a draft
Stream Protection Rule. Do you know what role you play in that
rule that is out there being advanced by OSM?
Mr. Ashe. Gary Frazer is our Assistant Director for
Ecological Services. He can give you a good answer to that
right now.
Mr. Calvert. Gary, would you please submit your name for
the record?
Mr. Frazer. Mr. Chairman, my name is Gary Frazer. I am the
Assistant Director for Ecological Services with the Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Jenkins. So back to my question. Has the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service been engaged in the OSM drafting? And is there
a role for the Fish and Wildlife Service under the Stream
Protection Rule being advanced by OSM?
Mr. Frazer. Our primary role to date has been working with
OSM, and through OSM with the States, to help them deal with
compliance with the Endangered Species Act associated with
surface mining activities. It has been through that process,
our consultation process under the Endangered Species Act, that
OSM has been informed about how best to build into their rule
these sorts of environmental protections and the coordination
mechanisms so that individual projects can be in compliance
with the Endangered Species Act and otherwise address
conservation of fish and wildlife and aquatic resources.
Mr. Jenkins. Let me ask you specifically, as I have
reviewed the rule, the rule as put forth by OSM gives the Fish
and Wildlife Service essentially veto authority over a permit
issued.
As I go back and review SMCRA, it grants the authority for
OSM but puts the States in the primary position of issuing
permits.
My question is, under what legal authority does the Fish
and Wildlife Service have, under an OSM-proposed rule, the
right to have veto authority over any permit?
Mr. Frazer. I have not read their rule. I am not aware,
though, that they have given us any veto authority. We do,
certainly, play a role in assisting OSM and through OSM any
State that administers surface mining programs, a role in
helping them ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act.
There are cases in which a project might not be in
compliance, and the Service would be advising OSM and the State
in those sorts of circumstances.
But I am not aware of us being in a position of actually
having decisionmaking authority.
Mr. Jenkins. Okay. It is my reading and interpretation that
I think OSM is advancing a rule that gives you the ability to
veto a permit issued by a State when the Service, you, have any
issue whatsoever with permits, the fish and wildlife protection
enhancement plan.
Let us see what they put out. I have read it. I would
encourage you to review it. And let us see if we can come to a
mutual understanding as to whether or not OSM may be, granting
to the Service authority that SMCRA does not grant.
Mr. Frazer. We will, certainly, do that. We would be happy
to talk to you in more detail.
FISH AND WILDLIFE FOUNDATION
Mr. Jenkins. The last question I have is, through the
Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program, West Virginia
worked closely with the Service to coordinate the largest
Wildlife Management Area expansion in our State's history.
Under the Acres for America program, through the National Fish
and Wildlife Foundation, there seems to be a developing success
story.
Can you share with us how Fish and Wildlife Service is
working with partners at the foundation to advance the
restoration project that I am referring to in West Virginia?
This is related to the elk restoration project.
Mr. Ashe. Right. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, with
direction from the committee, provides $7 million a year,
roughly, to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, which
fuels their larger grantmaking program. We do not put
conditions on that money.
The Fish and Wildlife Foundation has a multiyear history
working with Walmart in the Acres for America program. They
have recently gotten Walmart to expand that program, to about
$20 million over 5 years.
The foundation is a catalyst, where we provide funding, the
foundation brings in private capital to match that funding, and
then drives natural resource restoration projects. It has been
working very well nationwide, but specifically in West
Virginia, it is a great example of success. Our partnership
with the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation delivers a lot
of conservation.
For instance, on Monarch butterflies, the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation has provided a multiplier effect. We put
$1.2 million into the Fish and Wildlife Foundation in
discretionary dollars. They got Monsanto Corporation to match
that. And then just 2 weeks ago, they got a $6.3 million grant
from the Natural Resources Conservation Service.
They tend to be a force multiplier that brings additional
resources to the table.
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Director.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Israel.
Mr. Israel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ashe, it is good to see you again.
Ms. Nolin, thank you for being here.
WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING
I want to shift to the issue of wildlife trafficking. You
and I have had many conversations and have done some events on
this issue. I am pleased that we are making some significant
strides on the issue, and these strides have been supported on
a bipartisan basis in this subcommittee, by the full committee,
and I think by the vast majority of my colleagues in Congress
on both sides of the aisle.
This year, your budget requests small increases or level
funding for various areas of wildlife trafficking investigation
and enforcement. I would like to ask you two questions. One,
are the levels that you requested able to continue to
demonstrate significant progress? And number two, we passed a
sportsman bill on the floor of the House, an authorization,
several weeks ago. Congresswoman Grace Meng, my colleague from
New York, inserted language that would increase the number of
Office of Law Enforcement personnel abroad. I want to know
whether your requested budget levels will be able to fund the
authorization in Ms. Meng's language?
Mr. Ashe. In the last 2 years, we have had significant
budget increases, principally for law enforcement. The
subcommittee has been very committed to providing support for
that effort. We now have four law enforcement agents stationed
in U.S. embassies in Tanzania; in Botswana; in Lima, Peru; and
in Bangkok, Thailand. Soon we will have our fifth law
enforcement agent in the Beijing Embassy.
With the increase the subcommittee provided for this
current fiscal year, we anticipate four additional law
enforcement liaisons, hopefully in Jakarta, Indonesia, and
perhaps Mexico City.
So I think we will be able to continue that. The small
increase we have for this year will increase our capacity and
allow us to gauge the impact that these liaisons are having. I
think it is an important strategic pause at this point, because
it is expensive for us to put agents in U.S. embassies. This
year will give us an opportunity to continue to build it out,
so that we will have a field of nine international attaches,
and then do some assessment.
We are already seeing a great payoff from this. Having eyes
and ears on the ground, people that are able to build trust-
based relationships with counterparts internationally, has
already shown great benefits. I expect that we will be able to
show the subcommittee substantial improvement, and then
hopefully in subsequent years, see additional increases that
will take advantage of Ms. Meng's provision.
Mr. Calvert. Will the gentleman yield just for a second?
I have been curious about the subject, because some of us
serve on defense appropriations. As you know, a number of
terrorist operations are involved in some of this activity to
sell that to fund their various enterprises. Is there a force
multiplier effect with some of our intelligence agencies that
are attempting to keep track of some of these organizations
that are, in fact----
Mr. Ashe. Your support and your advocacy both here and on
the foreign operations committees, and the President's strategy
to combat wildlife trafficking, has had immense effect. In
fact, we now have a wildlife trafficking team in the Office of
the Director of National Intelligence. We have the Department
of Defense, AFRICOM, providing training support for range
states in Africa. We have USAID engagement to help build
community-based efforts within the range states.
So, yes, Mr. Chairman, the access to intelligence is a big
force multiplier. That effort is just now beginning.
Again, I would say that we have seen really great
cooperation and it is going to pay dividends. The same people
that are trafficking in wildlife are trafficking in drugs and
arms and, in some cases, human trafficking.
Sometimes, as we have seen in other venues, when we find
wildlife traffickers, it is an avenue into a prosecution of
people for much more heinous crimes.
Mr. Calvert. As the gentleman knows, we have a few special
operators down there that can be helpful.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, there is also the issue of
having who we need to have at our Customs and airport entries
here. I am very concerned that we have not put enough resources
or efforts into that with Homeland Security.
There are different kinds of trafficking, because there is
also the illegal trafficking, bringing in invasive species.
Mr. Ashe, if you could, maybe point out how underresourced
and how overworked some of U.S. Customs and Border folks are
right here in the United States.
Mr. Ashe. Yes, it is a key deficiency that I hope we will
be able to address on our side of the equation by increased
fees to support our wildlife inspectors at key ports and entry
points in the U.S. That will help us both with the legal trade
and the illegal trade.
We have a key partnership emerging with Customs and Border
Protection, they are providing us with a pilot to get access to
the International Trade Data System. That is going to be of
immense importance to us, so that our people have the ability
to see manifests. So we will not be doing a shotgun approach
anymore looking for stuff coming across the border. We will be
able to focus our law enforcement efforts, because we will know
who is shipping what where and when.
So that is a key partnership. Customs and Border Protection
and Department of Homeland Security have been very, very
supportive and enthusiastic about the effort.
Mr. Israel. Mr. Chairman, if I can just do a brief follow-
up on this?
You mentioned countries where we do have law enforcement
personnel where we will plus-up law enforcement personnel. Can
you tell us what countries worry you? What countries pose
challenges where we just do not have personnel?
Mr. Ashe. I think the ones where we are putting people are
the ones where we see the greatest liability and potential.
Mr. Israel. There must be some gaps somewhere in the world.
Mr. Ashe. Vietnam is I think a big gap. All the demand
countries, really, and the transit countries. Mozambique is a
huge liability. The Port of Mombasa is a huge liability. States
where there are destabilized governments present great
challenges for us.
But it is also a challenge to put somebody in that
environment. We have to learn how to better support our agents.
I do not want to grow too quickly that we create liability for
ourselves.
So I think we are in a good place right now. You provided
great support. Let us stretch our legs a little bit and take
advantage of some of the force multipliers in intelligence and
other arenas. Again, I would expect for the Fish and Wildlife
Service to be proposing additional increases in the future.
Mr. Israel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
DELTA SMELT
Well, back to my favorite subject, California. You made a
comment, you said that the threat to the smelt population is
primarily pumping. So we went back, we looked over the last few
months.
Can you explain, considering we salvaged a total of 12
smelt this year--12--and we have let, as you know, a
significant amount of that water go under the Golden Gate
Bridge. Do you still believe that is the primary threat to the
smelt?
Mr. Ashe. It is always a challenge to talk about this. When
we say salvage, the salvage is an indicator. What the project
does is pull water out of the Delta. We sample for fish. When
we catch fish in our sampling, it means that entrainment is
happening, meaning fish are being pulled into the project.
The 12 fish that are salvaged are representative of
thousands of fish and larvae of fish that are being pulled into
the project.
Mr. Calvert. Remember, Director, today, as we sit here,
100,000 cubic feet per second--people probably have a hard time
getting their mind around how much 100,000 cubic feet per
second is.
Mr. Ashe. It is a lot. It is a river.
Mr. Calvert. And we are pumping 5,000 cubic feet per
second. So this is less than 5 percent of the flow. I just want
to make that point.
The Fish and Wildlife Service designated critical habitat
for the Delta smelt, if you remember, back in 1994.
California's current drought started in 2011.
The Endangered Species Act directs the Secretary to make
revisions to critical habitat after taking into consideration
the economic impact, the impact on national security, and any
other relevant impact of specifying any particular area as
critical habitat.
So the question is, has the Service gone through the
process of evaluating whether to make revisions to the Delta
smelt critical habitat based upon economic or other impacts
since 1994?
Mr. Ashe. Not that I know of, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Is it possible, if the service undergoes such
an evaluation, that the service would make a determination
different than the 1994 determination?
Mr. Ashe. It is possible.
Mr. Calvert. At what point does the situation in the Delta
become a fair question, a fair question to put before the
Endangered Species Committee?
Mr. Ashe. If I could, on the critical habitat question, our
activities and our biological opinions on Delta smelt are not
being driven by adverse modification of critical habitat. I
would set critical habitat aside, because I would tell you
fairly, if we were going to spend more time and effort on
critical habitat, it would not be helpful. It would divert our
effort away from the main issue, which is take of the species.
So I would set critical habitat aside.
With regard to the Endangered Species Committee, which is
colloquially called the God Squad, under the Endangered Species
Act, there are three bodies who can convene the God Squad, the
action agency, in this case that is the Bureau of Reclamation;
a State Governor, the Governor of California; or a private
applicant, in this case, there is not a private applicant for a
permit.
The Endangered Species Committee would appropriately be
convened either by the Bureau of Reclamation or the Governor of
the State of California.
Mr. Calvert. Do you think it is a fair question to be put
before that committee?
Mr. Ashe. The law envisions it. It is a facet of the law. I
would say, Mr. Chairman, as we have discussed, it would be
appropriate to consider it, except from a process standpoint,
the Endangered Species Committee is supposed to be convened
when you have a biological opinion without reasonable and
prudent alternatives, and we do not have that right now. We do
not have a situation where that exists.
But your point is well-taken. We are at a position where we
have a species that is on the verge of extinction. We are
racking our brains on a daily basis to try to figure out how to
make the project work and not have the species blink out. We
are at a very tenuous place.
Mr. Calvert. As you know, I have been here for this whole
process.
Mr. Ashe. You have. I know. And you have been thoughtful.
Mr. Calvert. And I have worked with this. We have
appropriated hundreds of millions of dollars to fix this. It
obviously has not worked.
Mr. Ashe. I have not had personal experience with the
Endangered Species Committee, but we are at a place where
something has to be different. I mean, we, the Fish and
Wildlife Service, we are not helping the Delta smelt. The
project today is not helping the Delta smelt. It is not
satisfying, certainly, the farmers or the water users in
California.
So we find ourselves between that proverbial rock and a
hard spot.
But the law does not allow me, as I said before, to turn a
blind eye and allow a species go extinct.
Mr. Calvert. No, but there are avenues, because of economic
impacts. As you know, those impacts are well-known.
Mr. Ashe. The law allows the Endangered Species Committee
to do that. It does not allow me to do that.
Mr. Calvert. That is why I was asking the question whether
or not that is a reasonable consideration.
Mr. Ashe. It is a reasonable consideration.
Mr. Calvert. After 24-years-plus of working on this, and
trying to come up with a solution to this problem, when we are
going to release potentially today, if NOAA comes in and asks
for a recommendation for the department of reclamation, when
you have 100,000 cubic feet per second moving out, we are only
pumping 5,000, per the past biological opinion, and they ask
for us to pump less, in other words, we could actually be
letting go 97 percent of the water. And that is not sufficient.
At what point is it sufficient? If 100 percent of the water
is going to be let loose, then this is a total failure, in my
estimation, because, the State of California has spent billions
of dollars--Pat Brown, Jerry Brown's father--building this
project, which basically becomes basically unusable.
That is why Senator Feinstein is frustrated. I am
frustrated. Many people are frustrated.
Mr. Ashe. I am frustrated.
Mr. Calvert. We have to get serious about this.
Mr. Ashe. Thank you for being thoughtful about it, Mr.
Chairman. I appreciate your good questions.
I do think the Endangered Species Committee is in the law
for a reason. It is a reasonable question for you to ask: have
we arrived at a place where we should convene the Endangered
Species Committee? It is the only forum that the law provides
to balance the benefits to a species against economic and other
forces.
In designating critical habitat, we can make balancing
decisions. But when the existence of a species hangs in the
balance, the Endangered Species Committee is what the law
envisions.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think I am going to give you something else to be a
little frustrated by.
DEEPWATER HORIZON OIL SPILL SETTLEMENT
As part of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill settlement, BP
agreed to pay $100 million to the North American Wetlands
Conservation Fund for grants focused on wetland restoration and
conservation. I think that is a good thing.
Mr. Ashe. It is.
Ms. McCollum. However, the settlement did not include any
administrative set-aside for the work that you do at Fish and
Wildlife. So that means additional funding out of our
committee, out of the general U.S. taxpayer fund, is required
for you to be able to conduct your duties.
From my conversations with you, that includes everything
from some basic planning to getting a scientist in place
because the travel comes out of administrative funds.
Director Ashe, rightly so, you want to make this work, you
want to make the restoration work, but there has been no set-
aside in the settlement, so you are, in my opinion, forced to
include $4 million for the Gulf restoration program out of your
budget. You are forgoing other choices that you might want to
make in helping my friends from the Western States with some of
their challenges, or working on invasive species, or many of
the other projects that you might have on a backlog list.
Could you please, for the committee, be clear on why this
funding is needed; what it will allow the service to do to
expedite, efficiently and properly, the $100 million that has
been set aside for cleanup; and tell us what we forgo in U.S.
Fish and Wildlife priorities that this committee is trying to
set? Some of it is our own doing with some of our colleagues
thinking that they were being tough on administrative costs, so
we were shortsighted with some of our colleagues passing
legislation.
The other issue is an interpretation, perhaps. Maybe we
should go back and talk to the Justice Department as to
conversations that were had to make sure that judicial and
legislative intent is clear on what monies should be used for
this restoration.
Mr. Ashe. The $100 million for Gulf restoration, was
directed to the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund by
the court in the criminal settlement, and the $2.5 billion was
directed to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. Billions
of dollars will be directed through the RESTORE Act process and
through the natural resource damage settlement.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service plays a key role. I will
pick just one aspect of that.
I just attended a National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
board meeting this week in San Francisco, and we are funding
grants from that $2.5 billion. A big part of those dollars are
going to Louisiana for big public works projects, and the
Mississippi River diversion. This includes a physical
infrastructure project. We are funding huge gates in the levees
that when water rises will divert it out of the main channel to
take sediment into the marshes and restore those marshes that
have been eroding.
That is a huge public works project. We have to work on the
planning and design of those projects. We have to work on
environmental compliance, for endangered species or Clean Water
Act Section 404, and other compliance for that project.
If we do not, the project will not happen. So we have a
responsibility, and we have to fulfill it. The money that went
to NFWF came with the direction to NFWF that they cannot use it
to support overhead or administration, it can only go to on-
the-ground projects.
And our colleagues in the State of Louisiana and Alabama
and Mississippi and Florida are in the same position. We have
to fund our role in that process.
The same is true for RESTORE. When Congress passed the
RESTORE Act, they said that the money cannot be used for
administration. So we have to pay for our participation.
Billions and billions of dollars are going to be hanging in the
balance. We have an obligation to support the restoration.
That is why we have asked the committee for $3 million more
to support our Gulf of Mexico function. I think it is
appropriate. It is necessary, and we do not have another
avenue--the avenue for us to get our overhead expenses has been
foreclosed.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I think sometimes when people are
talking about administrative costs, it is a very abstract
thing. Some of our colleagues to go down on the floor and say,
we are just going to cut administrative costs. Sometimes there
are things that we will see in a budget administratively and we
think you can do that later, or you can postpone that.
But this is a very different type of administrative cost.
So, Mr. Chair, if Fish and Wildlife could tell us with more in-
depth clarity some of the things that are going to be done
under this administrative cost, which just allows a project to
go forward, it is something we need to talk to our colleagues
on the floor about amending in the RESTORE Act to see if we can
provide some relief on that.
I am going to be trying to explore with the Justice
Department just exactly what the conversations were, and their
definition of administrative costs. Mr. Chair, if we do not get
this solved, one, Fish and Wildlife goes shortchanged on other
projects that the American public would like to see move
forward; and two, I do not think it was ever the expectation
for U.S. taxpayer dollars to basically now be paying for
cleanup of the Gulf BP spill.
Mr. Chair, this is something that our staff should work
with Fish and Wildlife to explore a little more and see if we
can talk to our colleagues and reach a common-ground, common-
sense solution on this.
Mr. Ashe. Thank you for your help. I would point out to you
that these are not fictitious--these are costs that we are
incurring now. I actually have an office in the Gulf of Mexico.
I have had to do that, because I have to support these
projects.
We built it into our budget, which is responsible, I think,
on our part. So we have done what we always do. We take it from
elsewhere. It is not a reprogramming, because the money keeps
its color. It is refuge money or ecological services money
depending on how it is spent. It would be irresponsible for the
Fish and Wildlife Service not to fulfill its----
Mr. Calvert. I understand the intent. It is just that
sometimes you have to have rational administrative costs. I
think we will take a strong look at that and see what we can
do.
Mr. Ashe. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Amodei.
SAGE GROUSE
Mr. Amodei. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
First, I have to say I am shocked that your favorite topic
was not sage hens. I was under the impression it was, but I
will get over that. Thank you.
Hey, Dan, I think in an effort to kind of keep this brief,
I appreciate your offer to meet, and I would like to do that,
and I would like to shorten some of this up to just some
information maybe we can get before we have our meeting. You
referred to a BLM request for additional conservation measures.
We would like a copy of that, if it was a memo or whatever, if
it was verbal. I am not suggesting there should or should not
be these documents. I am just saying, if you got one, give it
to us. If you do not, then say, hey, it was not formally
written.
You have referred to conservation community and NGOs as
providing information in support of the decision to do the
focal areas. I would just like a list of who that was and the
NGOs, if you have it. If you say, I cannot generate that, then
that is fine. But if it exists, great.
You have referred a lot of times to scientific literature
in terms of the support for that. Citations to what that
literature was would be good. We do not want to make you make
the copies or anything else like that, I know you have other
stuff to do, but what you relied upon.
Also, you referenced NDOW and that this has been a 10-year
process on that. Any record of communications you have with
NDOW on the focal areas before your October 14 memo, I would
appreciate seeing what that is, because part of the claim is,
hey, this is not a secret. We have been out there collaborating
with people on it for a long time. Although I will tell you, I
find it interesting that BLM's draft EIS did not include this.
Mr. Ashe. As I said, the BLM's original EIS looked only at
priority habitat. So the focal areas were a subset of priority
habitat.
Mr. Amodei. Okay, so then the NDOW discussions were after
the October thing. Okay, that is fair enough. You just need to
let whoever wrote the answer to request from our office, let us
know. They need to tune that part of it up because it
represents something different.
At least I did not ask if you reviewed it and it is your
work, so I am easygoing in that respect.
And then also, I would like to know if you guys contracted
out any of the stuff with regard to focal areas in terms of the
policy, because you are very good on the policy, and also the
mapping. If there were any contracts to produce mapping or to
produce the policy or mapping, then we just kind of would like
to know what those were.
And then, I guess that goes to the question of was this
generated in-house or was it contracted for in house. I am
still trying to get that.
[The information follows:]
The Service is working with the Congressman regarding his
concerns with how the strongholds were developed and is setting
up a meeting with his office. The Service will provide the
requested written material to the Committee with our responses
to the Questions for the Record.
STILLWATER REFUGE
And then, just real quick, I want to follow up on that
thing that I handed you on the refuge, because it is a small
thing.
Mr. Ashe. Stillwater?
Mr. Amodei. Yes, here is my concern, because I did not get
a chance to talk to you. My concern is that this is a key area.
Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge is a neat thing for where
it is in Nevada.
Their neighbors that they did a boundary line adjustment
with, or started one with, are good neighbors, one of the
oldest Stillwater farms, Canvasback Gun Club, perfect profile--
no offense to those of you who live in an urban area. We might
be sitting in one right now. Great conservation folks, do not
use the resource much, love ducks, probably have duck wallpaper
in their bathrooms at home and all that other good stuff that
is all good.
But this is a situation that I think somebody probably
needs to go to charm school, because a fence was built, from
the information I have heard, before a boundary line adjustment
was approved that had taken a lot of years. It was almost as a
show of power, allegedly, by the refuge manager.
So now what you have is you have, because you are real
estate folks doing their job, have finished that up finally,
and now the fence that is brand-new has to be torn down and
rebuilt. Not that that is a ton of money, but it is a heck of a
lot of money in the context of running a refuge like that.
So if it was one of those things where it is like, ``I am
just going to show them,'' and now we have ended up spending
almost 100,000 bucks again to rebuild the same section of new
fence where it really should be, that is just something that
bothers me in terms of going forward in the context of that
refuge's relationship with what has been over probably 100
years a very good relationship.
So I normally would not get into that level, but it bothers
me, so I appreciate, if your head refuge person is available,
or something like that, I just kind of want to know that if
somebody needs to go to charm school, I will be happy to drive
them.
Mr. Ashe. It could be me.
Mr. Amodei. I will drive you, too.
Anyhow, with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
BURMESE PYTHON
Mr. Calvert. Well, if there are no other questions, I think
I will wrap this up. I appreciate you coming out.
I know you were out in the Everglades. Ms. McCollum and I
want to get out there.
I read a story yesterday somebody sent me about this python
issue and the great python contest that they had down there. I
do not understand why we cannot come up with a better way to
track down these snakes, apparently they are totally
devastating the Everglades. We need to find out a way to kill
them en masse.
Mr. Ashe. For the future, not for the Burmese python, but
the best way for the future is prevention, like we are trying
to do with the Great Lakes, to keep them from getting there the
first place. I think that is the most important lesson.
But you will see pythons in the Everglades, I am sure they
will capture one. They are incredible creatures. They really
are. They are what biologists call cryptic. They are hard to
find, because they make their living by hiding and grabbing
things that come by.
You can walk right by them and not even know they are
there. I actually love snakes.
Mr. Calvert. This is the one instance where the chairman
will be following the ranking member. [Laughter.]
Mr. Ashe. These snakes are scary. But in their rightful
place, they are amazing creatures. In the Everglades, they are
incredibly disruptive, so you are going to see firsthand how an
invasive species harms conservation. We are spending billions
of dollars on Everglades restoration and then a species like
this comes in and really puts that investment at risk.
So, yes, you will see firsthand the struggles of people in
the field dealing with invasive species. The best way to deal
with it is prevention, keeping it from happening in the first
place.
Mr. Calvert. Well, it is too late for that.
Mr. Ashe. Too late for that, that is right. But there is
lots of innovation going on using dogs, using infrared
technology, using improved detection devices like Ms. McCollum
was talking about with Asian carp.
We are learning how to better deal with them in the future.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 16, 2016.
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE BUDGET OVERSHIGHT HEARING
WITNESSES
JON JARVIS, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
LENA McDOWALL, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert
Mr. Calvert. Good morning. The committee will come to
order.
Director Jarvis, I would like to welcome you to today's
hearing, along with the park service chief financial officer,
Lena McDowall. This morning's hearing will address the
important work of the National Park Service and its budget
priorities for fiscal year 2017.
On August 25, 1916, Woodrow Wilson signed the Organic Act,
creating the National Park Service, a new Federal bureau in the
Department of the Interior responsible for protecting the 35
national parks and monuments then managed by the department,
and those yet to be established.
One hundred years later, the National Park Service is
comprised of 410 individual park units, and that number
continues to grow.
The award-winning filmmaker Ken Burns, whom this
subcommittee met with 2 weeks ago, has described our national
parks as America's best idea. Few Americans would disagree with
that assessment. Everyone loves our national parks.
Last year, the National Park Service welcomed more than 307
million visitors to its parks, a record-breaking number, which
was 14 million more visitors than the previous attendance
record set in 2014. That trend will likely continue well beyond
this year's centennial celebration.
Overall, the proposed funding level in your fiscal year
2017 budget request is $3.1 billion, which is $250 million, or
9 percent, above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. The
largest increase, about $191 million, in discretionary funding
is proposed for the centennial-
related needs and priorities. This includes sizable funding
increases for deferred maintenance needs in both operation and
construction accounts.
Last year, the subcommittee made a substantial investment
in our national parks, providing additional funds for park
operations, as well as significant funds to address
longstanding deferred maintenance issues. We will endeavor to
make similar investments this year within the confines of our
302(b) allocation.
Also worth noting is the proposed expansion of the so-
called Centennial Challenge, which leverages Federal dollars
with private-sector dollars to at least a 1-to-1 matching of
funds. Congress provided $15 million for Centennial Challenge
in fiscal year 2016. The administration proposes to increase
the Federal share by $20 million to $35 million in 2017.
As the service prepares for its second century of
stewardship of our national parks, this subcommittee looks
forward to learning more about the budget request and receiving
additional details of the role park service partners and the
private sector will play in this effort.
We will do our very best to address the service's highest
priority needs, but we also need to face our budget reality.
Any increases above last year's enacted level will likely have
to be offset elsewhere within the service's budget or within
our overall bill.
While this subcommittee does oversee the budget for the
Forest Service, we have yet to find money growing on trees in
our national forests. That would be great.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Calvert. We welcome any ideas you may have on how to
pay for some of the proposed increases within your budget
request.
Director Jarvis, today's hearing is the beginning of a very
important conversation about the service funding priorities. We
look forward to hearing from you on these and other issues.
But first, let me yield to our subcommittee's ranking
member, Ms. McCollum, for any opening remarks she would like to
share with us this morning.
Opening Remarks of Ranking Member McCollum
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Jarvis, thank you for joining us here today. The
National Parks represent our country's collective decision to
preserve and celebrate America's natural wonders and cultural
heritage.
This year, with the National Park Service Centennial,
America's commitment and fascination with its parks are at an
all-time high. Last year, over 307 million people visited our
national parks.
The fiscal year 2017 budget request reaffirms this
commitment and makes the necessary investments to preserve
these special places. As part of the Centennial Initiative, the
budget proposes $560 million to strengthen the foundation for
visitor services and make essential infrastructure
improvements.
I am pleased to see that the Centennial Initiative
continues to emphasize youth engagement. The budget increases
support for the Every Kid in a Park program by $20 million.
Youth engagement initiatives such as this one truly offer a
return on investment as these important educational
opportunities help build the future stewards of our national
treasures and our natural resources.
The budget also includes a $151 million increase to address
high-priority deferred maintenance needs across the National
Park system. The National Park Service has a significant
problem in meeting its maintenance needs.
Currently, 60 percent of the service's highest priority,
nontransportation assets have deferred maintenance needs. We
must invest in the repair and maintenance of these assets to
ensure we can protect the natural and cultural resources in our
over 400 park units.
There is also a tremendous need to address the critical
maintenance backlog for the service transportation assets. Just
this month, reports came out that the Memorial Bridge here in
Washington, D.C., is deteriorating so quickly that it will be
closed to vehicle traffic in 5 years. While funding for the
park service transportation assets is provided through the THUD
Subcommittee, I want to emphasize how critical these funds are
to the preservation and public enjoyment of our national parks.
Finally, I have to express my disappointment with the
administration's failure to request funding for the Save
America's Treasures program. The Save America's Treasures
program began in 1999 and has been instrumental in partnering
with others--local municipalities and cities and nonprofits--to
protect cultural resources that were almost lost.
Let me give you two examples right here in Washington. The
program helped to restore the Star-Spangled Banner flag, which
people from all over the world and all over this country go and
visit, and the Wright Flyer III, the world's first practical
airplane.
The program is aptly named Save America's Treasures because
that is exactly what it does. So I hope next year, the budget
request will include funding for this important program.
We have a national parks system because we had people in
the past who had the vision and courage to work to set aside
these special places and preserve them for generations to come.
Our responsibility today is caring for America's historical,
cultural, and natural treasures, and it is an ongoing
responsibility.
The American people are looking to us to take that
responsibility seriously, to make the investments and the
partnerships to protect and preserve them for the next 100
years and beyond.
So, Director Jarvis, I appreciate the work that you and all
the employees of the National Park Service do for us every day,
and I look forward to your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
And, Director Jarvis, as you gaze upon our oldest national
park right behind me, I am happy to yield for your opening
statement.
Opening Remarks of Director Jarvis
Mr. Jarvis. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee,
thank you for the opportunity to appear before you on the 2017
budget request for the National Park Service. I would like to
summarize my testimony and submit my entire statement for the
record.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection.
Mr. Jarvis. First, I really want to thank you for the
support of the National Park Service and the Centennial
Initiative in 2016. With the generous funding, and I mean that
very sincerely, you provided, we are really making strides
toward our goal of inspiring a second century of stewards.
With the fiscal year 2016 funding levels, we can restore
seasonal ranger hiring to peak levels. We can coordinate more
than 400,000 volunteers. We can begin operations in our newest
units, complete additional deferred maintenance, and expand
partnerships through the Centennial Challenge. All of these
actions will help sustain our national parks for another 100
years.
The men and women of the National Park Service and our
partners are doing everything we can to ensure our centennial
year is successful and that it builds on the foundation for a
strong second century.
We are working with the National Park Foundation to
leverage the support of our major partners. Their centennial
campaign has already raised over $200 million of its $350
million goal.
In addition, we worked with the National Park Foundation to
launch the Find Your Park campaign to invite all Americans to
rediscover their national parks. The campaign is now
recognizable to one of four young adults, and our efforts are
drawing new visitors, as you mentioned, a record 307 million
visitors in 2015.
These visits do more than provide inspirational,
educational, and recreational opportunities. In 2014, they
drove over $30 billion in economic impact, supporting hundreds
of thousands of jobs in communities around the country.
Last year, after significant public engagement efforts,
some parks raised their fees for the first time since 2008. We
estimate these increases will raise another $45 million, the
majority of which will go toward deferred maintenance.
With all these parallel efforts, I am here to testify on
our budget request, which reflects the Federal investments
needed to ensure our next century is as strong as our first.
The budget will allow us to build on the progress we have
already begun to achieve with our fiscal year 2016 funding.
First, we are requesting the remaining pieces of the
Centennial Initiative from 2016, including $150 million to
address the deferred maintenance backlog. You have asked this
many times, and the 2017 request is what we need to address the
problem, a discretionary increase of $150 million and a
mandatory proposal for $300 million annually for three years.
If these requests are met, we could restore and maintain
our known highest priority, non-transportation assets to good
condition over 10 years.
The centennial also includes $20 million to support the
Every Kid in a Park initiative, which would help get every
fourth-grader and their family into a park, and lastly it
includes a discretionary request of $20 million for the
Centennial Challenge, as well as a mandatory proposal for $100
million annually over three years.
This program provides the Federal match to leverage partner
donations from friends groups and the National Park Foundation.
In 2016, we leveraged the $15 million in Federal money with $33
million in donations for a total benefit to the parks of $48
million.
And our partners are ready to do more. The recent gift of
$18.5 million from David Rubenstein to restore the Lincoln
Memorial is a wonderful example of the type of generosity our
national parks can inspire.
The budget also proposes $25.7 million for a Cultural
Resource Challenge, which focuses on the stewardship of our
cultural heritage and builds on key programs to meet the needs
of challenges confronting the NPS and its partners. This
includes funding for historic preservation for parks through
the Vanishing Treasures Program, digitization of the National
Register, and grant funding for the Tribal Historic
Preservation Offices. It also includes $17 million in
competitive grants and $3 million in grants to Historically
Black Colleges and Universities to preserve sites and stories
of the civil rights movement and the African-American
experience, building on the $8 million you supported last year.
In addition to these initiatives, the budget requests
funding for critical operating needs, including $12.7 million
for fixed costs and $8.1 million for seasonal health insurance.
After years of flat budgets, sequestration, and fixed cost
absorption, the funding you provided in 2016 helped stabilize
park operations. Our workforce is recovering, but if parks
absorb the costs in 2017, they will begin to lose ground again.
Finally, the budget requests $10.7 million to support new
parks and critical responsibilities, such as basic operations
at Tule Springs Fossil Beds National Monument in Nevada and the
Manhattan Project National Historical Park.
Our critical responsibilities include law enforcement and
visitor service needs during the 2017 presidential
inauguration.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my summary. I am pleased to
answer any questions. Thank you.
[The statement of Director Jarvis follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
BOTTLED WATER POLICY
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. I want to discuss for a few minutes
the service's ban on bottled water in national parks, as I take
a sip out of my bottled water here.
In December 2011, the National Park Service issued Policy
Memorandum 11-03, which authorizes park superintendents to ban
bottled water sales on a park-by-park basis. That memorandum
requires that proposals for bans be based upon rigorous written
impact analysis considering specified factors relating to
health and safety, waste reduction, costs, impacts,
concessionaires, et cetera.
The fiscal year 2016 omnibus included a directive for the
service to report on the justification each affected park
service unit used to ban bottled water. The report was due on
February 16. It is now 1 month overdue.
So the question is, what is the status of the report? When
can the committee expect it? Are you able to share with the
committee any details of the report relating to the impact of
these restrictions?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, sir. That report is basically complete and
undergoing review at the department level, through general law,
before it is forwarded to you.
We collected the reports from 22 parks. There are 22 parks
out of the 410 that have implemented elimination of the sale of
water bottles, either by their concessionaires or their
cooperating associations.
Each park had to prepare a written justification for that
and an analysis of impact, and also design and install water
filling stations before they could get approval by their
regional director.
So all of that is being assembled and will be coming to you
just as soon as we can get it through the final review.
Mr. Calvert. As you know, many of my colleagues and I do
not understand how the service can ban the sale of bottled
water in the parks, which is arguably the healthiest option for
park visitors, yet continue to sell soft drinks, juices, sports
drinks. Monster is in my district. I am sure they love selling
at the national parks. But water is, certainly, a reasonable
option.
This position directly contradicts the National Park
Service Healthy Parks, Healthy People initiative, which
encourages healthy food and beverage choices in national parks.
So why the inconsistency? Does the service have any plans
to ban the sale of soft drinks, juices, and sports drinks in
the national parks?
Mr. Jarvis. We have no plans whatsoever to ban the sale of
those other items.
The way we view it is, actually, we see no contradiction.
It actually is very consistent with the values of the National
Park Service. We look at our institution having core values
around sustainability, about reducing waste streams, about
energy conservation. We have spent millions of dollars to
develop water systems to provide excellent potable water in the
parks. What is kind of fascinating to me is that the bottled
water companies often market their water as mountain spring,
glacially fed. Well, those are the water systems that the
National Park Service maintains.
We have developed these filling stations throughout the
parks that have implemented the elimination of bottled water
sales, where you can fill your reusable water bottle, which are
for sale within the concession facilities, very inexpensive,
reusable water bottles, and we have these filling stations all
around.
To be blunt about it, I have gotten zero complaints from
the American public about this. If anything, I have gotten
thousands of support comments from the public about this
direction in sustainability.
BOTTLED WATER POLICY: RECYCLING
Mr. Calvert. Well, if we are going to be selling soft
drinks and all the rest of it, which obviously has the same
waste streams as bottled water, would it not make more sense
for the park service to partner with some of these folks to
have better recycling, not just for water bottles but for any
other kind of refuse, and have a better recycling program
within the national parks?
Mr. Jarvis. One of the recycling issues we have in a lot of
the national parks is that our national parks are remote.
Often, there are no recycling organizations anywhere nearby.
So even though we collect the bottles, the plastic bottles,
it makes no sense to haul them hundreds of miles to a local
recycling center. Our own recycling systems in these remote
places are really inefficient, in that regard.
So what we are really trying to do is to reduce the waste
stream within the parks, in terms of this product.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
TRASH IN NATIONAL PARKS
I was at Theodore Roosevelt park at one of the observation
areas, and a bus pulled up and unloaded all of its trash at the
park. I think the folks at the park expected it to happen,
because they were out there shortly after. The bins were
overflowing. There was trash all over. That was not even from
the regular park-goers who might purchase something and then
want to dispose of it, or a family having a picnic that they
were bringing to one of the picnic tables at one of the
outlooks.
I was just aghast. I wanted to say something, but I did not
know what I would say.
I am sure this happens all across our national parks. Any
other business, any other nonprofit, that was absorbing things
like that would be trying to reduce waste in the stream.
I have two things I would like to follow up on. I will
bring both of them forward, Mr. Jarvis, and then you can
respond.
SAVE AMERICA'S TREASURES
I mentioned earlier that the budget request does not have
any dollars going toward Save America's Treasures. Our
treasures are vanishing. This is a program that has not
received any funding since 2010, yet I know that the park
service at times has benefited from this program. It helps us
tell the story of how important it is to save our treasures,
our cultural treasures.
I know it is not in the President's budget, but if you
would, please enlighten the committee on some of the work that
it has done.
COMPETITIVE CIVIL RIGHTS GRANTS
I am pleased, though, that the budget has $25 million in it
for competitive civil rights grants--though those also would
have been opportunities to use Save America's Treasures for
civil rights grants. As we see more opportunities coming
forward for historic preservation, it is good that we have the
civil rights grants available now. But those would have been
projects that could have been eligible for Save America's
Treasures and could be in the future.
HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
There is also a proposal for $3 million in grants to
renovate historically black colleges and universities, which I
think is critically important. A lot of people in the public
might wonder why we have something in our budget for colleges
and universities.
So, if you could, please address those three issues for me
in a little greater detail.
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you for the question.
SAVE AMERICA'S TREASURES
Actually, the National Park Service viewed the Save the
America's Treasures program as a very positive program. Between
when it was funded in 1999 and 2010, there were over 1,287
grants in 50 states across the country requiring a one-to-one
match, and they went to, as you indicated, preservation of
physical fabric like the War of 1812 flag, to bricks-and-mortar
projects, to restoring old downtowns in cities across the
country. We worked very collaboratively with communities, the
advisory council, the National Trust for Historic Preservation,
and other organizations to implement that program.
Unfortunately, it went to the wayside in the constrained
budget process, in particular 2011 was really a constrained
budget year for us.
This committee has asked us many times, what are your
priorities? Our priorities have been the big issues of park
operations and deferred maintenance. You have to make choices.
Unfortunately, this is one of those programs that fell to the
wayside.
COMPETITIVE CIVIL RIGHTS GRANTS
We have then come back, as you indicated, on some very
specific programs like the Civil Rights Initiative, which is
focused specifically on sites related to the civil rights
movement, and we are, of course, in the middle of celebrating
the 50th anniversary.
We looked at the transition from the Civil War to civil
rights, and making those connections. And places like
Birmingham, Alabama, Selma, Montgomery, and others, we feel a
need for this kind of infusion out there. We have a great
program. Thank you for the funding in fiscal year 2016.
HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
The Historically Black Colleges and Universities are an
incredibly important institution in this Nation. Many of them
are struggling for a variety of reasons. Many of them have very
old infrastructure, very historic infrastructure, where really
the first African-Americans out of slavery had the opportunity
for education.
We feel, with the very small amounts of money that we have
requested, the $3 million in this year's budget, we can assist
those colleges in maintaining some of these incredibly historic
buildings that were really the pioneers in education of our
African-American citizens.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you once again, Mr. Chairman.
Director, it is good to see you. Lena, it is good to see
you both. I appreciate the time we have spent together and the
things we have been able to work on.
I would like to thank you and congratulate you on a couple
things, and then ask several questions, if I could.
TOUR OF UTAH: ZION NATIONAL PARK
First, let me thank you once again for the park's support
of the Tour of Utah. This is an internationally sanctioned,
very popular bike race. Your willingness to let us use the Zion
National Park and to highlight Zion to the world, actually, as
a race through the park, I think it is good for both of us. It
is good for the park. It will be good publicity. It is
obviously good for the Tour of Utah and gives us a chance to
show the world this stunning place that we are so proud of. So
thank you for that.
And Superintendent Bradybaugh down there just has been
great to work with, so we are grateful for him as well.
I also want to congratulate you on the Centennial
Challenge, taking $15 million and turning it into $48 million
or something like that, as I recall, is meaningful. We would
look forward to supporting you in those efforts in the future.
If I could, to a question then, and I do not think this
will be terribly difficult, but I would be interested in your
view on two things.
BUS AND PARKING ISSUES IN UTAH PARKS
First, Utah is home to what we call the Mighty 5, five of
these great national parks--Canyonlands, Arches, Bryce, Zion,
and Capitol Reef. We have been very successful in promoting
these parks, I would say almost too successful in the sense
that they have become, as they have been, even more crowded.
So access is a concern for us. With the buses, as you know,
Zion and some of the others have this great bus and
transportation system. But that leaves us many times with no
place to park, we have so many visitors.
So my question to you is, do you have plans and can you
help us with the parking or with the bus route and bus
structure through the parks?
REIMBURSING STATES
And then the second question, I will just ask them both now
and then that you address them, as you may recall several years
ago, we had a partial government shutdown. We had some
conversations regarding that, and some of them were somewhat
heated. We had some various opinions on that.
But during that time, Utah did what I think was the right
thing. They stepped in and did everything they could to keep
the parks open, recognizing that people had traveled from
around the world, in some cases, to visit the parks.
They incurred substantial costs doing that. In fact,
recently, our legislature had signed legislation to request
formally for the Federal Government to reimburse them for those
costs. I have legislation that would reimburse them as well on
the Federal side.
Help us understand what the status of that is, and can Utah
expect to be reimbursed for those costs they had in keeping the
parks open during that shutdown?
Mr. Jarvis. Okay. Great questions.
TOUR OF UTAH: ZION NATIONAL PARK
Thank you on the Tour of Utah. The proponents for that have
been very willing to work with us on our mitigation and support
and protection of the park. That has not always been the case
with other promoters, so we appreciate your support on that.
The city manager for Moab once said that they went fishing
for tourism, and they hooked a whale. The net result has been
the Red Rocks part of Utah has really seen an enormous success
in terms of tourism, and it is a little bit overwhelming now.
BUS AND PARKING ISSUES IN UTAH PARKS
We have a really fantastic transportation system for Zion,
but not for Arches or Canyonlands, in that area. So this is an
area we really are going to be looking hard at. We know we had
some real crowding conditions at Arches this last year where
the visitors trying to get in were backed out to the highway
and creating quite the safety problem. So this is an area where
we really want to work toward looking at centralized parking,
transportation systems, connections to the communities, getting
people to stay and leave the car behind, and then use the
systems.
The park service has implemented transportation systems in
a number of parks. We understand what it takes. They are
expensive to both purchase and operate, but the public love
them and utilize them quite well, once we get them in place. So
it is an area we definitely want to work with you on.
Mr. Stewart. Director, so I appreciate that you want to
work with us, but right now, you have no plans? There is
nothing in the budget to address these things in the immediate
future?
Mr. Jarvis. Well, we have within the transportation funding
stream that is now authorized a 5-year transportation budget.
There are fund sources in that to do preplanning for
transportation systems, and we know we have a problem in
southern Utah. We do not have a hard proposal about how to fix
it, though, yet.
[The information follows:]
Arches National Park Congestion
The park is actively working to manage parking congestion, and will
have a final public comment opportunity on a Congestion Management Plan
in June 2016, with a final plan in late summer.
The park is actively engaged with the Utah Department of
Transportation, Utah Highway Patrol, the Moab Travel Council, and
others to manage the urgent issues related to traffic congestion, and
with the Utah Office of Tourism, the Moab Area Chamber of Commerce, the
Grand County Council and the City of Moab to jointly manage the
crowding that all entities face.
Mr. Stewart. Okay. Before you answer the second question, I
would just encourage you to move as aggressively forward as you
can on that. The magic of the parks is diminished when people
feel like they spend half their day in a parking lot. I know
you understand that, but I hope we can move that up on your
urgency list. We would appreciate it, if you could.
Mr. Jarvis. Absolutely.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you.
REIMBURSING STATES
Mr. Jarvis. In regards to reimbursement to the States who
very generously stepped up, and Utah was first at the plate to
reopen the parks during the shutdown, we have supported and
have testified in support of legislation that would authorize
that. We do not have the authority currently to reimburse the
States, but we said we would do that, if provided that
authority.
Mr. Stewart. We will work together on that, I think. So
thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Stewart, in the old days, we would have
directed those fundings. [Laughter.]
Mr. Stewart. That is right.
Mr. Calvert. Ms. Pingree.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much, Director Jarvis, for being with us.
We appreciate the work that you do. We appreciate all your
employees.
In Maine, we are particularly proud of our national park
and so grateful for the attention that you have given us in
Maine.
I want to follow up a little bit on Representative
Stewart's question, because I think this issue around visitor
experience is a pressing one, as we are happily seeing the
parks be more and more popular. And certainly in the centennial
celebration, we are a little bit worried about our visitors,
too.
So first, I want to say we are really excited that this is
centennial year of Acadia National Park, as well as the park
system. We are hoping that many members of the subcommittee who
would like to come and visit when we have our celebration will
come. Since it is the heart of lobster fishing territory, we
guarantee excellent food while you are there. So come on up.
OVERCROWDING AT ACADIA NATIONAL PARK
But as we know, Acadia I think had 2.8 million visitors
last year. We are an incredibly popular park. We have a lot of
the same kinds of transportation issues, a bottleneck getting
on to the island where Acadia National Park is located.
I am interested in this year, where there will be even more
focus, how you are handling--I know some of the things you are
doing--but to ensure that there is a high-quality experience.
No one does want to spend their day in a parking lot. No one
wants to be unable to climb Cadillac Mountain.
I know you are looking for ways, but how do we get people
to visit differently, off-peak hours? What are you working on
for that? And what parts of the budget help to support that?
TICK-BORNE ILLNESSES
I am just going to throw in another somewhat similar issue
about the visitor experience. We are increasingly concerned
about tick-borne illnesses in Maine. I know they have been
traveling their way up the East Coast and now Lyme disease is I
think the sixth most reported disease to the CDC, but we think
it is tremendously underreported, because people are not always
sure.
That can really change the visitor experience. I think as
it grows, people are going to be increasingly concerned about
going outdoors. We do not want that to spoil the visitor
experience. So talk a little bit about the things that the park
service has been doing to alert people and how you help
visitors protect themselves, so that it does not become
something you bring home from your experience.
OVERCROWDING AT ACADIA NATIONAL PARK
Mr. Jarvis. Great. Thank you for those questions.
Acadia is a fantastic park, and they are doing a great job
in celebrating their centennial as well. We have been working
very closely with the park and the community.
I think one answer is, for some of these parks, and I think
it applies to Utah as well, and all the parks across the
system, is a better system on the Web, so that individuals on
their way there can do a better job of planning in advance.
So we are launching our new NPS.gov website during National
Park Week in April, which will have a much more robust trip-
planning component to it. Particularly the millennials rely
heavily on their technology and their phones to figure out what
they are going to do and where they are going to go. I think
each park, particularly the ones that are a bit overcrowded,
are thinking about giving them information, real-time
information, like maybe go in this entrance rather than that
entrance, or identify alternatives out there.
Our investment on the Schoodic Peninsula is, one, to
provide a great economic benefit to the people of Maine in
having an alternative to the Bar Harbor experience, and it is a
great resource as well and a fantastic development.
I think technology is going to be one of the keys to this,
and better trip planning for all of them.
[The information follows:]
Overcrowding at Acadia National Park
Given the recent upward trend in visitation, combined with this
year's centennials of both the National Park System and Acadia, it is
not unreasonable to predict that 2016 visitation will approach or
exceed 3 million.
The park and Centennial task force have initiated a campaign to
encourage visitors to enjoy Acadia wisely, and to distribute use (both
geographically and temporally) by choosing low-impact transportation
systems such as leaving cars where visitors are staying, then walking,
biking, or riding the bus; enjoying a car-free biking experience by
using the park's carriage roads; or enjoying a summit view by hiking
one of Acadia's historic trails. The campaign also encourages visiting
special park places in ways and at times that avoid and reduce crowds
like at night to view a full moon over Sand Beach or shooting stars
over Cadillac Mountain or avoiding Cadillac Mountain at sunrise;
watching the sunrise along Ocean Dr. ve or on an off-shore boat ride.
Visitors could enjoy Acadia-related amenities in the communities that
surround the parks, including visiting local museums, libraries,
historical societies, gardens, or galleries, or exploring the greater
Maine coast, or even venturing into Canada to make a trip a ``two
nation vacation.''
NPS staff and consultants also are working on a holistic
transportation plan for the park. Although an approved plan and the
beginning of implementation is still about two years away, staff will
be engaging the public this summer on a series of preliminary
alternatives that suggest various measures to better manage the
movement and activities of visitors. To help inform the planning
process, park staff will continue to test possible strategies with
potential to ensure better visitor experiences. An example are two
planned car-free mornings where most motorized vehicles will be
prohibited from the park loop road and the Cadillac Mountain Road.
Going back to Congressman Stewart's comment. Utah has great
public lands besides the national parks. There is all the focus
on the icons, and there are other places. And we can work with
our other public land agencies, State parks, and others to help
distribute this.
That is why the Find Your Park campaign is ``find your
park.'' It does not say ``find your national park.'' It is
``Find Your Park.'' We looked at this as a big tent for all of
our parks and partners.
TICK-BORNE ILLNESSES
On the public health side, you may not know that the
National Park Service has had a direct relationship with the
Public Health Service for almost 100 years. We have public
health officers embedded in the National Park Service that
directly monitor. These are uniformed officers of the Public
Health Corps that are actively engaged in the issue of
maintaining public health when it comes to visiting parks.
Tick-borne illness, Lyme disease and others, are one of
those key resource issues that we really want the public to
know. Particularly in our East Coast parks, where we are
struggling with Lyme disease.
Three times I have gone through treatment for Lyme disease,
so I know what it is all about.
This is an area where we really want to emphasize public
information, to wear the proper repellents, the right clothing,
and the like, so visitors avoid this issue.
[The information follows:]
Tick-borne Illnesses
Our Office of Public Health's Public Health Consultants, assigned
in parks and regions throughout the NPS, routinely provide information
on relevant tick-borne diseases and intervention strategies to parks as
a part of their Public Health Assessments, where the epidemiological
evidence supports a specific disease.
Starting in 2014, the Office of Public Health has partnered with
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to conduct tick-borne
disease surveillance in 11 eastern national parks. This long-term,
geographically dispersed study provides specific tick-borne disease
risk information for visitors and employees and will be a significant
contribution to improve scientific understanding of the ecological
drivers of tick-borne disease risk, particularly the relationship that
biodiversity may have to reducing tick-borne disease risk.
Tick-borne disease prevention materials are available on our
websites, and a tick and zoonotic disease prevention app is in
development and expected to be released this summer. Over 200 tick-
borne disease prevention trail-head signs were distributed to four of
the seven easternmost regions. Tick-borne disease prevention trainings
were given in-person at parks participating in our surveillance program
and educational materials were distributed, with service-wide tick-
borne disease prevention webinars for employees and volunteers.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Jenkins.
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director, thank you for the visit yesterday, and thank you
for your testimony today. And thank you for the good work of
the National Park Service in my State of West Virginia. I am
proud to have some very beautiful, scenic, cherished lands.
BOY SCOUT JAMBOREE
West Virginia, in the Third Congressional District, we have
the Bechtel Summit Boy Scout camp. There is now going to be a
second National Jamboree in 2017 and a World Jamboree in 2019.
Just as an expression of appreciation, I hear pretty
consistently about the work of the Boy Scouts with the local
community, because this area of the Boy Scouts butts up against
a national park, the New River Gorge.
As a matter of fact, if you go onto the Boy Scouts Web
site, they promote the Jamboree by talking about the Summit
Reserve's 14,000 acres up against the 70,000 acres of the
national park. So some of this cobranding, comarketing, is well
at work.
Do you have any sense of the positives or challenges in
your national park relationship with the Boy Scout jamborees,
national and world, that will be in that area?
Mr. Jarvis. I see no challenges, just great opportunities,
Congressman. As you know, the development of the new site in
West Virginia adjacent to New River Gorge National River, was
the largest volunteer effort in the history of the National
Park Service with extraordinary support from literally tens of
thousands of Boy Scouts and troop leaders across the country.
There is an integrated trail system. And this is the sort of
new permanent home for these kinds of gatherings.
We have not, to be blunt about it, started planning for the
2019 World Jamboree, but I see it as a huge opportunity to
really highlight the long history of the relationship between
the Boy Scouts of America and the National Park Service, and to
really expand that.
As I mentioned to you, I have probably done hundreds of
Eagle Scout projects myself with young scouts looking for
projects in national parks, and I know rangers across the
system have done as many as well.
Mr. Jenkins. Those involved know that one of the
commitments the Boy Scouts have made is essentially requiring
the scouts to do community service projects in conjunction with
their participation with these jamborees. I hope we can
continue to see that collaborative relationship as an
opportunity to help improve our national parks. When you talk
about deferred maintenance, you have literally 30,000, 40,000
Boy Scouts attending the jamborees that are ready to get to
work.
NATIONAL HERITAGE AREAS
Secondly, I noticed from the budget, about a 50 percent cut
in the category of national heritage areas. In my neck of the
woods, we have two National Heritage Areas, one actually in my
district, the other in another part of the State. I notice from
the budget about a 50 percent cut to those line items.
I heard you reference priorities. If we as a committee
recommended restoring funds because we think it is a priority
for the National Heritage Areas' support, do you have any
opposition?
Mr. Jarvis. No opposition to that.
CO-MARKETING OF NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Jenkins. You mentioned the Mighty 5. We talked about
this yesterday, and it came up again today. It sounds to me
that when States do some unique marketing and branding about
the assets that they have, in particular national parks, that
is a true win-win situation.
I want to reiterate I welcome feedback from you, Director,
and your staff about those State and national park co-marketing
efforts, where they are working like the Mighty 5, and maybe
where we can provide some assistance to encourage them.
I want to be able to go back to my tourism folks and hold
out some best-practice examples. Let's make sure that we are,
at the State level, doing everything we can, in working with
the National Park Service, to promote these wonderful
resources.
Mr. Jarvis. We look forward to working with the State of
West Virginia on that. We built this marketing campaign around
the centennial in a way that any State or tourism destination
organizations can benefit. We just received a destination
tourism foundation hospitality award for this work on the
centennial. Brand USA is using it in international tourism.
We have really done this in a way that any State can take
advantage of it. Certainly, with the incredible assets that are
in West Virginia, this is a real opportunity to market the
parks that you have, the heritage areas', Appalachian Trail,
some great resources.
HISTORICALLY BLACK COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES
Mr. Jenkins. My last question for this round is, we have a
historically black college in my district, Bluefield State.
From a quick look at the National Registry of Historically
Black Colleges, there appears to be about 107 colleges on that
list. Your budget line item was about $3 million.
I would like to have some follow-up with that volume of
historically black colleges, to what extent that $3 million can
really make an impact. I welcome the opportunity to have a more
detailed discussion about your line item and your priorities
within that category.
Mr. Jarvis. We will be glad to come back and follow up with
you individually as we go forward with that.
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Israel.
Mr. Israel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Director Jarvis, welcome.
Ms. McDowall, thank you for your work.
ROOSEVELT ISLAND
One very specific curiosity, and then a broader question
about how you sustain funding over the long term.
Specifically, the Theodore Roosevelt Association has been
in a conversation with the park service about placing some
interpretive markers on Roosevelt Island here in Washington. I
want to thank you for that engagement and encourage you to
continue to work and consult with them, so that we can develop
what I think could just be a masterpiece here in Washington.
Thank you for that.
I assume that you will continue to have conversations with
them.
Mr. Jarvis. Absolutely. I think it was actually a really
great idea that was brought forward by Tweed Roosevelt, a
direct descendant of Teddy. We do not do a particularly good
job of telling the legacy story of President Roosevelt on the
island. So his concept is creating a series of interpretive
displays around the trail.
That trail is heavily used. If you go over there coming out
of Rosslyn and out of the District, it is an opportunity to
really tell Teddy's story and his contributions to conservation
in this country. We will be working directly with our friends
group there from Theodore Roosevelt and with the National Park
Foundation and our own resources.
SUSTAINABLE FUNDING
Mr. Israel. Thank you. Sagamore Hill is located in my
district, so I have a very strong and deep interest in this.
Going a little bit broader, I am concerned about the
ability of the park service to sustain a massive
infrastructure, and to conserve, while it relies on sometimes
good years, sometimes bad years in appropriations. I perhaps
should not be saying this as an appropriator, but it seems to
me that a long-range plan for the park service needs to
consider some sustained funding levels.
I am curious as to whether you have given any thought to
what future funding may look like and where you may go for
sustained budgetary support and new revenues?
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you, Congressman, for that question.
As I look out into the future of our second century, I am
with you. I have the same sort of concerns. We are a perpetuity
organization on an annual appropriation. That makes it very
difficult for us to plan and to manage these resources for the
American people.
So we need your help, and the authorizers as well, to help
us create essentially a more sustainable financial model for
the National Park Service. I think there are multiple
components to that.
One is obviously appropriations. If we had a more
predictable appropriation, or even a multiyear appropriation,
that would be one aspect of this.
I think another is our fee program. Right now our fee
program is hard to predict because we are on an annual
reauthorization. That is $230 million a year that we rely on to
address deferred maintenance and provide visitor services. If
there is any way we could get a much longer authorization of
our fee program, that would give us a much greater ability to
plan and predict.
We do have some requests for some new fee authorities
within the authorizer's side, as submitted officially from the
Secretary of Interior to both the Senate and the House. We
would like to see those come through.
The third piece of it is philanthropy. I think we have
really worked on this over the last couple years. Our National
Park Foundation is on the path to raising $350 million
privately. And our other friends groups, which we have recently
just analyzed, are also showing extraordinary success in
raising philanthropic support at the individual park level, and
they are raising somewhere over $300 million themselves for
individual parks. Our ability to continue to grow that is a big
part of it.
Then, believe it or not, corporate support and corporate
sponsorship is an area we just ventured into. But as a part of
the centennial, we have raised over $45 million from individual
corporate sponsorships, from Subaru, Disney, American Express,
and Budweiser. They put up hard cash and their marketing
support. That has driven a lot of the marketing effort out of
this as well.
Ultimately, this institution needs an endowment, and we
need a way to feed that endowment and let that endowment grow.
The Second Century Commission, which was a bipartisan group
that got together and studied the park service starting in the
Bush administration, released their report in the beginning of
this administration. They said if they looked back 100 years
from now, the number one thing that they think would have a
long-term effect is if they could create an endowment for the
National Park Service.
If you think about major institutions like colleges and
universities that are very successful, they have endowments. I
think this is an area where we would love to work with you.
How do we create that? How do we feed it? How do we let it
grow? So that 50 or 75 years from now, the service has a corpus
upon which it can rely?
Mr. Israel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Speaking of endowments, how much does Harvard have in their
endowment account right now?
Mr. Israel. $40 billion.
Mr. Calvert. $40 billion, so at 4 percent a year, that is
significant.
Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks, Director. I am sorry I missed our appointment
yesterday, but around here, they make us vote occasionally. It
just screws up our whole schedule. So anyway, I am sorry about
that, but it is good to see you again.
It is nice that you brought Grace along, back to her old
stomping grounds on the committee. It is good to see you again.
One thing about an endowment is that we are appropriators
and what happens is you all of a sudden get automatic funding
through an endowment, and then the funding from the
appropriators goes down, because you have this funding. So that
is something you have to watch when you are pursuing an
endowment.
I was going to ask about the annual collecting fees process
that we authorize through this appropriation versus a long-term
reauthorization by the authorizing committee, and the need for
that. However, I think you answered that with Mr. Israel's
question.
GROWTH OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM
What concerns me to some degree is, A, the number of new
units we are putting in the park service without the thought of
how we are going to maintain those and how that impacts the
backlog of maintenance and so forth in the current parks that
exist.
I will give you an example. In Idaho, they are having a
discussion right now. There are a lot of people who would like
to make Craters of the Moon a national park.
I view the national parks as the jewels, the Yellowstones,
the Glaciers, even Yosemite, and other major national parks.
There are places for national monuments, for unique
characteristics. Everybody agrees that Craters of the Moon is a
unique landscape and characteristics. I do not know that a
national park necessarily is justified there. But a lot of
people look at it as, if it was called a national park, it
would bring in a lot more visitors and it would get a lot more
unappropriated dollars to maintain it. I do not know that you
are going to get more dollars.
But we seem to be expanding and thinning out your ability
to address the maintenance in the current parks that we have by
adding new units.
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
In your testimony, you said, ``Of this increase, $150.5
million will address the deferred maintenance backlog. Together
with the mandatory proposal discussed below, this will provide
the National Park Service the resources to restore and maintain
all currently identified, highest priority nontransportation
assets in good condition over the next 10 years.''
What about, A, the transportation backlog, and the non-high
priority? What is going to happen to the backlog overall?
Mr. Jarvis. No, I got it. Let me take your last question
first, and then I will go back to the growth in the system a
little bit.
Congress passed a 5-year transportation bill and the park
service's allocation for that was $268 million, and that grows
to $300 million over the 5-year term of the transportation
bill.
It is not enough, but it is a pretty good start. And it
allows us, now that there is a 5-year plan, to really put in
place our planning efforts for the restoration and repair of
our transportation systems, our roads, paved and unpaved,
bridges, all that sort of access component that is so
necessary.
We have some really serious issues, as you know. We talked
briefly about Memorial Bridge here in Washington, D.C., which
is estimated at a $250 million project. The Grand Loop Road and
three out of five entrance roads in Yellowstone is another one.
That is $850 million to $1.25 billion. It is a big project as
well.
The transportation bill did allow the National Park Service
to compete for these large projects with the States, so we
would have to go in, and that is what we are going to do with
Memorial Bridge. We will go in for a request along with the
Commonwealth of Virginia and the District of Columbia, to
request funding from that pot to fix Memorial Bridge. We have
to really get started by 2018, at a minimum, to get that bridge
repaired so it does not turn into a footbridge by 2021.
So we are addressing our transportation assets.
DEFINING ASSET PRIORITY
The high-priority, nontransportation assets are those that
are essential to visitor use, so those are the water systems,
the wastewater systems, the prime visitor centers, some of our
lodges and hotels, and the historic core of the historic
resources. In a triage, those have to be considered.
The low-priority assets, some of them we are going to lose,
and some of them we will tear down and remove, just to get them
off the books, because of their condition. If they are in very
poor condition and they are a low-priority asset, then we will
remove them from the inventory and from the park. That is just
the way we have to face it.
We are really focusing our fee program, our philanthropy,
on those assets you can market to a potential donor, like the
iconic sites here in Washington, supported by individuals like
David Rubenstein. The request we have in the fiscal year 2017
budget relates to those high-priority assets.
GROWTH OF THE NATIONAL PARK SYSTEM
In terms of the growth in the system, let me just say that
I am as concerned I think as you are about growth in the system
that has a direct financial impact on the National Park
Service. Every one that I have promoted and supported, I have
worked very, very hard to minimize the footprint of the
National Park Service and required that there are partners
willing to pony up before we even say yes.
For instance, at Harriet Tubman National Monument in
Maryland, the State of Maryland is building the visitor center,
completely doing all of the infrastructure development. All
they ask is that we have a ranger in that building. The
physical resource that we have obtained has no real
requirements. It is just an open set of fields.
When we did Pullman, we raised $8 million in the Chicago
area before we even said yes. We own the footprint of one
building. We minimized our ownership, again, so that we are not
taking on huge additional maintenance backlog or operational
responsibilities.
But I think the system is always going to grow. It does not
stop. The defense authorization bill gave us a bunch of new
parks. Presidents, every one of them, regardless of their party
affiliation, like to give us new parks as well.
We will continue to grow, but I think we have to manage
that growth in a way that does not impact the broader system.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Kilmer.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks for being with us. I echo Mr. Simpson's
apologies that votes blew up our meeting yesterday, but I thank
you for the effort.
I also want to say thank you for what the service does. As
someone who grew up in the shadow of the Olympic National Park
I know it is an extraordinary asset that draws a whole bunch of
people to our region. I am often reminded of what an economic
driver it is, and not just in terms of hotel stays and
restaurants. My grandfather helped pave the road up Hurricane
Ridge, so I know it has been an extraordinary asset.
Our neck of the woods has had a really tough winter, and we
are now facing some real access challenges that are already
posing problems for researchers who are studying the Elwha, and
for homeowners and private landowners within the region, not to
mention the fact that it could have some impact in terms of
visitation this summer.
I was happy to see that the park service budget makes some
key efforts to address maintenance needs because I know just
how critical it is to maintain these roads and trails so
visitors can get out there and enjoy the parks.
OLYMPIC HOT SPRINGS ROAD
That said, I was hoping I could just get an update on one
pressing issue, the washout of the Olympic Hot Springs Road. I
know there are a lot of balls in the air with the whole
alphabet soup of agencies that get involved with the impacts to
salmon habitat, not to mention the continuing difficult weather
conditions. But we have a lot of private landowners, park
users, research scientists, and park service staff who are very
heavily impacted by the loss of this single access point.
So I was hoping you could just discuss what the service is
doing to expedite the repairs to the road and ensure that
access is restored as quickly as possible. Can you give us some
sense of the timeline? Also if there is anything that the park
service needs to expedite repairs, I would love to know that,
too.
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you for that question, and thanks for the
support for Olympic National Park. It really is a fantastic
resource. I know you have been getting a lot of rain up there.
If you could just capture it, that would be the other thing. At
least we are getting some snowpack, both in the Cascades and
the Olympics and Sierras this year, which is a good thing.
The good thing on the Elwha is that it has helped flush out
all that sediment that was backed up on the rivers. The
photographs of the delta that have been created and the
restoration of the beaches and the quahog sandspits down to
Dungeness are really fantastic. But there has been impact to
the road system.
So the plan is right now we have requested funding from the
Federal Highway Administration for what they call the Emergency
Relief for Federally Owned Roads funds, which are emergency
funds, to put in a one-lane bridge at that washout. We expect
that to take about 6 to 8 weeks to get installed, after the
estimated two month compliance process is complete.
That will serve, not great, but it will serve as access for
the landowners who are up that road and our own administrative
access. We have park housing. We have a maintenance facility up
there. And the public access as well.
Then we are going to have to go in for a reprogramming
request to the Federal highways. The road was in for a
resurfacing. We are going to have to rethink that, obviously.
But now that we do have a 5-year bill, we can go in for a
major reconstruction on that site. But we are probably talking,
three, four years before we can actually get to that and get
the work done. So we will be living with that temporary fix for
three to five years.
Mr. Kilmer. Do you have what you need in terms of being
able to move forward with the temporary fix?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, we do.
Mr. Kilmer. Okay, thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Amodei.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
QUAGGA AND ZEBRA MUSSELS
Thanks, Mr. Director. Hey, I want to talk with you about
quagga mussels and zebra mussels for a minute, Lake Powell,
Lake Mead.
In the omnibus last year, which was signed I think about
the middle of December, NPS was asked to give a report on what
you guys are planning on doing with regarding other water
bodies in the West becoming infected with vessels leaving those
two. I think the report is due here pretty quick. Is it out
already? Have I missed that?
Mr. Jarvis. My staff says it is in review.
Mr. Amodei. So you expect it to be kind of out in the time
frame of the 90 days? We gave you a couple million bucks to do
that.
Mr. Jarvis. Yes.
Mr. Amodei. Okay. So my last question on that is, can you
let us know when it is out? I assume we do not have to go to
the SCIF to see it, so we can come over and pick one up.
Mr. Jarvis. Yes.
Mr. Amodei. Okay, great. One last question.
ACQUISITIONS AND RECONNAISSANCE STUDIES
I need to know who handles acquisitions or reconnaissance
studies, since we were talking about acquisitions and expanding
the system and that sort of stuff, because I have been
approached by somebody in western Nevada. And I do not know
whether it works or not, but we want to kind of hook up with
whoever handles that for NPS.
What do you do to see whether this is something that is a
potential fit? Small footprint thing, but anyhow. So if you get
that information to my office, just to say, here is who you
should talk to in my outfit in terms of a potential acquisition
in western Nevada that is not thousands of acres or hundreds of
acres, stuff like that.
Mr. Jarvis. Absolutely. We will get the information to your
office.
Mr. Amodei. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Israel brought up an interesting point. These budget
battles, I am afraid, are not going to end. The growth of
entitlement spending is squeezing discretionary accounts, we
have the same problems with defense spending and interior. And
certainly Mr. Simpson's bill, all of our bills, we have this
challenge.
But you have the honor and privilege to represent probably
the most popular government agency in the United States
Government. I read somewhere the Marine Corps and the park
service are tied. You are popular.
So the endowment, I am very pleased that we are moving that
way. I know the authorizers are moving with the centennial bill
to get language to do that.
I think you are going to find that there are going to be a
lot of people who are interested in leaving some legacy to the
National Park Service. I think, long term, it will have a
positive effect on the national parks.
TRANSPORTATION FUNDING
A couple questions. Obviously, you mentioned the Memorial
Bridge, the necessity to move forward on that. Obviously, we
have a lack of funds. We are hoping that next year, no matter
who is President, we can come to some agreement on repatriation
and put money into the transportation bill, which will increase
those allocations, including to the National Park Service, so
hopefully we can see that happen.
WHITE HOUSE FENCE
The other issue is in the newspaper, the White House fence.
It looks like we have had a number of incursions of late. It
seems like it is a growing phenomenon. Obviously, the security
there is important.
I do not know if you want to get into that briefly, but I
know there are artistic ramifications. And of course you manage
the grounds, then you have the Secret Service and Homeland
Security and everybody else.
But how is that coming along?
Mr. Jarvis. I have met with the director of the Secret
Service. We have talked about it. Our teams are working
together to come up with several design alternatives to provide
better security to the White House while at the same time
recognizing the value of the public to be able to see the White
House. I mean, you really do not want a 30-foot-tall concrete
wall around the White House. You want the public to feel the
People's House is still visible.
There are a variety of ideas being cast about. We did a
temporary fix, which has added some level of security. The bike
racks are still out, giving some distance to the fence, which
is not really acceptable either.
We are working toward a design. At some point, we will be
coming up and talking to you about it.
Mr. Calvert. Okay, good. And obviously centennial funding
is important. I am going to make a wild guess here that we are
going to be level-funded in our allocation. We hope. We will
find out.
But we are going to do the best we can with the hand we are
dealt, so we will try to work with you and the park service to
make sure that we fund your top priorities and work on that. I
know you have significant deferred maintenance issues that we
have to deal with, and we want to help as much as we can.
Anyway, with that, are there any additional questions?
Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. I have two.
YOSEMITE NAMING RIGHTS
First reading the newspaper a while ago, I read the Federal
Government is currently involved in an outrageous lawsuit over
naming rights at Yosemite Park. It just took my breath away.
My understanding is the corporation that formerly held the
park's concession contract is trying to claim trademark rights
in the names associated with a national park.
To me, it sounds like they are mad that their concession
contract did not go the way they wanted it to. To me, it is
extortion of the American taxpayer.
I am distressed that the National Park Service is changing
the name of five of the park's attractions. If you could, tell
me why did the Service feel it had to rename those attractions?
This has a ripple effect with local businesses that rely on
this to sell visitor guides and souvenirs. When Voyageurs
National Park was going forward, that was one of the things
that we told communities, that they can be part of successful
economic opportunities being adjacent to a park.
What steps is the National Park Service taking to make sure
that does not happen again? And then after you answer that, I
have one other question I would like to ask.
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you, Congresswoman, for that question.
In a nutshell, Delaware North Corporation, which was the
concessionaire at Yosemite National Park, in 2002 filed with
the Patent and Trademark Office and obtained the trademark
names of not only the individual facilities, like The Ahwahnee,
and Wawona, and Badger Pass, but Yosemite National Park as
well. They obtained those rights legally. We did not know. It
is not something that we thought we needed to monitor.
As a result, this is in court. We have a vigorous defense
of our position on this through the Department of Justice. And
the Delaware North Corporation owns, according to them, the
right to put those names on any product, so a T-shirt, a coffee
mug, anything in the park right now cannot have that name on
it, nor can we call The Ahwahnee Hotel ``The Ahwahnee Hotel''
because those names are, according to Delaware North, owned by
them, and they are demanding to be paid $51 million for the
rights to use those names.
Mr. Calvert. Will the gentlelady yield on this?
Ms. McCollum. I would be happy to.
Mr. Calvert. I am as outraged about this as you are.
Ms. McCollum. I imagine you are.
Mr. Calvert. As a businessman, to me, there are ethical
issues involved here by some concessionaire who took advantage
obviously of not notifying you of this change. How long were
they the concessionaire for this location?
Mr. Jarvis. I am going to let Lena jump in here, because
she has been very active in this case as well.
Ms. McDowall. They have been there since 1993.
Mr. Calvert. So this operation was going on for many, many
years prior to 1993----
Ms. McDowall. Correct.
Mr. Calvert [continuing]. With the names that are iconic
associated with Yosemite National Park. And they took it upon
themselves to, in effect, take those names for their own
purposes in order to, in effect, blackmail you into renewing
the contract. Would that be an accurate statement?
Ms. McDowall. It essentially would protect them from a
competitor coming in.
Mr. Calvert. People talk about corporate ethics. This is
just terrible.
Anyway, Ms. McCollum.
Mr. Jarvis. So let me just tell you what we are doing about
that. We are vigorously defending it. We have filed with the
Patent and Trademark Office to void their claims.
Unfortunately, that is a process that probably could take up to
a year or more for them to go through their analysis.
So in the interim, we do not have the authority to use our
own names within these facilities, so we had to go through a
renaming process in order to not validate their claims.
So they also offered us to use those names, to license them
to us, which was, to be blunt, offensive. On our part, we chose
not to do that, to have them license our own names to us.
Mr. Simpson. Will the gentlelady yield?
Ms. McCollum. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman
from Idaho.
Mr. Simpson. Just out of curiosity, I do not know who the
concessionaire is, is this the only park that they have been
in? Or are they in other parks also?
Mr. Jarvis. No, they are one of our major concessionaires.
They are in other parks.
Mr. Simpson. Really? Okay.
Mr. Jarvis. Including the Grand Canyon and Yellowstone.
Mr. Calvert. Have they taken possession of those names
also?
Mr. Jarvis. Under the new contracts that we have awarded
them, they are prohibited from doing that. This was an old
contract that did not have specific language that prevents it.
But we have gotten smarter about this, so we actually prevent
them in their contracts from filing the names on this.
One of the other concessionaires at the Grand Canyon did
attempt to obtain the rights to Grand Canyon, but we backed
them off on that.
Mr. Calvert. This gives the legal profession a bad name.
Mr. Jarvis. We have proposed in the centennial legislation
some intellectual property rights protection language to give
protection to all of the park names across the system, to
prevent this from happening in the future. That is something
that is working its way through markup as we speak.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before I ask my second question, was it $51 million that
they were asking--I am going to say trying to extort--from the
Park Service? That is my term, not yours.
Mr. Jarvis. What they wanted was us to force the incoming
concessionaire to pay them the $51 million. So as Lena
indicated, that was to make it noncompetitive, that any
incoming concessionaire would have to pay them $51 million.
They sued us to force the incoming concessionaire to pay
them.
Ms. McCollum. It sounds like blackmail to me.
GRAND TETON LAND ACQUISITION
Moving on, we were talking about acquisitions and how
careful you are when you are looking at making acquisitions to
our national park system. The budget does include a significant
land acquisitions request for $22.5 million to purchase 640
acres of state-owned land in the Grand Teton National Park.
The size of the project is somewhat unusual. I think I
understand it pretty well. As we move forward, putting the
budget together, could you please explain for us why this
purchase is so large? Is it scalable at all? The project will
require a match, assuming funds are appropriated. What happens
to that parcel of land if you are unable to raise the matching
funds necessary to complete the purchase?
What happens if the State of Wyoming does not extend the
date by which the sale must be completed? You are running into
a potential problem if we are not getting things done on time,
even if it is in our proposed budget to go to conference and
get to the President's desk. Can you explain how sensitive this
timeline is?
Mr. Jarvis. Thank you for those questions.
There are two full sections, 640 acres each, inside the
boundaries of Grand Teton National Park that are owned by the
State of Wyoming that are part of their State school lands. So
revenues generated from those lands support the State schools.
The State of Wyoming has let us know that unless we acquire
these properties to incorporate into the park, they will sell
them at auction for development. These are in the heart of the
park, very developable properties right on the flats. They are
in the Snake River Valley looking right up at the grand. They
could either be mega homes or a mega resort, easily developable
into that.
They are appraised, one at $46 million and one $39 million.
The $46 million property called Antelope Flats is probably the
most vulnerable, the most developable. So we have requested
half of that funding in the fiscal year 2017 Land and Water
Conservation Fund, and then the proposal is to raise the other
half privately. We have a coalition with our National Park
Foundation and Grand Teton Foundation, to raise the match of
$22.5 million to purchase the property.
If we do not purchase that property by December 31, 2016,
the Governor's authority to sell it to us expires, and then the
property will be subject to auction by the State of Wyoming for
development.
So we are under a great deal of pressure. We are pretty
concerned, to be very blunt about it, about going into a CR,
into a continuing resolution into fiscal year 2017, because
then we would not be able to have the full amount, the $22.5
million, to match the fundraising side.
So it is absolutely, as you can see, our number one
priority in our Land and Water Conservation Fund for fiscal
year 2017.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, there are some things that are
even beyond our control. We would like to see everything done,
as Chairman Rogers has said, in regular order and in good time.
But there are some conversations that we might need to have. If
this becomes a priority, if this committee and the Senate are
in agreement on it, and it looks like something that would be
included, we might be able to have conversations with the State
of Wyoming to figure out if there is some way we can work with
the Governor or the legislature there in extending that
deadline for moving forward.
From what I am hearing from you, there is our decision as
legislators and appropriators whether or not this becomes
something we fund on the priority list. It is something that I
support. And then if it looks like we are not going to be able
to get things done in regular order, we have to figure out how
we have those conversations with the State of Wyoming on this.
So, thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Just on that subject, thinking out of the box a little bit,
is it possible a third party could acquire that property with
an agreement for future acquisition back from the National Park
Service?
Mr. Jarvis. It is possible, but the deed would have to be
secured with us because the Governor's authority is specific to
selling it to us.
Mr. Calvert. Could a third party, in effect, loan the
National Park Service the money to acquire the property with a
payback provision?
Mr. Jarvis. That is what we are looking at right now.
Mr. Calvert. Okay. Thank you.
With that, we certainly appreciate you coming--anything
more?
Mr. Jarvis. Yes, if I could make one final comment I am
serving in my last year with the National Park Service. I just
want to express my great appreciation to this committee, to
you, Chairman, to all the members. This committee has been
always very, very good to the National Park Service. Bruce
Sheaffer was before this committee the first time in 1976,
which is the same year I joined the National Park Service. I
want to compliment Lena McDowall, who is the new and improved
Bruce Sheaffer, CFO of the National Park Service. She did not
get much chance to speak today, but is a fantastic new addition
to the system. I think you will enjoy working with her into the
future.
But again, my compliments to this great committee. You have
always been great to us.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you for your service. We appreciate you
every year coming to this committee. We will miss you.
But with that, we are adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 16, 2016.
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS/BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION BUDGET OVERSIGHT
HEARING
WITNESSES
LAWRENCE ``LARRY'' ROBERTS, ACTING ASSISTANT SECRETARY, INDIAN AFFAIRS,
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
CHARLES ``MONTY'' ROESSEL, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION
MICHAEL BLACK, DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert
Mr. Calvert. The committee will come to order. Good
afternoon, and welcome to today's hearing on the Fiscal Year
2017 budget proposal for Indian Affairs. I am going to be brief
because we have a lot of ground to cover, and obviously we have
votes coming up.
Funding for Indian Country has been and will continue to be
a nonpartisan funding priority for this subcommittee for Fiscal
Year 2017. Today we have been making a concerted push over the
past several years to make incremental improvements in the
lives of American Indians and Alaska Natives, particularly in
healthcare, education, and law enforcement.
It has been a partnership. I want to thank several of our
key partners for being here today to testify. Our first panel
includes Larry Roberts, acting assistant secretary for Interior
for Indian Affairs, Mike Black, director of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Monty Roessel, director of the Bureau of Indian
Education. Gentlemen, thank you for being here today.
For the past few years at the subcommittee's request, the
Government Accountability Office has been another key partner
on Indian education matters. What started in 2012 with a
seemingly simple question of comparing per student funding
inside and outside of BIE has grown into something much more
complex. The GAO recently completed another study on BIE
facilities' condition and management, and I have asked them to
be here today on a second panel to report their findings and
recommendations.
Before we begin, I will just make a few comments about the
Fiscal Year 2017 budget proposal for Indian Affairs. This
Administration put its partners on the subcommittee in a tight
spot by raising expectations throughout Indian Country that we
will struggle to meet. The President's budget circumvents the
discretionary spending caps that were signed into law. That is
how the President is able to propose $136 million increase for
Indian Affairs, and a $377 million increase for the Indian
Health Service with no realistic offset.
But currently law requires discretionary spending to stay
relatively flat in Fiscal Year 2017. So this subcommittee's
challenge will be to find the money from within to pay for the
have-to-do's without cutting the popular nice-to-do's by so
much that we cannot pass a bill.
Before I turn to the first panel, let me first ask our
distinguished ranking, Ms. McCollum, for any opening remarks
she would like to make. Thank you.
Opening Remarks of Ranking Member McCollum
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Assistant Secretary
Roberts. I join the Subcommittee Chairman in welcoming you to
the committee. Thank you to the other witnesses who are here as
well.
This Subcommittee is united in its commitment to the social
and economic wellbeing of Native Americans, so I am pleased
that the President's budget in 2017 proposes investments to
better address Native American issues and needs, both in their
communities and in their environment. I do support the
President's budget. Some of the initiatives that the President
has proposed, well, I think the chairman is correct that they
are not likely to see the light of day. But they are good to
have in here, so that we can have a discussion on the way we
move forward and invest in the United States of America and in
Indian Country.
The budget expands the Administration's TIWAHE initiative
which leverages BIA funds and other Federal programs to support
families and communities' health in a culturally appropriate
way. It increases this initiative by $17 million. In the
discussions that we have had with youth who have been here
about some of the challenges that they and their families face,
what we heard about rising suicide rates among the very young
in Indian Country makes these investments in tribes and tribal
families and communities very important to me.
The budget also invests in tribal natural resources,
supporting climate resilience, management, conservation, and
utilization of reservation and water resources. The budget
request advances Indian education by investing an additional
$60 million in programs that support students from elementary
through post-secondary education, and by providing $138 million
to continue the robust education construction program that was
enacted last year.
Together we are taking important steps to build towards a
construction budget that is dedicated to repairing our schools
and education facility replacement. These investments are a
good start, but there is much more to be done.
Having said that, I have to admit I was appalled to learn
that the Bureau of Indian Education is failing to conduct
safety and health inspections for all of its schools. The
Bureau of Indian Education is responsible for 48,000 Indian
students and 183 campuses. Each and every one of those schools
is supposed to be inspected annually, but GAO found last year
that BIA failed to inspect 69 out of the 180 school locations.
GAO also determined that 54 school locations have not been
inspected in the past 4 years. So I am glad we are going to
have another panel with GAO, because if there is something that
needs to be repudiated on that, we need to know. But I was
absolutely appalled reading that report.
On March 2nd, 2016, Secretary Jewell testified before this
committee, and agreed that BIE schools were in a deplorable
condition, and that we have a responsibility to provide these
students with a safe learning environment. So it is
unconscionable that, if true, the Bureau is not demanding full
accountability from the inspection program because one of the
most basic elements of children's safety is to be in a school
facility that is safe. GAO's study shines a light on what I see
as huge failures. We can and we must do better for those
children. I know that will be a goal that we all share.
So, Mr. Chair, with that, I do not have anything more to
add to an opening statement.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. I thank the gentlelady. I think we
have time to have your opening statement. So, Mr. Roberts, if
you will do that, then we will recess until after votes. You
are recognized.
Opening Remarks of Acting Assistant Secretary Roberts
Mr. Roberts. Good afternoon, Chairman Calvert, Ranking
Member McCollum, other members of the committee. It is an honor
to be here before you all here today.
I am Larry Roberts, acting assistant secretary for Indian
Affairs. I'm a member of Oneida Nation of Wisconsin, so near
your neck of the woods, Ranking Member. I want to begin by
thanking of each of you for your dedication to Indian Country.
I know that you visited the Navajo Nation and saw issues there.
I want to say thank you to this committee for your leadership
with the Fiscal Year 2016 budget and the resources that this
committee provided because it is sorely needed throughout
Indian Country, and we thank you for that.
The increase in successes in Indian Country are due in
large part to the work of tribal leaders. Since 2008, our staff
within Indian Affairs has decreased by approximately 1,600
employees. That's nearly 17 percent of our workforce within
Indian Affairs. What we're seeing is that whether you're a
direct service tribe or a self-governance tribe, tribal
leadership is proving with the increased funding Congress is
providing, they can deliver results. We've seen it in the
reduction of violent crime. We've seen it in the reduction in
recidivism, and we're seeing in our Tiwahe Initiative.
The President's budget is built in coordination with tribes
through the Tribal Interior Budget Council. The President's
budget, again, requests full contract support cost funding, and
also requests that it be mandatory funding in Fiscal Year 2018.
It includes an increase of $21 million to support TIWAHE
objectives including additional money for social services,
additional money for implementation of the Indian Child Welfare
Act, improved access to suitable housing, and also job training
and placement.
The President's budget includes investments for Native
youth through increased funding for scholarships and schools
like Haskell and SIPI, the United Tribes Technical College, and
Navajo Technical University. BIE is focused on serving as a
capacity builder and service provider to support schools and
tribes in educating their youth. The budget proposes full
tribal grant support cost funding for tribes which choose to
operate their schools for BIE schools. And finally, the budget
provides $138 million for construction of BIE facilities.
In terms of managing natural resources, we've heard from
tribes about the importance of trust real estate services and
increasing funding for that. And so, the President's increase
requests approximately $7 million to address probate backlogs,
title land and record processing, and database management.
We thank the committee for the Fiscal Year 2016 money to
start the Indian Energy Service Center, where tribes can go to
one location to get energy services from BLM, BIA, OST, and
ONRR. That's being implemented now, and the President's request
in 2017 continues that funding.
We're also working with tribes to promote cooperative
management, and the President's request includes a $2 million
increase to address subsistence management and Alaska issues.
And finally, the President's budget request includes a $15
million increase to assist tribal communities in preparing and
responding to impacts of climate change.
I know, Mr. Chairman, in this difficult fiscal climate we
have budget caps. The President's budget overall, includes a
less than 1 percent discretionary increase for the Department
of the Interior, but a 4.9 percent increase for Indian Affairs.
And so, we're really proud of the President's budget.
Within the Department as a whole, the National Park Service
has the largest increase, followed by Indian Affairs. There are
other agencies within the Department that are taking a
decrease.
So, again, Mr. Chairman, we appreciate this committee's
leadership on the budget. We are thankful for the 2016 budget.
And we stand ready to answer any questions you may have.
[The statment of Acting Assistant Secretary Roberts
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman for his testimony. We
are going to recess until the votes, and then we will come back
immediately after the last vote. Thank you.
[Recess.]
INDIAN EDUCATION FACILITIES INSPECTION
Mr. Calvert. The committee will come to order. Ms. McCollum
in her opening testimony mentioned the GAO report on the Bureau
of Indian Education schools, and I share her concern about the
69 of the 180 BIE school locations that were not inspected for
health and safety in Fiscal Year 2015. This, as she has said,
is clearly unacceptable.
In the entire $2.9 billion Indian Affairs budget, I cannot
imagine a higher priority than protecting the health and safety
of children attending schools and sleeping in dormitories. Why
did some BIA regions inspect all schools while others inspected
no schools in recent years? Specifically, why some regions with
a large number of schools and significant travel distance were
able to conduct all the inspections in 2015 while others not?
What is going on out there?
Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Chairman, for the question. We
agree with you that it is unacceptable. We need to make sure
all of these schools are inspected. We are making sure all
facilities will be inspected this year. We are in the process
of advertising job vacancy announcements for additional safety
inspectors. We expect to have six new people come online.
Part of our overall reform of BIE, we will have a school
operations division. That school operations division will look
at this more proactively.
Mr. Calvert. On this subject, I would hope--well, not hope.
We expect that we will have reports from time to time, at least
quarterly, on how these inspections are going, and that you are
meeting the target of inspecting all schools in this Fiscal
Year. And I would like to get also a report on which employees
are responsible for not inspecting these schools, and has
anybody been discharged because of this? Is there any reprimand
that has been done because of the inactivity of BIE to inspect
these schools?
Mr. Roberts. Mr. Chairman, we're happy to provide quarterly
updates. You have my commitment that we will have all
inspections for the facilities this year. In terms of why those
inspections did not occur, my sense is that some of that was
probably due to vacancies, but I do not have the specifics on
that.
Mr. Calvert. Well, somebody should be held responsible for
something like this. If it had been one of my restaurants when
I was in the restaurant business, a manager would be out of a
job. And this is much more important than that. It is the
health and safety of children.
PUBLIC SAFETY AND JUSTICE FUNDING
Ms. McCollum, you are recognized.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to talk
about the decision that was made in this budget to cut law
enforcement by $7 million and tribal justice support by $8
million. The majority of that funding goes directly to tribes
to be used at a local level. Some tribal nation are on
reservations that cover areas the size of a State. We are
working to make VAWA a success in bringing to an end to
violence against women. That is going to be an ongoing battle
that we face. We are going to need ongoing support for tribes
in doing that.
I have to believe that a cut of this size will be felt with
impact. In fact, your budget states that increases to law
enforcement funding have ``represented some of the best
opportunities for BIA to strategically impact the allocation of
public safety resources in Indian Country.''
So there must be a reason why you chose this cut. We need
to understand it. We are going to be hearing public testimony
from tribal nations over the next few days, and I know this is
going to come up because it is coming up with me already. So
could you address that?
Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Ranking Member, for the question.
As part of the great work that this committee and the Congress
did with the 2016 budget, we received an additional $10 million
over and above the President's budget request. That $10 million
was focused on taking proactive steps for tribal courts in
Public Law 280 States like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Alaska, and
California.
When we received that appropriation from Congress at the
end of 2015, we worked within our budget to see how we could
maintain the $10 million appropriated for this specific
purpose, and we were able to refrain some of the funding
because we do not disagree there is a need out there. The
funding overall for law enforcement, for police officers on the
ground, that has not changed. This $10 million is specific to
tribal courts in Public Law 280 States.
The topline message, Ranking Member, is that for law
enforcement, we did not take a decrease over what we asked for
in the 2016 President's budget. Our request is actually $1.8
million over what we asked for in the President's 2016 budget.
We tried to maintain the great work that this committee did. We
just did not have time to maintain that full $10 million, but
we do think there is a need there.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Amodei.
DETENTION FACILITIES
Mr. Amodei. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, we have
never met before, and I do not come from ``Indian Country,''
but we have got a significant population. We have got
reservations. We have got tribes. I come from the part of
Nevada where we say if you have only been to Las Vegas, you
have not been to Nevada, so north of there.
And I got to tell you, I am going to give you a compilation
of emails that the person on my D.C. staff has compiled over a
period of 5 months trying to get two basic administerial
questions answered on behalf of two tribes in my district that
deal with detention. I am also going to give you the first
couple of pages of my memo. I can just sum it up with in
summary; over 5 months, the BIA has only been able to answer
one-half of one question that two tribes in Nevada have been
asking. This is only one of many examples of times where our
office has had to advocate on behalf of our tribes when it is
the job of the BIA. We have been trying to resolve these issues
for one of the pending calls for 2 years, and the tribes have
been trying far longer
REAL ESTATE SERVICES
The BIA mission statement is to enhance the quality of
life, to promote economic opportunity, and carry out the
responsibility to protect and improve the trust assets of
American Indians, Indian tribes, and Alaska Natives. But when
push comes to shove, the most basic administerial functions of
ensuring that tribes are helped when they have questions or
concerns, the BIA has dragged their feet and allowed a
congressional office to be more of an advocate.
And I know you are new, and I want to let you know that I
think the Agency head in western Nevada is a bright light. But
we are sitting here, basic questions where you are going to get
a quarter inch of paper where it was just saying, hey, we need
to set up a conference call, get everybody on the same line,
please. And it astounds me more to think when the majority of
your workforce is Native Americans, it is like, come on, folks,
we are doing this to ourselves.
I have got contacts from multiple tribes in Nevada about
real estate operations, people who had paid their homes off
years prior. And I am not talking 2 or 3. I am talking 6 or 7.
Well, ``it has always been a problem.'' Really? If anybody else
in the title business would take 6 or 7 to convey property
after it is paid off?
And so, I know the standard answers are, you know, it is
Santa Fe, it is Phoenix, it is whatever the title plan is. It
is like these are basic administerial functions. This is not we
got to get a ruling from somebody, or this, that, or the other.
This is they paid it off, convey it to them. And I got to tell
you, maybe it is my fault. I am not doing a good enough job.
But we keep knocking our head against this, and I will just say
there is this culture that I have experienced at least for
these small little dots on the map of indifference.
And so, I guess my question is, and, you know, honestly,
well, tell me about the culture at BIA. You are like, well,
okay, that will be a nice thing to talk about after that lead
in. I guess what my request is, I would like if possible to
have somebody on your staff to meet with directly and go, here
it is, guys, girls, men, women. Here it is. Here is what we
think the problem is. Can we do something about this where
these folks can have some level of service, or tell me where I
have screwed it up or something like that, because as you can
probably tell, even though we have not met, I am pretty
frustrated. But we are not really going to work that out here.
I would like somebody on your staff to work about
responsiveness generally and about that realty problem because
this is not Indian County. I mean, it is not like, hey, we got
thousands of conveyances in northern Nevada. We need to get
that stuff wrapped up. Can I please have that person? Can you
designate that person?
Mr. Roberts. The Director of the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Mike Black, oversees operations of all of the regions within
the Bureau of Indian Affairs. He will be the point of contact
here.
You know, it embarrasses me that you have to raise these
issues that should not even come to your level, quite frankly.
Mr. Amodei. Agreed.
Mr. Roberts. And so, we will work with your staff to either
get them solved as quickly as possible, or let your staff know,
there is bigger issue here we are running into----
Mr. Amodei. I appreciate it. And, Mr. Black, here is kind
of where we are starting, so thank you guys. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Mr. Kilmer.
CLIMATE RESILIENCE
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Chairman, and thanks for being with
us. As someone who represents 11 tribes, I appreciate the role
that BIA plays.
I guess I wanted to focus on a couple of things at the top
of the long list that keep me up at night. One of the big ones
being the resiliency challenges facing the coastal tribes in
the region I represent where we have seen increasingly harsh
storms and rising sea levels, not to mention the threat of
tsunami, which can literally wipe out some of the villages that
I represent, and certainly threaten some of these historic
sites where people have lived since time immemorial.
I was glad to see in the BIA budget you requested an
additional $15 million to support climate resiliency in Tribal
Country, including an additional $3 million for tribal climate
resilience projects. I guess I wanted to get some sense of how
those investments are going to be used, and how will it be
decided where the money goes.
Further, I know that HUD recently awarded a grant to a
tribe in Louisiana that is facing similar challenges to focus
on relocation. Can you talk a little bit about how BIA is
working with other Federal agencies on this issue? You know,
even $15 million it is a drop in the bucket when you are
talking about potentially having to move entire villages that
are facing existential threat.
Mr. Roberts. Thank you for the question. My understanding,
if we were to receive this money through the 2017 budget, is
that we would continue to build upon the good work that we are
doing with tribes. Tribes apply to the Department for grants
for a wide variety of purposes addressing climate change. So it
could be something like relocation that you have discussed, or
it can be overall planning, that is how we are going to address
these climate impacts we know are coming, or building capacity
within the tribal governments themselves to address these
issues.
With regard to your second question about how BIA is
working with other agencies to address these issues, we have
the White House Council on Native American Affairs. They have a
subgroup on environment and climate. The subgroup is looking
across agencies about how we can collaborate better between
EPA, HHS, Interior, and other agencies that work in the
environment field. That is one way we are working across
agencies to make sure we are coordinated when we are providing
services to Indian Country.
ACCESS TO BROADBAND
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. I would love to follow up with you
on that at some point. The other thing I wanted to ask about
was access to broadband. One of the most memorable experiences
I have had in this job was meeting with one of the tribal
chairmen from my district, and he said, you want the good news
or the bad news. I said, tell me the good news. He said, every
one of our high school seniors is going to graduate this year.
And I said, well, what is the bad news. He said, for the first
time, the State of Washington is going to require students to
take the State-mandated exam over the internet. Since they do
not have high-speed internet they tried to sample the test. It
was one of those where you answer a bunch of questions, and
then click ``next page.'' He told me it took a minute and 44
seconds to get to the next page so they are going to bus the
kids to a neighboring community, about 90 minutes away to take
the exam.
This is such a big issue in terms of both educational
opportunity and economic development, not to mention the
ability to start a business. I was hoping you could talk about
what steps BIA is taking to ensure tribes have access to high-
speed internet.
Mr. Roberts. The President's budget in Fiscal Year 2017
includes an increase request of a little under $17 million to
provide broadband to BIE schools. And obviously when we provide
broadband to BIE schools, that broadband is going to be
accessible to the community where that school is located. And
so, that is one step we are doing to increase broadband. I
believe the FCC is also taking steps. Monty, is there anything
you want to add in terms of broadband at BIE schools?
Mr. Roessel. We are trying to get to a level that is
comparable to other schools. We are attempting to achieve a
level of 100 megabytes per second, just like other schools.
Even though we may have schools that are very small, we still
have that target so you do not have that lag time of a minute
and you cannot take those assessments.
Also, broadband allows us to expand curriculum. Our small
schools sometimes have a very limited curriculum because they
do not have the teachers or a lot of different teachers.
Broadband allows us to actually have a broader curriculum for
our students in some of these small places.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. And I would hope that BIE would be
looking into the other programs. The Department of Agriculture
has a Rural Assistance Program on broadband, and the Gates
Foundation has been, I would hope in the State of Washington,
would be looking at that. And certainly Microsoft directly, and
maybe assisting on something like this.
Mr. Joyce, you are recognized.
LAW ENFORCEMENT: RECIDIVISM
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Roberts, how are
you, sir? One of the Fiscal Year 2017 priority goals is to
reduce rates of repeat incarceration in five target tribal
communities by 3 percent through a ``comprehensive alternatives
to incarceration'' strategy that seeks to address underlying
causes of repeat offenses, including substance abuse and social
service needs, through tribal and Federal partnerships.
Can you tell the members of the subcommittee how you will
specifically work with the tribal communities to accomplish
this goal?
Mr. Roberts. Thank you for the question. We have had great
success in working with the tribal communities on this
recidivism reduction initiative. We are working directly with
tribal leadership on how to implement it so it looks a little
bit different at Mountain Ute than it does at Red Lake. The
focus is working with tribal leadership to build those services
to address recidivism itself.
We have been focused on reducing recidivism over the last 2
years. The early results show a 70 percent decrease in
recidivism at one location, which is huge. I just saw Chairman
Siki from Red Lake yesterday, and he really, really appreciates
this committee's support and the Department's support in
implementing the reduction in recidivism project there because
it is giving them for the first time the tools to address these
issues long term.
Mike, do you want to talk a little bit about specifics at
any particular location?
Mr. Black. I do not know much about specifics, but some
tribes have chosen to focus on the juvenile population, and
other tribes have focused on the adult. What they are doing is
really looking at the treatment programs that are or are not
available, working within their tribal courts for alternative
sentencing opportunities, and then also for reentry. A lot of
times, for individuals that are our repeat offenders, we can
give them a certain amount of treatment, but then they go back
to that same environment without any support. So the tribes are
trying to build all of those components into the recidivism
reduction effort. And as Larry mentioned, it has been very
successful so far, so we are very encouraged.
Mr. Joyce. Great. I am glad to hear that efforts are being
made, Mr. --and I apologize if I screw this up--Roessel.
BIE GRADUATION RATES
Mr. Roessel. Roessel.
Mr. Joyce. Roessel, okay. The percentage of tribal students
completing high school in the 2014-2015 school year who were
within 4 years of their 9th grade entry in BIE schools was 55
percent. One of the Fiscal Year 2017 strategic objectives,
again, of the Department of the Interior is to increase the
percentage of tribal students attending Bureau-funded schools
who complete high school with a regular diploma within 4 years
of their 9th grade entry date by 5 percent (relative to the
2014-2015 school year).
Can you tell the members of the subcommittee what
additional resources are proposed in the Fiscal Year 2017
budget to assist teachers in these schools to accomplish this
goal?
Mr. Roessel. A big part of that is not a specific program.
We are trying to get away from a program to fix whatever ails
us, but to look at issues comprehensively. What we are looking
at doing is trying to get an expanded curriculum.
So much of what we have done over the years has just
narrowed the curriculum. So students are bored. They do not
want to go to school, so we need to expand that curriculum.
Also, Tribes want to be a part of the equation in terms of
solving their school problems, but they also want to teach
their native language, history, and culture, and make school
relevant to the students there.
A big part of it is not saying individually this is our
program, but trying to expand what education means.
We are also working with our teachers. We have a program to
get 1,000 National Board certified teachers that will raise the
quality of instruction so that kids are more engaged. If we can
just get kids to be engaged, they will want to come back to
school. A comprehensive look at trying to improve graduation by
also improving attendance, will have an impact on graduation
rates.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Ms. Pingree.
SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for being here
today and for the work that you do.
We spent a long time last year talking about the Beatrice
Rafferty School in my State, and I am always grateful for the
way this committee can work together in a very bipartisan way.
I appreciated the help from the chair, and ranking member, and
the President in making sure that the funding was available.
But as you know, there were some disagreements along the way
about the design and cost, and it has taken a long time to
resolve that disagreement around the square footage and the
design.
I am very grateful that we have made progress, and in
recent weeks I have heard that the school is on track for a
construction start date in 2017 in the spring. But I do think
it is amazing that it was 11 months since our last hearing
until the sign-off last month. It took that long to get this
approved. That is a very long delay, and I think we all thought
it would be under construction by now.
So I just want to say I know the BIE is putting a lot of
effort into restructuring the Agency to work better with tribal
support of schools. But I want to make sure that in the
process, it does not take so long, but also that there is still
consideration for space for native language instruction and
cultural activities. In particular at Beatrice Rafferty, part
of the disagreement was about this additional cultural space.
So, again, I am happy we seem to have worked it out, but it
has been a really long time, and it seems like it should not
take so long. Can you share a little bit about the lessons that
you have learned in the past few years of school construction
so we do not keep repeating these delays, and disagreements on
design and community input.
It seems to me a 3-year delay from appropriation until
groundbreaking when the need is this high is unacceptable.
Mr. Roberts. Thank you for the question. I do agree with
you, it is unacceptable. I know that we need to work very
closely with the school and the tribe right now because we have
obligated the funding to them to start construction. Quite
frankly, because there are so many schools in poor condition,
we should be moving as quickly as possible. Dr. Roessel and
myself are planning to reach out to the Beatrice Rafferty
school to see what we can do to start moving this year. We
should not be waiting until Fiscal Year 2017.
As to some of the lessons learned, I am relatively new to
the school construction world, but it feels like we are going
in fits and starts when we ought to be moving more in a
streamlined fashion. And we should share with this committee
our plan not only for the schools on the 2004 replacement list
which are fully funded now, and we thank the committee for
that, but also our schedule for the next 5 to 10 schools that
need repair so that this committee knows and Indian Country
knows what the schedule is moving forward. Let us lay out a
strategic game plan to address this.
Kids cannot be in these schools. It is just unacceptable.
And so, when Congress provides us the money, we need to work
with tribes and move as quickly as possible to get that money
working and new schools on the ground. Monty, is there anything
you want to add in terms of lessons learned?
Mr. Roessel. I think one of the biggest lessons learned
responds to just what you mentioned. What happens is the school
will make a request to one office, which turn to my office, and
then they turn to another office, you know the drill. Moving
forward, we are going to all meet as a team from the very
beginning.
The Division of Facility Management will meet with the
school and with BIE at the same time so we do not have a letter
lost in transit, so we get together and we can move. It will
help us when we move forward to the new list so we can actually
get moving quicker, and it will save a lot of time because that
is one of the problems we have here. We are bouncing between
offices, and that was a simple lesson to learn, but also a
simple lesson to fix that we have already implemented moving
forward.
Ms. Pingree. I appreciate your thoughts, and I am glad that
you see this as an opportunity to do things differently being
relatively new to this committee and hearing so much about the
need for construction throughout the country. I do hope you
will report back to us and let us see how you are moving
forward in the future because it seems unacceptable that we
would finally get the construction funds for schools, which is
hard enough to do in the first place and then that does not
even move forward.
So I hope we will hear back from you, and that going
forward, we actually see these things in action and at work.
Mr. Roessel. Absolutely.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Calvert. I agree with the gentlelady. You know, we want
to do these projects as quickly as possible. We want to build a
school that people expect, and we also want to make sure that
the plans are done, and we do not get into change orders, in a
VA kind of a situation where things spiral out of control as
far as costs are concerned.
That is why I think it is always important to have
somebody, a person, a project manager responsible that we can
call and be held responsible for getting these projects done in
a timely and economical fashion, and with the community's
support. I cannot think of anything more important.
ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES FOR EDUCATION CONSTRUCTION
While we are on school construction, we have urged the
Department and the Treasury to explore different ways to fund
schools. We have a deplorable situation out there where we are
way behind on school construction, and these schools are the
Federal government's responsibility. And we are failing in that
responsibility. They are in deplorable condition.
And our solution cannot be to just hope for funds to come
available. And we have a lot of smart people out there in the
finance world. We have gone through in the Department of
Defense where we rebuilt all of the schools in the Department
of Defense to great standards, and we owe no less to the Native
Americans in this country.
We need to figure out a way to weave some kind of a tax,
spending program. I am not quite sure what that is, but we have
talked about it for the last year or so, where we can do
something to get these schools under construction and built
where we do not have these conditions.
Is the Department exploring these alternatives? And, if so,
would you please update the committee on these efforts?
Mr. Roberts. Thank you, Chairman, for the question. We are
exploring those opportunities. Kris Sarri from our Policy
Management and Budget Office, principal deputy, is working
directly with the Department of Treasury to figure out what
options there may be. I do not have any updates for this
committee today, but I know that our staff will be wanting to
talk to your staff as soon as we do have some ideas moving
forward, because it is an extremely complicated issue, and like
you said, it is the Federal government's responsibility to fund
those schools.
Where we struggle quite frankly is there have been other
models out there which, you know, have provided bonds to school
districts, for example. Obviously that raises a challenge here.
But we do have someone that we have brought in on a temporary
basis from the Department of Defense Education Office to assist
us in looking at ways to fund these schools.
Mr. Calvert. Well, you know, obviously there is a way
forward. Every day that goes by not doing something, we just
dig ourselves into a deeper hole. And I would expect that this
would be a high priority within the Department to get this
done. This is a bipartisan effort. We want to make sure this is
completed. We do not want to talk about this again next year.
We would like to figure out a way to do this and get it done,
and maybe, if it is necessary, to have language in this year's
appropriation bill.
Mr. Roberts. Okay.
Mr. Calvert. Hoping we get through an appropriation bill,
but that is another subject.
HOUSING NEEDS FOR EMPLOYEES & TRIBAL TRANSPORTATION
But with that, Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair. One of the things that
we have found, whether it is in recruiting healthcare employees
or employees to deliver education, two issues keep coming up.
Both the tribes raise them as well as conversations that I have
had with people who might be looking at a career opportunity
serving in Indian Country. One is a lack of housing.
Housing needs to be good for the people in the tribal
nations. I want to make that very clear, and the roads need to
be good for the people in the tribal nations. But the second
issue is being able to recruit and hire permanent staff so
there is consistency and continuity in care, continuity in
education.
There are staff quarters at many locations, and when we
talk to folks, they talk about the transportation issue, how
far that they drive, and the condition of the roads. That also
affects school transportation. Mr. Simpson is not here, but we
have two different brands of fitness trackers that we wear to
keep track of our activities, how much we are moving around
during the day.
When we were in Navajo Country, Mike and I both noticed
something. We laughed about it, but it really was not funny. We
were on a school bus, and we both did 500 steps on each one of
our different brands, so we knew that they tracked the same
way. 500 steps sitting in a bus. Those are kids being jostled
around every day, but that is also wear and tear on the
equipment.
Can you talk about how the Administration is working on the
Tribal Transportation Program, which is part of Fixing
America's Surface Program? What are some of the things that we
can be looking at to be more innovative for housing, whether it
is rental or like some of the construction that they did on
some of the military bases? If this is for staff, we can look
at staff housing differently than we do the tribal nation
members' housing perhaps, with the permission of that tribal
nation and consultation with them.
So what are some of the ideas that you might have moving
forward? Or if you can, get back to the committee with more
information.
Mr. Roberts. I am happy to provide information. I am
actually going to turn it over to Director Black. He is an
engineer by trade, and road engineering is his background. I do
know after talking with our transportation folks, for those
roads that are already in good condition, the funding will
cover the maintenance of those roads, so long as there are no
catastrophic events, such as weather-related events. But roads
are an extreme challenge for us, as well as housing.
But I am going to turn it over to Mike to provide a little
more detail.
Mr. Black. Let me address the housing question first. We
have identified that, just like many other agencies, as a
serious need in our remote locations, especially for
recruitment and retention of law enforcement and social
services personnel.
We have been able to carve out some funding over the last
few years to build some quarters for our law enforcement staff
at some of our high priority locations. We will be looking at a
couple more locations this year to try and get some new housing
in there. It is just a matter of going through and trying to
prioritize with the limited funding that we have, those areas
with the most need right now. And we will continue to do that
and evaluate that.
We have had conversations in the past with some of our
tribes about the economic development opportunity it could be
to build some apartments or duplexes or something that BIA
could enter into an agreement with a tribe to lease. So we are
looking at our alternatives realizing the budgets are what the
budgets are. We do have to get a little bit more creative in
how we approach that.
PROCESS FOR PRIORITIZING SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION LISTS
Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, with your
indulgence, I want to go back to the school inspections just
for a second. We are going to have another panel, and I want to
be able to hear some of your thoughts on some of the questions
that are going to be put to them.
In Minnesota we have the Bug-O-Nay-Ge-Shig School, the Bug
School we call it on the reservation. Secretary Jewell visited
that school, and, I mean, she saw deplorable conditions. It was
never built to be a building to house students. It was built to
be something that you put snowplows in and things like that. It
was not for built for people.
There are dozens of school facilities in need of
replacement literally all over Indian Country. That is why we
increased the replacement construction funding, and you know
the dollars: school replacement construction by $25 million,
facility replacement by $12 million.
We understand that you are finally close to finalizing a
new list of priority replacement schools, and I have to say, as
Mr. Amodei was saying, sometimes this is agonizing. ``It will
be next month,'' or, ``we are going to have it next week.'' So
I am going to point blank ask you: when can this committee
expect to see a list? Because we are getting ready to mark up
our bill.
Now since the GAO report is out, there are two things I
need to understand beyond the status of these school and
facility replacement lists. Can you explain to us, as you went
through developing this new list, how inspections were done? I
am not saying you should throw out this list. Even if you
answer in a way that does not make me happy or proud of the
inspections done, we still need a list that we can start
working off of. Then, we can figure out how to fix that list
later.
Can you explain whether the inspection process for creating
these two lists that you are going to be working off of was the
same one that GAO evaluated? If it was not, can you please let
this committee know how you went about developing the list? Our
understanding--and Mr. Calvert and I and others serve on the
Defense Committee--was that you were going to go through a
review very similar to what the Department of Defense did, and
that is why you brought someone in from DODEA.
Seriously, gentlemen, if you say we need to go back and do
more due diligence, that is an okay answer. It is an acceptable
answer because when we know we can do better, then we should do
better. Or is this list the gold standard for how you are going
to do inspections in the future?
Mr. Roberts. So, Ranking Member, I will need to get back to
you specifically on that question.
Ms. McCollum. That is fair enough.
[The information follows:]
There are three sources for facilities condition data input
into the Indian Affairs Facilities Management System (IAFMS)
that help calculate the Facilities Condition Index (FCI).
Schools that have an FCI indicating a school in poor condition
were eligible to apply for ranking on the new replacement
school list. The prioritization for projects on the new
replacement facilities list will also be founded on the FCI
based on data from the three sources.
The three sources of facilities condition data include: 1)
Facility Condition Assessments (done by a contractor every
three years), 2) annual safety inspections (performed by
Regional Safety staff and referenced in the GAO report), and 3)
local facilities or school staff. The majority of the data in
IAFMS come from the Facility Condition Assessments. The
condition of the facility, as measured by the FCI based on data
from the three sources, was one of the seven criteria used in
ranking applications for the school replacement list and was
worth 65 points out of 100. Other criteria included crowding,
declining or constrained enrollment, inappropriate educational
space, accreditation risk, school age, and cultural space
needs.
Mr. Roberts. But I will say on the list for campus-wide
replacement, we had 10 schools that presented. I need to
prioritize those schools in terms of the list. I hope to do
that within weeks, not months. I understand that through
negotiated rulemaking, the Department did not set the criteria
for those lists, and that is why I need to get back to you
about how they match up with GAO's list, because for the list
of the 10 campus-wide replacement schools, a negotiated
rulemaking process came up with the criteria. I hope to get the
list out as soon as possible.
With regard to the Bug School, there is a whole other
category of individual building replacements.
Ms. McCollum. Right.
Mr. Roberts. In terms of the Bug School and talking with
everyone that has either been there or our career folks who are
responsible for inspections, they know of no other building out
there in as bad a condition as the Bug School, that was never
intended to be used as a school.
Ms. McCollum. It was supposed to be temporary.
Mr. Roberts. Exactly. And so, on the facilities replacement
list, I have asked my team for the information on individual
buildings. We will use the money that this committee
appropriated for facilities replacement to address a building
in the very near future, and then we will need to work with
Indian Country to come up with some sort of process to
prioritize additional facilities replacement projects.
I am new to the negotiated rulemaking process that they put
together so many years ago. In my mind, there were things that
were not considered, like how many kids are being served by a
particular school, or how close a school in very poor condition
is to a new BIE facility. I think those types of things ought
to be considered, but for this next 10 schools, for the campus-
wide replacement, I am bound to follow the process that was
part of the negotiated rulemaking.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. If there are no further questions,
we are going to wrap this up in a minute. Just one last
comment. Do you have anything additional?
ROAD MAINTENANCE
Mr. Calvert. Going back to what Ms. McCollum was saying
when we were on the Navajo Reservation on that memorable bus
ride. You would have thought with four senior members somebody
would have got a motor grader out there and graded that road
out to the school. [Laughter.]
Mr. Calvert. Or maybe they did that on purpose to send us a
message, but it comes back to maintenance. The Navajo's
reservation is, what, 17 million acres, and there are a lot of
roads out there, a lot of dirt roads. I would assume that there
is a crew of people that that is all they do is grade out
these, because, it is impractical, I get it, to pave every road
on the Navajo Reservation, for instance, or Pine Ridge, and
some of these large reservations.
But you would certainly think they would have some kind of
a maintenance program where they would, you know, have a motor
grader go out on a normal maintenance schedule and maintain
those roads because that is cost effective because the
equipment would get blown up over a period of time, tires,
everything else. Is that happening?
Mr. Black. Yes. I believe that is a 638 contract by the
tribe, so they look at the priorities of what they need to do
for maintenance activities. There again, as you said, you've
got 17 million acres out there, and a lot of roads to cover out
in Navajo with limited road maintenance funding. And then you
also have to throw in that the funding is also used for ice and
removal, not just maintenance and blading of the roads.
So you are looking at all those factors. You have a really
bad winter, it really affects the amount of actual maintenance
you can do on those roads.
I am still waiting to get a briefing on the new FAST Act to
see exactly what is all in there. Under the previous
transportation authorization bills, tribes had the ability to
use 25 percent of their construction funding to put toward
maintenance activities. That was solely up to the tribe to
decide if they wanted to do that.
And it honestly became a rob Peter to pay Paul situation
because construction is just as important out there as
maintenance is. I mean, if we have better construction, we have
reduced maintenance.
Mr. Calvert. All right, thank you. And, gentlemen, I thank
you again for being here today, for your continued efforts to
lead in the face of tremendous adversity, the traditionally
high turnover in all three of your positions, a testament to
the challenges you face. We want to see you succeed. We hope
that we can continue to be helpful partners so that you will
stick around for a while to see through the many improvements
that you are trying to make.
At this time, you are excused from the table and invited to
take a seat in the front row while we call up our second panel.
Thank you.
---------- --
--------
Wednesday, March 16, 2016.
INDIAN AFFAIRS AND OVERSIGHT OF BUREAU OF INDIAN EDUCATION SCHOOLS
WITNESS
MELISSA EMREY-ARRAS, DIRECTOR, EDUCATION, WORKFORCE, AND INCOME
SECURITY, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert
Mr. Calvert. So we are going to shift gears and focus on
more detail on oversight of BIE facilities, condition, and
management. I would like to welcome back our witness from the
Government Accountability Office, Melissa Emrey-Arras, if I
pronounced that correctly.
Ms. Emrey-Arras. Yes, sir.
Mr. Calvert. Okay. Director of Education at GAO's
Education, Workforce, and Security team. Thank you for being
here today and for GAO's continued efforts to spotlight the
Bureau of Indian Education, including agreeing just yesterday
to another study that digs down even deeper into accountability
issues we will be discussing today. No doubt that your work has
raised awareness on both sides of Capitol Hill, and awareness
helps make our job a little less difficult.
Three years ago in this room, then Chairman Simpson
convened a similar BIE oversight hearing in which GAO testified
prior to finalizing a study we asked it to do regarding per
people spending. GAO's testimony at that time helped the
subcommittee push this Administration to make Indian education
a much higher priority than before.
To its credit clearly, the Administration has stepped up,
but we still have a long way to go. And I recognize the funding
can help close part of that distance, but not all of it. As we
see today, there continue to be some management and
accountability issues, and perhaps even some legislative issues
that must be addressed before significant funding can follow.
Before we turn to our witness, let me allow first our
distinguished ranking member, Ms. McCollum, for any opening
remarks that she may like to make.
Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and as you rightly
pointed out, this committee over the past 16 years has been
working with due diligence with two Administrations. The Obama
Administration only stepped up to the plate after problems were
pointed out.
This is not blaming anybody who is up here trying to solve
the problem. This is the result of decades and decades and
decades of neglect and failure of the Federal government to
live up to its obligations. Anybody who was listening at all
today to the previous panel who were testifying, knows we are
working together to solve this problem and this issue.
That having been said, GAO has been closely investigating
what seems like the endless challenges of the Bureau of Indian
Education and providing safe schools. Management issues and
lack of accountability are recurring themes, and I believe that
GAO's involvement has helped us to really put a spotlight on
the reform that is needed.
I would like to thank you and your colleagues for doing
this important investigation, and for valuable recommendations
to help us on this committee as we are working with the BIE and
working in partnership with tribal nations to address what
needs to happen, because Indian students deserve a quality
education. We must protect their rights to safe and healthy
schools, not only so that they can succeed and so their nations
succeed, but so that the United States of America can succeed
in the future as well.
I look forward to discussing your findings in the spirit of
cooperation and working with one and all to finally have a plan
to bring this to an end. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. And thank you. Ms. Emrey-Arras, you are
welcome to address our committee today. Thank you.
Opening Remarks of Ms. Emrey-Arras
Ms. Emrey-Arras. Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member McCollum,
and members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me here
today to discuss the results of the report we issued just last
week on safety and health conditions of BIE schools.
For context, last year we testified before this
subcommittee on the continued challenges Indian Affairs faces
in overseeing and supporting BIE schools. Subsequently, we
testified on Indian Affairs' systematic management challenges
with BIE schools. We concluded that such challenges undermine
its mission to provide Indian students with safe environments
that are conducive to learning. We further noted that unless
steps are promptly taken to address these challenges, it will
be difficult for Indian Affairs to ensure the long-term success
of a generation of Indian students.
My remarks today cover findings and recommendations from
our recent report. Specifically, I will focus on two findings:
one, the extent to which Indian Affairs has information on the
safety and health conditions at BIE school facilities, and,
two, the extent to which Indian Affairs has supported schools
in addressing any safety and health deficiencies.
Regarding the first finding, we found the Indian Affairs
does not have complete and accurate information on safety and
health conditions at all BIE schools because of key weaknesses
in its inspection program. In particular, Indian Affairs does
not inspect all BIE schools annually as required by its own
policy. Safety inspectors in BIA regional offices are
responsible for conducting these annual inspections of all BIE
schools to ensure compliance with Federal and Interior safety
and health requirements.
Nevertheless, we found that 69 out of 180 BIE school
locations were not inspected in Fiscal Year 2015. Further, 54
school locations received no inspections during the past four
Fiscal Years, and some of these schools have not been inspected
since 2008. Indian Affairs' own Division of Safety and Risk
Management, which does not oversee BIA regional safety
inspectors, knows that lack of inspections is a key risk to
Indian Affairs' safety and health program.
We also found that Indian Affairs does not have complete
and accurate information for the two-thirds of schools that it
did inspect in Fiscal Year 2015 because it has not provided BIA
inspectors with updated and comprehensive inspection guidance
and tools. Accordingly, we have recommended that Indian
Affairs, one, ensure all BIE schools are annually inspected for
safety and health, and, two, revise its inspection guidance and
tools. Indian Affairs agreed with these recommendations.
In terms of our second finding, we found that Indian
Affairs is not providing schools with needed support in
addressing deficiencies. Of the schools inspected in Fiscal
Year 2014, about one-third or less had developed required
abatement plans by June of 2015, outlining how they would
correct the deficiencies cited in the inspections.
Furthermore, among the 16 schools we visited, several
schools had not abated high-risk deficiencies within the
timeframes required. Indian Affairs requires schools to abate
high-risk deficiencies within 1 to 15 days. Examples of these
include fire alarm systems that were turned off and missing
fire extinguishers. At one school we visited, the inspection
report listed over 160 serious hazards that should've been
corrected within 15 days. However, the hazards went unaddressed
and were still present during the next year's inspection.
Similarly at another we visited, we found significant
delays in the response to the school's urgent safety issues.
Specifically, a school boiler inspector found elevated levels
of carbon monoxide and a gas leak in 50-year-old boilers in a
student dorm. Although Indian Affairs' policy requires the
school to address these serious deficiencies within 1 day,
school officials told us most repairs were not completed until
8 months later, subjecting students living in the dorm to
potentially critical safety hazards in the meantime.
Indian Affairs has not taken steps to build the capacity of
school staff to abate safety and health deficiencies, such as
offering basic training on how to conduct repairs to school
facilities. We recommended that Indian Affairs develop a plan
to build schools' capacity to promptly address these safety and
health issues. Indian Affairs agreed.
Until Indian Affairs takes steps to implement our
recommendations, it cannot ensure that the learning
environments at BIE schools are safe, and it risks causing harm
to the very children that it is charged with educating and
protecting. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Emrey-Arras follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. I am going to ask some simple
questions here and get this going.
SCHOOL INSPECTIONS
Why is it important that the BIA inspect BIE schools
annually?
Ms. Emrey-Arras. We are dealing with really fundamental
safety issues, like fire safety. We want to make sure that if
there is a fire that there are sprinklers, that there are
alarms, and that children and staff can get out.
Mr. Calvert. What effect has uneven workload distribution
had on BIA safety inspections?
Ms. Emrey-Arras. That is a really good question. We heard
that was one of the reasons why inspections were not occurring,
though it is a bit of a mystery to us because there were
regions that had far more inspections on their plates and they
managed to get them done while others that only had a couple
did not. There was one region that only had two schools but did
not inspect either of them, and one was within walking
distance.
So, we heard the issue about workload, but it is somewhat
of a mystery to us given some of the circumstances we have
learned about.
Mr. Calvert. In that view, were there any example schools
that were not inspected during the past 4 Fiscal Years that
were within driving distance of regional offices?
Ms. Emrey-Arras. Definitely. In addition to the one that
was within 300 yards. Specifically, in the southwest region
where no inspections took place over 4 years, six of the
schools are within the 50 miles of the regional office.
Similarly, in the western region there were no inspections for
the last 4 Fiscal Years, though three schools are within 50
miles of the regional office. While we heard that travel
budgets were an issue, and that may be an issue for schools
that are farther away, we had trouble understanding why it was
an issue for schools that were relatively closer to the
regional offices.
PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS
Mr. Calvert. What authority does Indian Affairs' safety
office have over BIA regional safety inspectors?
Ms. Emrey-Arras. None.
Mr. Calvert. And this question, I guess, to cap it off. Is
it reasonable to expect that every employee, having line
authority over facility inspections also have 100 percent
inspection rate criterion in his or her annual performance
evaluation?
Ms. Emrey-Arras. That is an excellent question, and I am
really glad that this subcommittee has asked us to do further
work around performance management so we can really dig in
deep. I would tell you that a high-level official from the
Agency told us that in his opinion, he felt that people should
be held completely accountable for doing 100 percent of the
inspections. He said it should be rated as ``unacceptable''if
they do not.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Ms. McCollum.
FIRE INSPECTIONS
Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Not that this would be a good fit
everywhere because of distance, but could a tribal nation work
with a local fire department to come out and do fire safety
inspections? Could the Bureau, for basic fire inspections,
figure out some way to make that happen, so that at least at a
minimum, fire inspections are taking place?
Ms. Emrey-Arras. I would defer to the Department on the
interpretation of their own policy. But, I would think that you
would want at a minimum someone checking to make sure that the
systems were working.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, we would have to work with the
tribal nations and work with the Bureau on that, but that might
be a quick way to do fire inspections, and the reimburse fire
departments for travel. There are plenty of places we have been
where there is not a local fire department nearby, but there
were other places in Indian Country where you can see the fire
station across the way.
That would not be for every safety inspection, but at a
minimum to have fire, life, health, and safety, and occupancy
inspections done. But that would have to be done in
partnership, and it might not work everywhere.
What happens to a school when it cannot properly address
these deficiencies? What steps should the BIE be taking to
ensure that they do, and how is the tracking done? You have
started doing these inspections. You turn them over. What has
been the follow-up?
Ms. Emrey-Arras. Right. I think what is of greatest concern
to us is the repeat violations, especially the serious ones.
You have a smaller group that are being inspected, and let us
say you have one that is inspected from year to year. To see in
one case 160 serious hazards reappearing, that is a significant
concern. Those hazards should have been addressed within 15
days, and should not reappear a year later.
Inspections need to happen annually so you know what the
issues are to begin with. If you do not have an inspection, you
do not know what you are starting with. Once you have an
inspection done, you need to make sure that it is done in a
complete way.
There is tremendous variability right now, which is not a
good thing. We heard about an inspector, for example, who did a
drive-by inspection of a school from his car, never got out of
the door and never looked into the 34 school buildings, did a
one-page report, and reported no issues, not surprisingly, with
any of the interiors of the buildings.
So, it is not enough just to have an inspection. You need
to have a good inspection, and that is why we recommended that
the Agency require guidance and instructions to make sure that
they are of a high standard. So you need to have inspections
done, and then you need to be able to document what those
deficiencies are and target the most serious ones and address
them, and work with the schools.
We recommended that the Agency work with the schools to
build capacity to address these deficiencies. The Agency agreed
but did not put forth a plan for doing so. We think it is
important that the Agency develop a plan to build that
capacity, provide training, provide assistance so that people
can, in fact, address the problems.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, I have been a schoolteacher in my
past life, and I was in a building in North St. Paul that the
fire marshal told the school district either replace it, or you
have to cordon it off and not use certain classrooms anymore
because they could not get folks out. It led the school
district to have to pass a bond referendum to build a new high
school. Part of the impetus of that was that the Minnesota fire
inspector along with our local fire inspector finally said
enough is enough.
The chairman was saying, we are going to work together, and
I want to stress this. We have a willing partner in trying to
fix this. But we have to have a plan to fix it, because as more
of these inspections bring things to light, there is going to
be more pent-up demand to do it right. We are not going to want
these children to be sitting there waiting, once we identify
the schools as unsafe.
I want to thank you for your work. Once again, to the
people who were here earlier, this is something that everybody
is working on together. But any inspector that did a drive-by
inspection and said that was a good job is a person who needs
to be held accountable. That is a person who needs to be, in my
mind, disciplined for not doing their job properly, because
that puts a bad reflection on every single Federal employee who
is working so hard to solve this problem. It just paints
everybody with a brush.
At a minimum these fire inspections and occupancy
inspections need to be done. We need to figure out a way to
make those happen, but we also need to know that when we get
that report back, it is going to mean even more work for all of
us to solve this problem. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. Okay, Ms. Pingree, and then there
was something I was going to clarify, but I will do it later.
Ms. Pingree.
Ms. Pingree. I will pass.
BIE SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION
Mr. Calvert. You pass? Okay. I just want to clarify one
point from your testimony and from the questions. Indian
Affairs is wrapping up a new construction list. Is that
correct?
Ms. Emrey-Arras. Yes.
Mr. Calvert. Which is based on school condition, which is
based on inspections, which are not getting done. Is that
accurate?
Ms. Emrey-Arras. Safety inspections feed into a larger
facility data system, along with other types of inspections,
but are limited to looking at fire safety issues, OSHA
standards, and the like. They do not cover everything related
to a building, but the deficiencies that are identified are
supposed to be entered into the larger system, which does bring
up a concern that if you do not have that inspection, you do
not have that data in the system, or if you have the
inspection, but that information is not entered in regarding
the deficiencies, then you are also at a loss and not
benefitting from that knowledge. There are a lot of gaps in the
system.
Mr. Calvert. I think that we all should be concerned about
culturally. If an institution is not doing its most basic
responsibilities, this is a basic responsibility, school
safety, what does that mean to the rest of the institution? I
mean, that begs that question.
Ms. Emrey-Arras. It does not send a promising signal to
those children.
Mr. Calvert. No. Any other questions?
[No response.]
GAO RECOMMENDATIONS
Mr. Calvert. Okay. I guess I have an additional question
here my staff wants me to ask. GAO has built a significant body
of work over the last 3 years on Indian education. Can you take
a few minutes to recap or update us on some of your prior
recommendations that are changing too slowly in your opinion?
Ms. Emrey-Arras. Certainly. Prior to this report that we
released last week, we had several other reports that we have
done for this subcommittee, and we thank you for your
leadership on this front. I think we have made a big difference
because of your efforts.
Of those prior reports, seven of our nine recommendations
are still open. They have not been implemented, and many of
them have to deal with really fundamental issues. For example,
we had done a report on oversight of school spending, making
sure that money is not going, to an offshore account, for
example, and that money is going directly to help students, and
not just sitting around.
And we put forward really basic recommendations, like
having written procedures to oversee school expenditures a
risk-based approach to make sure you are focusing on the
highest risk situations and targeting your oversight there. To
our knowledge, nothing has been done on those, and we think
that those are really critical, especially when funding is
limited to make sure that the funds that are available are
being spent the way that they are intended.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. This is disturbing. Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chair, this goes to our institutional
responsibility as the House of Representatives. I serve on the
Legislative Branch Appropriations Subcommittee. That bill
continues to cut GAO and CRS, which are direct extensions to
our offices. It prohibits us from doing the oversight that we
want to do, that we need to do. I think we need to start
talking to our colleagues on the Appropriations Committee, and
our colleagues in general, as to how much not only have we cut
our personal offices from being able to do things, but we have
cut to the bone, GAO, and inspector general offices, and CRS.
We will start making it impossible for us to do the great
oversight that was done here today, so that we can work in
partnership to solve problems and move things forward for
taxpayers and for people who depend upon us to do our jobs
right.
So, I want to thank you for the report, but I am sure that
there are other things that GAO has been asked to do that they
are not able to do because of cuts that have happened in the
Legislative Branch appropriations over the past several years.
I just wanted that on the record and out there.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady, and I hope at some
point we can come up to a budget agreement, and we can move on
down on some of these issues. That is above my pay grade right
now, but I am working on it.
But I certainly thank you for coming here today and sharing
this information with us, and hopefully we will get the various
agencies to act the proper way. They are all here. They
listened. So hopefully when we asked them for a report here in
a couple of months, we have some positive information that they
can share with the committee.
With that, we are adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Tuesday, March 22, 2016.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY BUDGET OVERSIGHT HEARING
WITNESSES
GINA McCARTHY, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DAVID BLOOM, ACTING CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert
Mr. Calvert. Good morning. The committee will come to
order.
Today, we are joined by Administrator Gina McCarthy and
Acting Chief Financial Officer David Bloom to discuss EPA's
fiscal year 2017 budget. Welcome to both of you.
First, we all woke up this morning to hear about the events
in Brussels. It serves as a reminder that we must maintain our
vigilance and remain united in our common goal of combating
terrorism and fighting extremism. Certainly, our thoughts and
prayers are with the people of Belgium today.
Last year, the budget the President proposed ignored the
spending caps that were then in place. As a result, it offered
unrealistic expectations and created a challenge for agencies
and departments to identify true needs. We need to start this
discussion for the fiscal year 2017 budget on no better footing
with a budget that seemingly abides by the bipartisan spending
caps set forth in October, but half full of gimmicks.
Unfortunately, the President's budget has shifted billions
of dollars from discretionary programs to the mandatory side of
the ledger. This allows the administration to circumvent the
budget constraints while touting support for key investments.
Again, it offers unrealistic expectations about what we can
afford.
On the Interior Subcommittee, we must balance a wealth of
important issues--Indian health care, education, fighting
wildfires, management of lands and resources, protection of
human health and environment. When challenges arise from
natural disasters, manmade disasters, health crises, rising
debt, we need to be strategic and have well-defined plans for
tackling the problems before us. Simply throwing money at
problems has rarely resolved such issues.
It is our job to identify common-sense, long-term solutions
and to prioritize all these issues without adding to our $19
trillion debt. Mandatory spending continues to rise faster than
any portion of the Federal budget, something that they are
discussing at this very moment. Therefore, a budget that
proposes more mandatory spending is woefully out of touch.
In an effort to rebalance expectations, I would like to
explain where we actually are. Under the current budget
agreement, nondefense discretionary spending for fiscal year
2017 has increased by $40 million government-wide. That is $40
million over the entire discretionary government.
Meanwhile, the EPA proposed budget requests $127 million
more than last year. That number excludes another $300 million
proposed outside of the discretionary caps.
Within the budget, the agency is proposing to work on more
regulations while proposing cuts for water infrastructure and
Great Lakes funding. The budget proposes more funding to
implement regulations the courts have put on hold.
Meanwhile, the budget again proposes deep cuts to the
diesel emissions reduction grants, despite the fact that only
30 percent of trucks and other heavy-duty vehicles have
transitioned to cleaner technologies. We need to follow the
science and increase discretionary funding for the DERA program
to accelerate the replacement of older engines with newer,
cleaner engines that actually show progress.
With so much left to do, we are not prepared to cut
discretionary funding for the DERA program by 80 percent, nor
eliminate funding for radon grants when 21,000 lung cancer
deaths per year are directly attributable to exposure to radon.
I hope in today's discussion you can help the committee
understand why the administration does not place a higher
priority on the radon exposure issue, given these startling
statistics.
Turning to policy, it is unavoidably clear the
administration is intent on making select forms of energy
uneconomical or even obsolete. We have seen this play out in
Chairman Rogers' district for the last 7 years, and certainly
Mr. Jenkins' district, via refusal to approve permits to
operate.
The policy continues to spread as the administration
imposes a moratorium on operations on public lands; designates
new monuments; precludes offshore energy development in the
Atlantic and Arctic; adds costs to existing operations via EPA
ozone, methane, and water regulations. And the White House,
with one foot out the door, has promised to double-down on an
antijobs agenda driven by a desire to keep it in the ground as
the clock runs out on this administration.
In the meantime, statutory obligations are put on hold or
given insufficient attention. It is time for a new perspective.
You have a tough job, Administrator McCarthy. We all want
clean air and clean water and a strong, robust economy. It is
not a Republican or Democratic issue. I know that is something
we have often said. We both want a healthy environment and job
creation, and we need a real debate regarding the best way to
incentivize those outcomes rather than a rewrite of
regulations.
But it starts by proposing and operating within a budget
that lives within our means. The people I represent in
California have to live on a budget that reflects what they can
afford, and so too does the Federal Government.
I know all members are interested in discussing various
issues with you today, so I will save my additional remarks for
the period following your testimony.
I am pleased to yield to my friend and our distinguished
ranking member, Ms. McCollum.
Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum
Ms. McCollum. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your
words of solidarity with the people in Belgium this morning.
Terrible conversations parents are having with their children
again as they find themselves under siege, so thank you for
recognizing that tragedy. And we do need to stand together.
I would like to join Chairman Calvert in welcoming
Administrator McCarthy to the Subcommittee. The Environmental
Protection Agency was created to protect human health, the
health of our environment, and to ensure clean air and clean
water is there for our families and children.
In the 1970s, when communities across this Nation saw the
effects of mass pollution on the rivers and in the skies, the
EPA was a bipartisan solution to address this public health
crisis.
I remember how excited both my Republican mother and
Democratic father were that the Federal Government was working
on this.
Because of the success of the EPA, today we often take for
granted the quality of the water we drink from our taps and the
air that we breathe.
This year, however, the critical need for the EPA once
again was unmistakable. Our Nation watched a tragedy unfold in
Flint, Michigan, where children were poisoned by the lead in
their drinking water. The residents of Flint were betrayed by
their State Government and, to this day, still do not have safe
drinking water available from their taps.
The scandal shines a bright light on why it is necessary to
have Federal protections for our environment, our water, and
our public health. Critics often argue that States are the best
able to regulate themselves, but Flint shows us that the
Federal Government working with States has a role to play in
protecting those communities.
And we here in Congress need to look at the underlying law
to ensure that the EPA can step in--can step in--when a State
is ignoring the public health of its residents, the United
States of America's citizens.
Parents should be able to trust that their children are not
being poisoned at school, at their places of worship, and
especially in their own homes.
While the situation in Flint is unique because it was
created by a State's failure to implement existing protections
for its residents, the issue of aging water infrastructure and
lead pipes is pervasive all across this country. It is time for
us to have a serious discussion about infrastructure. It is
unconscionable that in America, the richest country in the
world, there are children whose physical and cognitive
development is being harmed because they lack access to clean
drinking water, which is a basic human right.
Now turning to the budget request, the President's fiscal
year 2017 budget request includes $8.27 billion for the EPA.
That amount is $127 million above the fiscal year 2016 enacted
level.
The request includes increases for core programs, targeting
resources toward those programs that matter most to public
health and our environment. Unfortunately, I do not think the
budget goes far enough.
The budget requests an additional $77 million for grants to
support States and tribes so they can implement their
environmental programs. However, this increase would not even
bring the grants back to 2012 levels.
Furthermore, we all realize the Nation's water
infrastructure is in crisis. Yet, sadly, the Clean Water Act
State Revolving Fund, which is a major funding source for
municipal water infrastructure projects, is slashed by $414
million.
I also must express my disappointment once again that the
administration is proposing to cut $50 million from the Great
Lakes Restoration Initiative. The Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative has made measurable strides in protecting and
restoring the Great Lakes ecosystem, but much more work needs
to be done.
With the great unmet demand for both water infrastructure
and restoration projects, I have to wonder if these cuts were
proposed not on their merits but because the agency was trying
to fulfill requests for other increases within their already
terribly strained budget.
The SRF and the GLRI programs are among the few in EPA that
have strong bipartisan support, so I will be working with
Chairman Calvert to restore these cuts.
I only wish we could have the same kind of bipartisan
support, though, to restore the cuts that the agency core
operations have faced. For 5 years, the EPA has been under
attack and its budget has been slashed. Opponents of the EPA
view this as a victory, but the crisis in Flint, Michigan,
shows what they really were: irresponsible cuts that jeopardize
the EPA's ability to provide State oversight and protect public
health.
I truly hope that something positive can come from this
tragedy, and that it will inspire both sides of the aisle to
come together, as we did in the creation of the EPA, and ensure
proper funding for environmental regulations and for
infrastructure so that no mother or father has to worry that
the water that they are giving their baby is poisonous.
Administrator McCarthy, I really do appreciate the work
that you and all the employees at the EPA do, and I look
forward to your testimony.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. I learn something new every day.
Was your mom a Republican?
Ms. McCollum. You betcha. [Laughter.]
Mr. Calvert. She voted for Richard Nixon.
Ms. McCollum. She did. My father did not. [Laughter.]
Mr. Calvert. Well, one out of two is not bad.
I know Chairman Rogers would have loved to been here this
morning, but we have a conference going on right now, and he
has to be there. I would like to submit his full opening
statement for the record.
Without objection.
[The statement of Chairman Rogers follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Calvert. The ranking member is here this morning, Ms.
Lowey, and I am happy to recognize her.
And her grandson is in attendance, so we are very proud to
have him here.
Ms. Lowey, you are recognized for your opening statement.
Opening Remarks of Ms. Lowey
Ms. Lowey. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am happy to
be here today. And I want to thank Ranking Member McCollum for
your hard work on this committee as well.
I would like to welcome Administrator McCarthy back before
the subcommittee today.
Before I share my remarks, I, too, Mr. Chairman want to
express our heartfelt prayers for all the families who lost
loved ones in another evil act of terrorism and express our
determination to bring the perpetrators to justice.
Thank you.
The Environmental Protection Agency is tasked with ensuring
that our Nation's air and water is safe. I know my constituents
are grateful for your agency's work to clean up the Hudson
River and the Long Island Sound, especially given the economic
significance of those bodies of water to our region and the
Nation as a whole.
The EPA has done good work under your leadership on
lowering carbon emissions and helping the United States do its
part in the global fight against climate change.
Today, I want to talk about an issue that is of great
concern, and that is the Flint water crisis. It is a public
health emergency--8,000 children under the age of 6 could have
been exposed to lead contamination. The long-term ramifications
of that exposure are severe and will not end when the water is
clean. Decades or even a lifetime of difficulty may plague
those affected.
As ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee, I
want to make it clear that I am absolutely committed to making
sure that the Federal Government supports the people of Flint
and the Federal Government holds up our end of the bargain.
I would like to hear from you what went wrong in Flint and
what the EPA will do in both the short term and the long term
to prevent another crisis like this happening on our watch.
We must also ensure that the EPA has the resources to carry
out your mission. You come before us today with a budget
request of nearly $8.27 billion, an increase of $127 million
above current funding. This increase is badly needed.
At a time when we face the glaring threat of climate
change, when the public health and quality of the air and water
are at risk, EPA funding, my colleagues, is nearly 20 percent
below its fiscal year 2010 level--below.
Despite high demand, I am concerned that attacks on EPA
funding will continue to restrict its ability to get the job
done. I hope that this committee can move beyond politics, look
at the science, and provide an increase for the EPA, so it can
adequately protect our public health.
I look forward to your testimony.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
I think it is a point well-made--excuse me. I should get to
your opening statement, and then I will make my comments.
You are recognized, Ms. McCarthy.
Opening Remarks of Administrator McCarthy
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Chairman Calvert, Ranking Member
McCollum, Ranking Member Lowey. It is great to be here, and I
appreciate the members of the subcommittee giving me time
today.
I would like to just briefly discuss EPA's proposed fiscal
year 2017 budget. I am joined by the agency's Deputy Chief
Financial Officer David Bloom.
EPA's budget request of $8.267 billion for the 2017 fiscal
year lays out a strategy to ensure some steady progress in
addressing environmental issues that are crucial to public
health. For 45 years, our investments to protect public health
and the environment have consistently paid off many times over.
We have cut air pollution by 70 percent, and we have cleaned up
half of the Nation's polluted waterways. All the while, our
national economy has tripled.
Effective environmental protection is a joint effort. It is
a joint effort of EPA, the States, as well as our tribal
partners. That is why the largest portion of our budget, $3.28
billion, or almost 40 percent, is provided directly to our
State and our tribal partners.
In fiscal year 2017, we are requesting an increase of $77
million in funding for State and tribal assistance categorical
grants and in support of critical State work in air and water
protection, as well as continued support for our tribal
partners.
This budget request also reinforces EPA's focus on
community support by providing targeted funding and support for
regional coordinators to help communities find and determine
the best programs to address their local environmental
priorities.
The budget includes $90 million in brownfields project
grants to local communities. That is an increase of $10
million, which will help to return contaminated sites to
productive reuse.
This budget prioritizes actions to reduce the impacts of
climate change. It supports President Obama's Climate Action
Plan. It includes $235 million for efforts to cut carbon
pollution and other greenhouse gases through common-sense
standards, guidelines, as well as voluntary programs.
The EPA's Clean Power Plan continues to be a top priority
for the EPA and for our Nation's inevitable transition to a
clean energy economy.
Though the Supreme Court has temporarily stayed the Clean
Power Plan rule, States are not precluded from voluntarily
choosing to continue implementation planning. EPA will continue
to assist those States that voluntarily decide to do so.
As part of the President's 21st century clean
transportation plan, the budget also proposes to establish a
new mandatory fund at the EPA, providing $1.65 billion over the
course of 10 years to retrofit, replace, or repower diesel
equipment, and up to $300 million in fiscal year 2017 to renew
and increase funding for the successful diesel emissions
reduction grant program.
The budget also includes a $4.2 million increase to vehicle
engine and fuel compliance programs, including critical testing
capabilities.
We also have to confront the systemic challenges that
threaten the country's drinking water and the infrastructure
that delivers it. This budget includes a $2 billion request for
the State Revolving Fund and $42 million in additional funds to
provide direct technical assistance to small communities, loan
financing to promote public-private collaboration, and training
to increase the capacity of communities and States to plan and
finance drinking water and wastewater infrastructure
improvements.
The EPA requests $20 million to fund the Water
Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program, which will
provide direct financing for the construction of water and
wastewater infrastructure by making loans for large, innovative
projects of regional and national significance.
This budget also provides $22 million in funding to expand
the technical, managerial, and financial capabilities of
drinking water systems. Included is $7.1 million for Water
Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center and the Center for
Environmental Finance that will enable communities across the
country to focus on financial planning for upcoming public
infrastructure investments, to expand the work with States to
identify financing opportunities for rural communities, and
enhance partnership collaboration with the United States
Department of Agriculture.
EPA is also seeking a $20 million increase in the Superfund
remedial program, which will accelerate the pace of cleanups,
supporting States, local communities, and tribes in their
efforts to assess and cleanup sites and return them to
productive reuse.
EPA's fiscal year 2017 budget request will let us continue
to make a real and visible difference to communities and public
health every day, and provide us with a foundation to
revitalize the economy and improve infrastructure across the
country.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I look
forward to answering your questions.
[The statement of Administrator McCarthy follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
TARGETED AIRSHED GRANTS/DERA
A point was made about the bipartisan effort, and I think
that is true, about the environment over the years. Obviously,
EPA was signed into law by Republican President Richard Nixon.
In my own home State, California, Cal EPA was signed into law
by Ronald Reagan. We also created the South Coast Air District.
Our former colleague, Jerry Lewis, wrote that legislation back
when he was in the State Assembly. Of course, it was signed
into law by then-Governor Ronald Reagan.
Now the Inland Empire, where I live, it is part of the
South Coast air quality district and has been in nonattainment
for ozone as about as long as the Federal standard for ozone
has existed. As I am sure you know, it is not for lack of
trying.
The South Coast Air District has a long history of
implementing some of the most stringent air pollution measures
in the country. We broke ground in many of these instances.
When I played football, I can remember in my early days, I
could not see the goalposts on the other side of the field,
because air quality was so bad. Today, that has totally
changed, and yet the population has tripled in my area in
Southern California.
Nearby, we have two of the busiest ports in the United
States, the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach,
which are responsible for 40 percent of all U.S. container
imports and exports. These containers are loaded onto trucks.
They travel through my district and the rest of the country, so
mobile sources contribute about 80 percent of the air pollution
in the South Coast.
We have made significant progress in improving air quality,
however, as I mentioned. But largely due to topography and the
large volume of transportation that occurs in and around the
Inland Empire, we need some additional resources to make
improvements.
That is why the fiscal year 2015 omnibus renewed our
Targeted Air Shed Grant program to provide additional resources
to areas across the Nation that are similarly struggling to
meet air quality standards and need additional help. The 2016
omnibus built on that by doubling those grants.
With EPA's latest ozone standard of 70 parts per billion,
the South Coast air quality basin will invariably remain out of
compliance. It also may cause other counties to fall out of
attainment with air quality standards.
Unfortunately, I am struggling to understand why this
budget, with all these increases elsewhere, cuts discretionary
funding for DERA by 80 percent and also proposes to eliminate
the Targeted Air Shed Grant program. These programs help
communities work toward the 2008 ozone mandates.
Meanwhile, the budget proposes a $50 million increase for
the Clean Power Plan, which, as you know, the courts have put
on hold.
Can you explain that, Ms. McCarthy?
Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question.
I would congratulate the South Coast for all the work that
it has done and the work that it has done that has improved air
quality tremendously. We will keep working with them, as we
have in the past.
I think the challenge we have for DERA--and we have, as you
indicate, offered a request for $10 million in that account.
Both you and I understand how valuable that program is. One of
the reasons why the President has looked for a mandatory effort
to continue to fund DERA at a much more significant level is
because of that. We know that this program has had great
impact. We are going to continue to support it as best we can,
but there is an opportunity that the President has offered to
have that be done in a different way outside of EPA's budget,
and we would be supporting that effort tremendously.
Mr. Calvert. It is one of the few times that Senator
Feinstein and Senator Boxer and I agree on anything, is the
DERA program, which has been remarkable in its ability to
improve especially particulate pollution in the South Coast
basin, fine particulate pollution.
As you know, we are not going to be getting into mandatory
spending. Realistically, that is not going to happen. So we are
going to have to find money within the discretionary budget to
do that.
With that, Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would defer to my
ranking member of the full Appropriations Committee for any
questions she may have.
FLINT
Ms. Lowey. You are very kind. Thank you very much for your
consideration. This is the busy appropriations season. I think
we have about eight hearings today.
So I welcome you again.
However, I am outraged, as are many of my colleagues, at
the neglect and criminal incompetence that resulted in the
Flint water crisis. It is imperative that the Federal
Government hold up our end of the bargain to end the crisis and
help the community heal.
EPA, as I understand it, is currently on the ground in
Flint assisting with the emergency response, providing
technical assistance. This work is essential to making the city
water supply safe.
This is an emergency, and as a result, EPA could not plan a
budget for the costs associated with this work.
Can you share with us how you much you estimate EPA will
have spent or will continue to spend on Flint this year?
Ms. McCarthy. Ranking Member, as you know, EPA is committed
and we are there in full force in Flint, and we are going to be
there until that water is once again stabilized and it can be
consumed by people with confidence.
So I cannot estimate exactly what the costs are. We know
that we have already identified the need for millions of
dollars of our current budget to be dedicated there. We will
keep at it, and we will find a way to continue to meet our
obligations there.
But as you indicate, it is a long-term strategy. That is
why the Federal Government is there in full force, not just
EPA. So we will be working on the water quality, but we have
Health and Human Services running a Federal emergency response
there that is going to look at some of those longer-term
challenges.
Ms. Lowey. What I am looking at now is what is needed in
addition to what you have already budgeted. It would seem to me
that in order to respond appropriately and adequately, you
would have to take those resources from other programs and
further weaken EPA's ability to protect public health.
Mr. Chairman, I do hope we can act quickly to pass an
emergency supplemental to address not only the Flint crisis,
but also Zika and the opioid crises.
LEAD PAINT RULE
EPA has received a lot of criticism for not updating its
Lead and Copper Rule quickly enough. In fact, it has been an
amazing about-face for my colleagues across the aisle who spent
years filling appropriations bills with policy riders to block
the EPA from regulating. Now, there is unanimity in admonishing
the EPA for not regulating enough.
Frankly, protecting children from lead should not be a
partisan issue.
If you could share with us, how does EPA's Lead Renovation,
Repair and Painting Rule protect children from exposure to
lead?
And, frankly, I remember years ago, even working at the
State level, dealing with the issue of paint with lead in it,
and we were so concerned.
Could you share with us your program?
Ms. McCarthy. There are two ways in which we are responding
to this, Ranking Member.
One is, as you indicated, we are taking a look at lead
exposure from water. So we are looking at our Lead and Copper
Rule. But I want everybody to understand that the challenges
that we faced in Flint were actually a lack of complying with
the current rule. That is essential for us to make sure that
everybody is implementing the current rule while we look at the
next one.
In terms of lead paint, that is a significant exposure
route for lead in our kids, as well as lead in soil. We are
working on all of those issues.
The way that the rule works is to require that when we have
homes that are of a certain age, you have to look and see
whether or not, and test whether or not, you have lead paint.
If you do, you have to use certain work practice standards to
ensure that there is a sealing of the area where you are
working on that lead paint, and that it is removed
appropriately, and it does not provide a route of exposure for
the family moving forward.
The challenge for that rule is that in moving that forward,
it requires every State to pay attention. It requires training
to be done. It requires certification.
For the most part, what we are seeing is that when you have
an older home, they are going ahead and using those work
practice standards, as opposed to relying on the test, because
the test, as you know, continues to be a challenge for us.
So we are going to continue to move that forward, but it
will take a concerted effort. Frankly, we are not moving at a
pace that, certainly, all of us would be comfortable with in
terms of getting lead paint out of kid's homes and getting it
out of the soil, never mind the challenges we are facing in
water.
Ms. Lowey. I want to thank you.
Mr. Chairman, if you recall, in last year's appropriations
cycle, there was a rider, and I offered an amendment to strike
the rider that would have prohibited the EPA from implementing
the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule. While, frankly,
my amendment did not pass in this committee, the ranking member
and I were able to remove it from the final omnibus spending
bill.
I do not think I have any time, but at some point, you can
let us know, had that rider been implemented, how it would have
weakened EPA's tools for protecting children from lead
exposure. It would be very helpful if you can respond to that
in writing, so I can graciously thank the chairman for your
time.
Ms. McCarthy. I would be happy to do that, Ranking Member.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome back to the committee. It is always an exciting
time on our committee when the EPA comes here. As you can tell,
there are sometimes differences between Republicans and
Democrats, and sometimes an agreement between Republicans and
Democrats on such things in the Pacific Northwest.
I will have some questions that I will submit for the
record on fish consumption and where we are on the arsenic rule
and the difficulty of small communities complying with the 10
parts per billion, down from 50, and what means of assistance
might be available to some of these very small communities that
essentially cannot do it.
FLINT
But I want to ask something else. I watched with some
interest, the hearing last week with the Government Oversight
Committee with you and Governor Snyder of Michigan. Quite
frankly, I was dismayed.
There is a lot of finger-pointing going on, a lot of
finger-pointing that is going to be going on for quite some
time. They will write books about this in the future, about
what happened, and what did not happen, and who did what.
The problem is that does not solve the problem.
Ms. McCarthy. Right.
Mr. Simpson. What we need to do is solve the problem.
What I want to know from you is, what should the City of
Flint, the State of Michigan, and the Federal Government,
Congress, be doing to address this problem in Flint? And then,
what are the lessons learned from this moving on? As I
understand it, there are as many as 2,000 communities out there
that might be facing the same type of situation.
If in that answer you could tell me, because I do not know
that people have the solid background on what the demand is out
there in water and sewer systems in this country, what the
total backlog of maintenance of water and sewer systems is in
the country? And how much the Feds along with State and local
communities spend trying to address that backlog each year?
Because at the rate we are going, it is going to take 100 years
to address the backlog that exists today.
I will turn it over to you.
Ms. McCarthy. Congressman, thank you for talking about what
went wrong and what we need to do about it. I think everybody
needs to be accountable for this, including the Environmental
Protection Agency, in terms of how we responded to it.
But getting to the crux of the matter, Flint was a fairly
unique situation. So while we are actively, and I have written
to every Governor and every primacy agency, and I have all of
my regions working with the many over 68,000 systems that
actually are regulated under the Lead and Copper Rule, to take
a look at where they are in their process. How do we get more
transparent?
If people have lost faith in government, let's put the
information out, make sure they are following protocols, a map
where those lead lines are. Let's really get more serious about
this and more transparent. So we are working hand-in-hand with
those States and those cities that continue to have challenges.
It is not an easy issue, and it is going to take a while.
And we have 10 million lead lines out there, so it is a
challenge just to make sure that the water is properly treated.
But also, over time, getting at those lead lines is going to be
essential.
So we are working also on updating the Lead and Copper
Rule, making sure we are implementing but also strengthening
that rule.
But we are looking at a significant challenge in terms of
water infrastructure, as you noted. It is important for us not
to just look at lead but at the system itself, because if you
look at Flint, that was part of the challenge as well. It is
twice as big as it needs to be because of disinvestment in that
community. It has not been invested in in decades.
So you have a system problem that is essential to correct,
which is why I think it is going to take a while before Flint
is back in action. We will get the system stabilized for
corrosion control. But beyond that, there is much work to be
done.
Across the U.S., we took a look at this in 2011 and 2012,
and we estimated that the backlog of need for drinking water up
through 2030 was something on the order of $300-some-odd
billion. I do not have exact figure in my head. But I think
that is a low-ball estimate now. I have heard others estimating
upwards of $600 billion.
Mr. Simpson. That is just water systems?
Ms. McCarthy. This is for drinking water. So we have a real
challenge here.
We also have technologies that were done in the 1950s and
earlier. I love the 1950s, do not get me wrong. It was a good
decade, as far as I am concerned. But we need to keep up that
investment. And we have new, emerging concerns, like arsenic.
How are we going to get those small systems, because the
technology is expensive and we have to resolve this?
We have new contaminants coming in, like PFOA and PFOS, all
of these chemicals that we are finding in pharmaceuticals.
We need not just an upgrade of what used to be, but we need
technologies developed that can actually address the problems
of today and the future.
So we have some real challenges that EPA is operating money
is not going to resolve. It is very good to have $2 billion,
and then to shift that to get more into drinking water, but
there does have to be a larger conversation about how we keep
this core need and right of people in place, as this country
has for decades. We just need to take a step back and think
this through.
RURAL WATER TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Mr. Simpson. I appreciate that. One quick question. You
mentioned in your opening statement that you had $42 million in
technical assistance for water systems in small communities.
You have done away with the rural water technical assistance
program.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Simpson. Does that mean those funds are transferred
over to this account?
Ms. McCarthy. No, it means that we are going to continue to
provide as much resources as we can, but we have different
strategies to try to leverage that a little bit further. We are
working very closely with USDA in our new financing center to
try to figure out how we can work more directly with
communities, rural communities. We have funding that is going
to tribes. We have funding that is going to the Alaskan Native
villages. We have funding that is also dedicated to the Mexico-
U.S. border.
So we are trying to be a little bit more selective to get
at the critical issues as well as more forward-leaning in terms
of how we leverage those funds.
Mr. Simpson. Okay. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
FLINT
About 9 months ago, Congressman Kildee approached me, and I
am sure he approached others on this subcommittee, saying we
need help from the EPA. I said we cannot do that. That is an
earmark for Flint. We did some investigation and we found out
that the Governor could have asked for funding directly and
then that would not have been an earmark.
I have two little follow-ups on Flint, and then I want to
get to another question.
You referenced 10 million miles of pipes, correct? But that
is the public pipe. That is not the pipe that goes from where
the right-of-way ends on a street into somebody's home. I have
communities in my district, St. Paul and Stillwater, with older
homes, and people are now paying a little more attention to
make sure that they are testing for brass and lead.
As your budget has been cut over the years, how has that
affected your ability to do not just a State audit, but an in-
depth State audit--really dig in the way that you would like
to? If you could just take a second to answer that, because I
have another question.
Ms. McCarthy. Okay. Just a second.
There is lead and mostly it is the service lines into the
homes that we have concerns with, as well as lead in the homes.
We are working with that.
You know, everybody's resources are limited. We try to work
with States to make sure that we marry our resources and
effectively get at these issues. We have also tried to provide
some flexibility in State drinking water funds so that we can
use those not just for the public portion, but also you can use
those to help support that private system going in, that lead
line going into the homes.
So we are doing what we can with the budget we have. But
clearly, it is a larger problem that we are facing than we are
able to support and take care of in a short period of time. It
is going to take a long time.
GOLD KING MINE
Ms. McCollum. Thank you. I want to talk about a different
kind of backlog, the abandoned mines issue. Last August, while
you were investigating the Gold King mine, EPA caused an
uncontrolled release that spilled contaminated water from a
mine into Cement Creek, a tributary of the Animas River.
EPA's actions triggered these releases. However, I think it
is really important to be clear that the EPA was only doing
that work because it was stepping in to clean up an abandoned
mine that had been polluting the area for decades. In fact,
that mine was already releasing a steady stream of over 300
million gallons of contaminated water each year.
This country has a legacy of abandoned mines that pose
safety risks to the public and leach pollutants that
contaminate the soil and water. The universe of abandoned mines
is huge. In Colorado, Utah, Arizona, and New Mexico alone,
there are at least 44,000 abandoned mines with no one to hold
liable. It falls on the taxpayer to pay for the cleanup for
these mines. They mine their profits; they close up their
mines; and they have left.
As you are dealing with these issues that we are talking
about today with Flint, you also have a role in cleaning up
pollution from abandoned mines. How many abandoned mines is the
EPA currently working on? What has the EPA been doing for the
Navajo Nation to ensure that their water is properly monitored?
How much assistance, monetary and technical, has the EPA been
giving?
And if I might add, while we are cleaning up these legacy
mine pollution issues, what is EPA doing to make sure that we
do not create another legacy of polluted mines?
Ms. McCarthy. First of all, let me try to quickly answer
your questions.
At this point, I am aware that we are working directly on
probably a little more than a dozen mines, in particular,
working with States. We put that work on hold when Gold King
Mine happened. We are still talking about how we not only make
sure that incident and a release does not happen again, but we
are called in to deal with issues that the States cannot.
That is what happened with Gold King Mine. Everybody was
concerned about a blowout. That is why we were there.
It is challenging. And there are, as you indicate,
thousands of these abandoned mines. We are working on as many
as we can with the resources that we have and our expertise
allows. But we are working on it carefully, and making sure
that that does not happen again, and that we have notification
procedures that are much better than we had when Gold King Mine
happened.
But is, as you indicate, challenging.
We have already, in terms of the answer to the Navajo
Nation, we have already reimbursed the Navajo Nation for their
expenses, which is about $158,000. We have done the same for La
Plata County, San Juan County.
We have an obligation to work with the States as well, and
we are doing that.
But in addition to that, we have been working with the
States and with the affected tribes to put together a long-term
monitoring plan that EPA would support. We have identified $2.4
million, and we are working with States on how best to allocate
that and how we can do that in a way that looks not just at the
Animas River that was directly impacted, but the San Juan River
that was impacted downstream as well.
So we are working through these issues, but you are
pointing out a very large problem that needs a much broader
solution. I think everybody acknowledges that on both sides of
the aisle, that we have abandoned mines that I cannot find
responsible parties for, that States do not have the resources
to address, and we sort of get called in at the last minute to
try to resolve these. It is certainly not an effective cleanup
strategy.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Stewart.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is good to see you. I wish we had more time. This is a
target-rich environment, there is no doubt. There are so many
things that many of us would like to talk to you about.
Ms. McCarthy. That makes me nervous when you use the word
``target.'' [Laughter.]
Mr. Stewart. Well, having seen just parts of some of the
other hearings, I recognize this is not your favorite thing to
do. I get that. But we also feel compelled to engage with you
in some ways about things that many of us are very, very
concerned about.
Ms. McCarthy. Sir, it is an honor to be here.
Mr. Stewart. I appreciate that.
GOLD KING MINE: ANIMAS RIVER
Just an observation, and then I want to get to a specific
question.
The breakdown in trust between just normal folks, just
people, and the Federal Government is something that I think
troubles all of us. I think the approach and the aggressiveness
of the EPA is one of the keys to that. I really do.
I think we have to find a way to do better than we have
done at this, and not to give people the feeling the Federal
Government is going to do what they are going to do regardless
of how local people feel and the concerns that they may have.
I would like to pick up on a line of questioning. I was not
going to do this, but since it came up, I would like to talk
about the Gold King Mine.
To review what I know about that, that came out in recent
hearings, 88,000 pounds of metals released in the Animas River,
which affected Western States, including my own.
Just as a second observation, it is interesting to me how
little media has been paid to this. If a private company had
done this, I cannot help but believe it would have been a very
different media story than what we are seeing now under the
reality that it was the EPA who did it, not a private company.
When you review the EPA's assumptions, from the layout of
what they thought the mine consisted of--I know you know this,
but to state it for the record--that contradicted public
records, assuming the water was only halfway up the mine. They
did not test for water pressure. Even things like the onsite
commander leaving on vacation, leaving instructions that were
apparently discarded or not adhered to.
My question is, can you tell us where your investigation is
and who has been held accountable for what I believe is at
least the dereliction of responsibilities in this? It has been
long enough now. We should know what happened and who was
responsible and how they have been held accountable.
Ms. McCarthy. Sir, we have both done an internal
investigation at EPA that has been provided publicly. The
Office of Inspector General has looked at it. We looked for and
received an independent investigation by the Department of the
Interior. So we believe we have provided information to folks.
Just for a factual basis, EPA was there working with the
State and with the Animas River group to try to figure out how
to be helpful here. There is no question that the work that we
did resulted in the blowout. But I do not want anyone to think
that EPA was there at the time of the blowout to do anything
other than to continue the preparatory work for when the lead
was coming back and we are going to continue to consult with
BLM and others on how best to address this issue.
It was a mistake. Have I found anyone that did not act
responsibly and that should have known better? So far, the
independent analysis that we are seeing has not identified
negligence. But we are still continuing to look at the issue,
and we would welcome anyone else doing that as well.
Having said that, we had a release there, and it was a
large release. That is what we were trying to avoid. It was 3
million gallons, and we are going to make good on making sure
that that did not have a long-term impact.
We do not see a short-term impact as a result of that,
because, frankly, 300 million gallons of contaminated water is
released into that Cement Creek and into the Animas River every
single year. So 3 million sounds like a lot, but in the context
we are trying to get at these things in a piecemeal way.
Certainly, it was not successful in terms of the preparatory
work, and it did cause this spill.
Mr. Stewart. Well, in conclusion, I think the challenge you
have is to fight the perception, if it is only a perception,
and I am not certain that it is, but to fight the perception
that the Federal Government treated themselves differently than
they would have treated a private company. Because I think
there is a consensus among at least my constituents that there
is a double standard here, and that this is evidence of a
double standard.
Ms. McCarthy. I really appreciate it, sir. You are
absolutely right that we need to make it very clear that we are
holding ourselves fully accountable for this.
I do wish that some of these abandoned mines had
individuals we could hold accountable, but that is not the way
the law and the process is structured.
But I thank you. You are absolutely right. We need to be
clear about what we are doing and why, and be held fully
accountable for this.
Mr. Stewart. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Kilmer.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks for being back with us.
PUGET SOUND
I think you know one of the most important challenges in
the region I represent is the recovery of Puget Sound. In
recent years, we have taken some steps in the right direction.
For that, I want to recognize the EPA and your regional
administrator Dennis McLerran, and Peter Murchie, who is the
Puget Sound program manager, for the hard work they have done.
You got to see just how important Puget Sound is to our
region when you came to visit in 2014. We would like to invite
you back this year. Your local team has done an excellent job
with the resources that they have available.
Having said that, I think we can all agree that we have a
long way to go on addressing this challenge. I hope you had a
chance to see a recent study that was done by NOAA and
Washington State University that documents the fatal impacts of
stormwater runoff on coho salmon as they are entering the
sound.
Unfortunately, the study confirms what a lot of us already
knew, which is that toxic runoff is damaging water quality and
hurting key resources like salmon and shellfish that are not
just important from an environmental ethic, but are critical
drivers of our economy.
Chairman, Ranking Member, if there is no objection, I would
ask for a copy of this report to be submitted into the record.
Mr. Calvert. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Kilmer. Sadly, this is just one of the challenges we
have facing Puget Sound. Stormwater is one piece of it--habitat
loss, ocean acidification, coastal erosion, the list goes on.
The impacts of these challenges are being felt throughout
our communities, certainly felt throughout our economy, with
the impact to our fisheries. It is perhaps most acutely felt by
the Native American tribes with treaty rights to harvest fish
and shellfish from this watershed, 11 of which are in my
district.
So let me ask a question. The funds provided through the
Puget Sound Geographic Program and the National Estuary Program
are critical to supporting the recovery effort.
Can you discuss how the investments made in the EPA's
fiscal year 2017 budget will advance this work and whether
requested funding levels actually get us there?
Ms. McCarthy. First of all, let me say that your leadership
has been incredibly important, and the Puget Sound program is
filled with incredibly dedicated people. I am happy that we are
able to at least seek some additional support for that, which
we see primarily dedicated towards riparian buffers, because as
you indicate, that is a significant challenge.
But there is much work that remains. I think the region is
intimately involved in understanding what we need to do to
protect Puget Sound. It is going to take a variety of actions
that we are engaged in and things we have not even begun to do.
So this is in no way a done deal, but frankly, the
geographic programs have been a great opportunity for us to
focus attention on critical estuaries and resources that
otherwise would get lost competing for money. So we are
perfectly happy to continue to work with the Puget Sound
program to see how we could support that effort in a variety of
different ways, including using our other statutory tools that
are available to us.
Mr. Kilmer. So in that regard, I know the EPA is not alone
in this effort. There are other Federal players, State players,
tribal players, local partners. Can you talk about how the EPA
is coordinating those recovery efforts, and if there are any
additional resources or authorities that you think are needed
to better align those activities?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I certainly know that there are other
Federal agencies involved in the program and coordinating with
us. They provide resources. For example, NOAA is certainly
intimately involved in these issues, as is DOI and USDA. We
align our resources as best we can.
I think that it is a good collaboration and one in which I
think the Puget Sound program helps to identify, but always
improvements can be made. We would certainly be open to
suggestions of how we may do that.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Jenkins.
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CLEAN POWER PLAN: WEST VIRGINIA COAL MINES
Today, we have before us the President's request to fund
what I see as the final chapter in this administration's war on
coal. For almost 8 years, the administration has
unapologetically and systematically worked to shut down our
country's most abundant, reliable, and cheapest form of energy:
coal.
What this administration and the EPA do not understand is
what their actions have done to the people of West Virginia.
So, Ms. McCarthy, in your official role as the head of the
EPA, have you actually been to West Virginia in the last 3
years?
Ms. McCarthy. I cannot recall.
Mr. Jenkins. I know you were invited. So since you have
refused to come to West Virginia, you simply do not understand,
in my opinion, how your agency has devastated my State.
Here is what life is like for many families in southern
West Virginia. Coal jobs have plunged more than 50 percent in
just the last 5 years. These are good jobs. According to the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average wage of a coal miner is
over $84,000 a year. Compare that to our State average wage,
which is less than $37,000 a year.
Coal jobs provide a true living wage that can support a
family. Coal jobs also come with really good benefits, a
pension, and health care benefits a retiree can count on. But
not anymore. The bankruptcies of our country's largest coal
companies have left pensioners and widows desperate for help.
And because of your actions, West Virginia now has one of
the highest unemployment rates in the entire country.
For the past few months, I have been sharing the stories of
West Virginia families on the House floor as part of my West
Virginia coal voices project. Mothers, fathers, coal miners,
small-business owners, they are all worried about their future.
April Brooks of Mercer County is the wife of a coal miner.
She says she wonders if her family has a future in West
Virginia. Here is what she wrote me: Like every family that
depends on coal for a living, we live day to day, worrying
about what will happen tomorrow. You cannot plan for the future
because of the uncertainty. We love our State, but how does one
stay here and survive, if the jobs are not there?
Administrator, your war on coal impacts so many more people
and businesses than just the thousands of direct mining jobs.
Teresa Haywood of McDowell County, she owns a small
business and her customers are affected by the coal layoffs.
Here is what she wrote me: Our business has dropped majorly,
and I am struggling day to day just to try to decide to pay the
bills or to restock. People keep asking me, am I going to keep
my business open?
The war on coal also affects our schools, our police, our
fire departments, all of which are funded by coal severance
taxes. In just the last few years, severance tax revenue has
dropped by nearly $150 million in West Virginia.
As coal mines shut down, communities have less and have to
make tough decisions.
Stacy Walls of Boone County reached out to me concerned
about her son's future. Here is what she wrote me: My County is
closing my son's school due to not having coal tax revenues
that help keep it open. My son's education is now going to
suffer because of the war on coal.
This Congress is trying its best to stop your agenda, an
ideologically-driven agenda hell-bent on shutting down the use
of fossil fuels for energy production.
We have used the power of the purse and included policy
riders on funding bills. We have supported the legal challenges
brought by a majority of the States, led by Democrats and
Republicans alike, trying to stop your regulatory overreach.
The Supreme Court has already said you erred in not
considering the economic costs of your regulations, the kinds
of things I have been talking about.
And the Government Accountability Office said you used
covert propaganda and grassroots lobbying in violation of
Federal law.
But despite our best efforts, you have succeeded in
wrecking our economy and ruining the lives and livelihoods of
thousands of our citizens.
Regardless of one's belief in the President's climate
change agenda, his drive--your drive--to succeed has been
devastating to the people of West Virginia and to the tens of
thousands of others across this country who work to fuel this
Nation.
Administrator, West Virginians are a proud people. We want
to work. We want to provide a better future for our children.
Let us do the work we have done for generations, work that
provides a good paycheck and keeps the lights on.
And until you actually visit the coalfields of West
Virginia, you will never understand the impact of your actions.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
I guess the question is, are you planning on visiting West
Virginia before the end of the year?
Ms. McCarthy. I will take that under consideration, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. It is a beautiful State to visit, by the way.
Next is Mr. Israel.
Mr. Israel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
LONG ISLAND SOUND
Administrator McCarthy, I want to shift from one sound to
another sound, from Puget Sound to Long Island Sound.
Not to belabor Mr. Jenkins' point about you not visiting
West Virginia, but I have to say I am disappointed that you
were not able to visit Long Island Sound. I understand that you
had a crisis in Colorado that you had to attend to. I hope that
the book is not closed on that. You can come to Long Island and
get a flight to West Virginia. It is not that hard. Maybe it is
hard. [Laughter.]
Mr. Israel. So I do hope that you will consider visiting
Long Island Sound.
The Long Island Sound, which is important particularly to
Ms. Lowey and I and so many others, generally receives funding
of about $4 million a year. The President's budget requests $3
million. $4 million is about half of what the Long Island Sound
actually needs. $3 million is $1 million less than it has been
getting.
I am very deeply concerned about the adequacy of those
resources. The Long Island Sound is the biggest economic
generator in my region. It may not be coal for us, it is the
Long Island Sound. Billions of dollars of economic activity. If
we were a company town, the Long Island Sound would be our
company.
The declining level of Federal resources is not just a
problem for us in terms of protecting our environment. It is a
problem for us in terms of protecting our economy.
The good news is that there is bipartisan legislation
introduced by my colleague on Long Island, Mr. Zeldin, and I
that would reauthorize the Long Island Sound Restoration and
Stewardship Act. We were able to pass this legislation about 10
years ago with a former Republican Member from Connecticut, Mr.
Simmons. It was signed by President Bush and approved by the
House of Representatives.
The bill was passed unanimously in the Senate Environment
and Public Works Committee. We are hoping that it will be on
the floor, before too long, in the House.
The problem that I have is, if this bill is passed, and I
expect that it will be because it has always been bipartisan,
we are looking at the potential of $65 million of grant
opportunities and the Long Island Sound Geographic Program
office is inadequately funded the task.
So I am hoping that you can talk to us about, why $3
million? What do we need to do to increase that investment? And
will the Long Island Sound Geographic Program office have the
resources necessary to attend to the tasks?
Ms. McCarthy. First of all, thank you, Congressman. I think
you know how much I care about Long Island Sound as well. It is
an incredible resource for the region, but it is an incredible
ecological resource.
And it is challenged. It is challenged because so many
people live around it that depend on it.
So the funding is not a reflection of the agency's lack of
interest and enthusiasm for its protection. It is just budget
realities in terms of how we can continue to move forward.
You are right that we are proposing a decrease in that
funding, but we also are maintaining $2.8 million, almost $3
million in investment there. We are confident that the program
can continue to run, but I think you are right in terms of
looking at what are the opportunities for additional funding
that is needed to be brought to the table to make sure that we
can continue to make steady progress.
We are making some difficult choices, and I cannot
apologize for that but I certainly know that EPA cannot turn
around Long Island Sound and protect it without significantly
more resources from the neighboring States, as well as other
ways in which we can potentially leverage those funds.
Mr. Israel. Thank you. I do hope that your staff and my
staff can review the invitation and that you can find time to
visit. Thank you.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. I am sure we will be working
together on that issue.
Next, Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
GLRI
I would like to ask you, Administrator McCarthy, a few
questions about the Great Lakes.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Joyce. The Great Lakes are the largest system of
surface freshwater on Earth, containing 20 percent of the
world's surface fresh water, and 95 percent of the United
States' surface fresh water. The watershed includes two
nations, eight U.S. States, two Canadian provinces, and more
than 40 tribes.
How will the administration's proposed $50 million cut to
the GLRI impact our ability to restore and maintain the
environmental integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem?
Ms. McCarthy. As I indicated, there are some difficult
decisions. It is still proposing $250,000--I am sorry, $250
million. You know that. That would be a real dramatic change.
Mr. Joyce. Yes, it would be. Considering we started at $475
million, and you have been proposing cuts was ever since.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
We understand the value of the Great Lakes. We are trying
to coordinate, and I think we have done a good job at enhancing
coordination across the Federal family to support the effort
there, because that is what it needs to be.
There are remaining challenges. The $50 million that we are
suggesting in a cut is just a reality of trying to face our
budget constraints. But we are certainly open, and we know that
there will continue to be a lot of push for that to be
restored. We are happy to talk about what other kind of
leveraging we can do.
We know we have work to do. We have done great so far, but
the work remains in terms of looking at harmful algal blooms,
looking at invasive species, looking at those areas of concern
and continuing to make progress. There are a lot of challenges
that are being faced that are worthy of significant investment,
if that money was available.
Mr. Joyce. I want to discuss areas of concern.
Since 2010, three areas of concern have been delisted, one
of the areas being the Ashtabula River in my district. As EPA
personnel were on site, as though it was on cue, an eagle flew
overhead.
Which areas of concern will have to postpone restoration
work, if you cut the GLRI by $50 million?
Ms. McCarthy. I actually am not aware that any of those
sites would be postponed, but I certainly can get back to you.
I think mainly we are looking at maintaining those resources to
those efforts. We have a number that are targeted this year,
but let me go back and I will get you that information, if I
could.
[The information follows:]
Great progress has been made in cleaning up Areas of
Concern. Since the start of the Great Lakes Restoration
Initiative, the Presque Isle Bay (PA), Deer Lake (MI), and
White Lake (MI) Areas of Concern have been delisted and the
remediation and restoration actions necessary for delisting
were completed at an additional four Areas of Concern,
including Ashtabula River (OH), Sheboygan River (WI), St. Clair
River (MI), and Waukegan Harbor (IL). These Areas of Concern
will be delisted once all of their beneficial use impairments
have been removed. Because the EPA has prioritized Areas of
Concern restoration, the EPA does not expect that restoration
at any areas of Concern will have to postponed in the near
future.
Mr. Joyce. I learned a great lesson from Representative
Kaptur. She has pictures of the Asian carp, which are ugly
fish, and unfortunately I do not have any pictures with me
today. The GERI has been central to the efforts to keep self-
sustaining populations of silver, bighead, and black carp out
of the Great Lakes, the GLRI Invasive Species' laws area
received $57 million in FY 2016 to combat invasive Species such
as Asian carp. Your budget would cut Invasive Species' funding
to $43.6 million. In 2015, juvenile Asian carp advanced 66
miles closer to Lake Michigan. How will the proposed funding
reduction impact efforts to prevent carp from spreading
further?
Ms. McCarthy. Again, sir, I do not have exact
identification of where the funding cuts would be made. I
appreciate your concern for this.
A video is even better than pictures, because it is pretty
frightening.
I know that is one of the areas of priority for funding
moving forward.
ALGAL BLOOMS
Mr. Joyce. In the past 2 years, there have been harmful
algal blooms on Lake Erie that have impacted access to safe
drinking water for residents, including, in Toledo, which is in
Ms. Kaptur's district.
The 2015 harmful algal bloom on Lake Erie was recorded as
the largest bloom this century. The GLRI `Nonpoint Source
Pollution Impacts on Nearshore Health' focus area received $49
million in FY 2016, in part to address the situation on Lake
Erie. The administration's FY 2017 budget would cut Nonpoint
Source Pollution Impacts on Neighbor Health funding to $43.5
million.
In February, you joined Canada's Environment and Climate
Change Minister, Catherine McKenna, to announce that Canada and
the U.S. adopted targets to reduce phosphorus entering affected
areas of Lake Erie by 40 percent. How will the proposed fiscal
year 2017 funding level help us achieve this goal?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, it certainly will continue the momentum
moving forward. There certainly has to be a larger conversation
about how quickly we can achieve those goals working with State
and local communities, and how best to do that. But it
maintains, I think, the emphasis on the program in a way that
our budget accommodates.
Certainly, we are still open to whether or not those
budgets are aligned effectively, whether they are targeted
appropriately, how we can work with USDA on some of these
issues.
I sympathize with what is going on in western Lake Erie,
but it is also happening in many other parts of the country,
and we have to address this issue systemically as well as in a
targeted way as the GLRI done this.
Mr. Joyce. Obviously, this really bothers me. Until people
lose a potable water supply, they do not understand and
appreciate the fact that there is not a redundant water supply.
For years, every year I have been here, we have watched the
administration cut funding for GLRI. We have tremendous
bipartisan support for the GLRI, we are doing our best to
protect and preserve not just a lake or a series of lakes, but
a national treasure, and we need to treat it that way. We need
to continue to treat it that way.
The administration should be out front on the issue and
work with our international partners to make sure that these
efforts are coordinated.
Ms. McCarthy. I appreciate that, sir. I am not trying to
put you in a position of doing heavy-lifting, but we are trying
to meet the Bipartisan Budget Act numbers.
I would also just, as an aside, recognize that part of the
challenge we had in Toledo, it was twofold. It was one of the
harmful algal blooms, but it was also a lack of investment, so
it goes back to that overall look at what we do with water
infrastructure and how we get resources that can help
communities address these challenges to update, because that is
what essentially was missing in that scenario.
Mr. Joyce. Also, dredging the channel and dropping the
sediment back in the lake, instead of placing the sediment
aside.
Ms. McCarthy. That is another challenge as well. I know you
have been active in that. You have been active in many ways
that I think recognize the value of the Great Lakes to your
region, and it is of enormous concern to all of us.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you. I Have no further questions.
Mr. Calvert. I thank the gentleman.
Ms. Pingree.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you, Administrator, for being with us today. I know
this is not an easy job, and you certainly have had a lot of
challenges in recent times.
I want to take us on a somewhat different path. I am
interested in the topic of food waste. I know the EPA has set
some interesting goals.
I know my colleagues are riveted by this topic. [Laughter.]
FOOD RECOVERY ACT
Ms. Pingree. But 40 percent of the food in this country is
wasted, and we have a lot of hardworking farmers and others who
spend a lot time to produce that food and we have a lot of
people going hungry in this country, so it is a very serious
issue. I have introduced a bill called the Food Recovery Act,
because I do think this is something that we have to take on
and challenge.
I am very pleased that the EPA and the USDA have set
national food waste reduction goals, which is a 50 percent
reduction by 2030 in the amount of food we waste. I was very
happy to be on a panel the other day with Mathy Stanislaus, the
assistant administrator in the Office of Solid Waste in your
organization.
Clearly, you have people out there working hard on it. But
now you have this big goal. I know a little bit about how hard
it is to tackle some of these issues at all levels of how we
waste food.
Can you talk to me a little more about what the EPA's goals
are and what you are doing to make this a reality?
Ms. McCarthy. As you indicated, we have embraced with USDA
an opportunity to look at food waste more successfully, given
how much is actually wasted, and how many people in this
country have food insecurity. There has to be a way to mix and
match in making sure that we are recovering that waste and
shipping off what is usable to reach those families in need.
That is what the challenge is all about.
We are working on it in a number of different ways. I think
the program I would most note is our Food Recovery Challenge,
which is really just about connecting with supermarkets to see
how they buy, how they donate, working with local restaurants,
working with food shelters, connecting those dots.
We have now done extensive outreach to the faith community,
to try to activate them, because, as you know, poverty and food
issues are central to most faith constituencies. So they are
great in working with us both on water quality, as well as this
effort.
We are open to any suggestions on how we move this forward,
but there seems to be a building momentum on this. That is a
good thing. It is all the way upstream to agriculture where the
food is produced to getting it to the tables where the food can
be consumed, especially by those most in need.
But it is a big lift to go from where we are today, which
is close to 40 percent wasted, to actually meeting and having
that in a fairly short period of time.
But people seem energized and engaged. It is not a largely
resourced effort of EPA or USDA. I think both Secretary Vilsack
and I are committed to making sure we leverage our resources
wisely, but really do it in a way that engages outside
constituencies who see this as such a core effort moving
forward. It is exciting to see it building some momentum.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you for that. I appreciate that you are
trying to look at it at all levels and work with the USDA.
Along with the challenges of making sure our food gets into
the hands of people who need it and are hungry, there are some
serious environmental challenges of how to dispose of food
waste and the gases produced.
Ms. McCarthy. And the methane it produces.
Ms. Pingree. Right, which is much more toxic than many of
the gases we worry about. Plus, it is a huge cost to
municipalities.
One of the challenges when we try to do something about a
problem with limited resources is how the agencies coordinate.
How is that going between you and the USDA, since you are kind
of the two key agencies on this?
Ms. McCarthy. I think we are coordinating well, but we also
are looking at having a much more robust strategy. I think it
goes well beyond the few people we are dedicating to food
recovery. It is just not commensurate with the challenge or,
frankly, the real opportunity that we see.
But we will continue to work. We need a strategy that will
get us to meet that 2050 goal, and we are working on how best
to do that.
Ms. Pingree. I appreciate that. I will have another
question, if we get a second round, but I did want to make just
a quick comment on Mr. Jenkins. I am sorry he is no longer
here.
I feel very, very sympathetic for any rural State that has
to deal with the loss of high-paying jobs. I know in the State
of Maine, we have lost a tremendous number of our paper mills.
It seems to be happening at a rate higher than people can even
fathom.
Those are the same kinds of jobs. They are high-paying
jobs. They come with benefits. It is staggering, particularly
in a rural State, when those things change.
CLEAN POWER PLAN
But I just wanted to add sort of another perspective, since
Maine tends to be the State at the end of the tailpipe, and
coal-fired power plants have been a huge issue for our State
for a long time. You think about going to Maine and you think
about, pristine air, this wonderful State on the ocean. But,
frankly, we have some of the worst air in the country.
One in 10 people in Maine have asthma. We have a tremendous
number of children with asthma. It is one of the biggest
reasons for emergency room admission, and it is the fourth most
common reason that people miss going to work. So people who
have jobs often cannot go because they have asthma.
So I just wanted to add in the other perspective, that
while I am very sympathetic about the loss of jobs, and Mr.
Rogers is here too, and he represents so many important coal
country communities, but it is a huge challenge, making sure
that those of us who really suffer from the air at the other
end are also able to have clean air. We must reduce the amount
of very costly illnesses and tragic situations that many people
are in because of that.
So I wanted to thank you from the other side, and I know it
is not easy. I know we are always trying to deal with that
balance. It is tricky. So thank you for that.
Mr. Calvert. With that, I am happy to recognize our full
committee chairman, Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CLEAN POWER PLAN: KENTUCKY COAL MINES
There are over 10,000 miners in my district who found
themselves unemployed as a result of your keep it in the ground
strategy when it comes to coal. This committee has acted time
and again to protect the mining industry and the hardworking
people who they employ from the devastating impact of the
actions of your agency.
I have to imagine that you understand how these regulations
have led to many counties in my district grappling with 15
percent or 20 percent unemployment. But can you imagine what it
must be like for that miner, that father with small children,
formerly making $70,000, $80,000, all of a sudden trying to
find a job at McDonald's, unsuccessfully, at minimum wage with
small children, car payments, home payments, house payments,
and school payments.
It is devastating. Nevertheless, here you are, asking for
more taxpayer money to put toward this job of killing coal. In
fact, you have asked for an additional $50 million for the
EPA's Clean Power Plan.
Since the Supreme Court issued that stay of your final
regulations implementing the Clean Power Plan last month, I
have seen conflicting reports regarding the deadlines for State
actions that were included in the final rule. My understanding
is that the Justice Department, in opposing the stay, advised
that the deadlines would be delayed for the duration of the
stay. But Acting Assistant Administrator McCabe recently
indicated that the deadlines may remain in effect.
Can you assure us today that the agency will, as you have
done when implementing other rules, delay the deadlines and the
rule until the courts have issued their final decision?
Ms. McCarthy. I am happy to answer that question.
The Supreme Court did stay the rule. They did not speak to
any tolling of the deadlines. This is a rule where compliance
is quite far off into the future. So that issue will clearly be
decided either by the Supreme Court or if they choose to give
it to the lower court or to EPA to work through. There are a
variety of ways that those issues get resolved. But it was not
spoken to by the Supreme Court in its decision.
EPA LOBBYING
Mr. Rogers. In December, the Wall Street Journal reported
that the Energy and Environment Legal Institute obtained emails
indicating that EPA worked with environmental lobbyists in
secret to craft its Clean Power Plan. The correspondence they
obtained made it clear that this group of lobbyists with ties
to extreme environmental groups like the Sierra Club, NRDC, and
Clean Air Task Force, worked with the agency to craft a CO2
emissions standard that would be impossible for existing coal
plants to meet.
Essentially, EPA worked with these extreme
environmentalists to ensure that under the rule all existing
coal-fired power plants would have no choice but to close.
There is no question that the Clean Power Plan will
fundamentally alter the energy economy in this country and put
thousands of hardworking men and women who are employed in the
coal industry out of work.
Why is the EPA allowing these individuals who are not
employees of this agency to be so heavily involved with the
drafting of rules with such significant impact?
Ms. McCarthy. Sir, I will assure you that EPA drafted this
rule. We had an open-door policy from day one, and we worked
for years before we even proposed a rule, to make sure we heard
from everyone.
We believe the standards are reasonable and not just
appropriate but cost-effective as well, or else we would not
have established them. So we are not looking to preclude coal
from being a significant part of the energy system. Indeed, we
project it will continue to be.
But we do believe that facilities can comply, and we think
States will be able to meet the requirements under the Clean
Power Plan.
Mr. Rogers. Well, the truth is that power plants cannot
possibly physically do what you would require, so they have no
choice but to switch to something else. It is impossible,
physically impossible, for them to meet your requirements.
What do you say to that?
Ms. McCarthy. Sir, the way the Clean Power Plan works is
that States make decisions instead of individual utilities on
how they are going to comply, because that is the way the
energy system works. It is done regionally, primarily.
We just wrote it in a way that we thought would be the
least expensive, the less invasive, get us significant
pollution reductions, but work within the energy system rather
than EPA imposing on that energy system a new structure of
decision-making.
So we think it is consistent with the way the energy system
works, that utilities will be able to work with this, that
States should be able to manage this. And we are working hard
to continue with States voluntarily looking to move forward to
continue to support those actions.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thanks, Chairman.
Ms. McCollum.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I was going to ask another question, and I really would
like to get that in after this, but right now I want to follow
up on what Chairman Rogers was saying.
CLEAN POWER PLAN
In my own congressional district in St. Paul, I had an
electric utility that made the decision to convert from coal to
gas. But they also have a coal-fired plant in Stillwater,
Minnesota on the St. Croix River. We also have nuclear. We have
solar. We have wind. We just would like to have more funding
going to R&D, so we can capture it and store it in a battery.
In Minnesota, Governor Dayton and our Legislature has
decided to move forward, as have other States, knowing that
coal will be part of the mix, but also making sure that we do
what we can to protect our air and water.
Could you please let us know how many States are responding
in a way that moves forward with emissions reduction? And are
you going to have the resources available to help those States
move forward that are choosing to do so?
And then I have a question regarding tribal issues.
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you so much for letting me respond.
There are about 25 States that at least have sent signals
or continue to work with us directly. Frankly, most States
continue to talk about this and work on it, because the Clean
Power Plan is legally solid, and I think everybody wants to get
a jump on how they are looking at planning to respond to that.
So about 25 States are continuing to voluntarily ask us for
assistance and work on----
Ms. McCollum. And in my State, my utility is working hand
in hand.
Ms. McCarthy. Utilities are very engaged in this issue,
because, frankly, the energy system is transitioning already,
and they are trying to understand what their investment should
look like now so that they prepare for what is inevitably a
low-carbon future.
So we are going to continue to work with that. This budget
reflects about $50.5 million, $25 million of which would be
supplied to States that continue to voluntarily want to move
forward, and the other $25.5 million is really about us
continuing to develop tools that respond to their requests and
continue to work with those States that want to voluntarily
work with us.
But it in no way is running contrary to the Supreme Court
stay. We are not implementing or enforcing the law while it
goes through the courts. Everybody sort of expected it would go
through the courts anyway.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
GLRI-TRIBAL GRANTS
Last week, the subcommittee spent 2 days listening to
Native American tribal leaders in public witness testimony. One
thing we heard concerns about was the discrepancy on how the
tribes are requesting and what they are actually receiving from
the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. Tribes are an essential
partner in restoring the health of the Great Lakes. The process
of solidifying grants must be fair for all applicants,
especially tribes.
I believe, and I think there are other committee members
here who would agree, that is imperative that tribal nations
have the resources and the staff to develop competitive grant
proposals, so that they are able to manage and protect their
natural resources. Speaking for many of the tribes in the Great
Lakes area, they have terrific working relationships with their
State partners.
Could you either tell us now or later how many grants have
been awarded to tribes since 2010 when GLRI was launched? What
has been the total amount of funding awarded to tribes? What
kind of engagement is EPA doing with tribes to ensure that
their grant proposals are competitive?
This also affects another issue, and here again I commend
Governor Dayton. He proposed legislation to work with tribal
nations to secure rights to hunt and gather to support their
traditional diet in the Ojibwe culture. He has heard, I am
sure, from tribal leaders, as I have, that they want to make
sure that the habitat that they hunt and fish in is not
damaged.
Can you tell me how the EPA is working to keep waterways
healthy enough to support tribal treaty rights, traditional
subsistence foods, and how aggressively you are making sure
that tribal consultation is moving forward, especially in the
area of the sulfide mining?
Ms. McCarthy. I am happy to follow up with you. Thank you.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
CLEAN POWER PLAN
Mr. Calvert. Just a comment, and then I have a question. I
have been charting the coal industry for some time. From the
book value of those corporations, they have been driven to near
zero. Bankruptcies, you obviously read about in the newspaper.
So if the administration plan was to destroy that industry,
it appears that you have succeeded.
Ms. McCarthy. The only thing that I can tell you, sir, if
you look back to the 1980s, you will see that there has been a
consistent decline in that industry, and that is well before we
had a climate plan.
Mr. Calvert. Nothing like we have seen in the last number
of years.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, it is very challenging for particularly
the coal from the Appalachia area to be competitive right now
in the market.
But EPA specifically tried to identify a way to deliver the
Clean Power Plan in a way that would not interrupt the pattern
of how the market works, but it does underpin it. But it does
not change the direction in which we think the energy system is
happening on its own, as a result of market forces.
Mr. Calvert. I am going to change directions entirely and
talk about pesticides.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
CITRUS GREENING
Mr. Calvert. This may be something that may be going to the
top of your to-do list, because of the numbers of problems that
are coming to the United States.
I do not want to be an alarmist but obviously we know about
the citrus industry in Florida and the psyllid issue. That is
also moving across the country, including to my home State of
California. We have already experienced the Pierce's disease,
which has another insect, glassy-winged sharpshooter, which is
the vector.
EPA had granted waivers in order for us to fight that
disease, or the grape industry would have been crushed in the
wrong way. And we would have had a devastating effect on our
wine industry, and we need wine right now as a country to get
through from day to day. [Laughter.]
ZIKA VIRUS
Mr. Calvert. Lastly, and more seriously, now the Zika
virus. The chairman and I were just recently in South America.
We visited laboratories that are working on trying to get ahead
of this problem. I think the chairman would agree we were very
concerned after the briefings we received that the spread of
this mosquito across certainly right now in Puerto Rico and
moving into Florida, that there may be a need for pesticides to
be used.
I know at some point you have to make decisions. You have
to balance the health and welfare of the citizens versus maybe
in some respects the environment, to fight this mosquito, which
apparently is a very hard mosquito to kill.
I am sure you probably have had briefings on this already,
but maybe you can share with us what activities EPA is involved
in, whether they need to grant waivers to fight this. It seems
like we have to get on this immediately.
Ms. McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, thank you for raising this
issue, because it is something that the entire Federal family
has been working together on.
EPA's role really is reflective of how we mitigate the
challenge, how can we mitigate an impact, the habitats that
would be mosquito breeding and take care that issue. But we are
also looking at what we need to do to make sure that we have
pesticides approved that can attack this and how we do
training. We are focusing that training.
Thankfully, Florida is very strong in terms of their
ability to be able to manage this issue and have certified
applicators and a strong regulatory system. We are focusing a
lot of attention on Puerto Rico as well as the Virgin Islands,
where their sort of regulatory system is not quite as strong,
and we want to make sure that when pesticides are used, they
are applied carefully.
There are a number of pesticides that are approved by EPA
and effective, as well as they can be, both on outside
spraying, as well as indoor use. We are continuing to work with
NIH to see if there are others that we can bring into the
system. As a Federal family, we are looking to make sure that
those pesticides will work, are properly manufactured, and at
levels that can be distributed, as this Zika virus is
progressing.
It is an enormous challenge to work on this, and it is one
that I think the Federal Government is looking for appropriate
support from this body, but also EPA is looking to make sure we
do our work with NIH to get the products out in the market that
we believe can be safely applied and can help in this effort.
Mr. Calvert. I appreciate the answer.
Next, Mr. Kilmer.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CWSRF REDUCTION
Ms. McCollum mentioned the significant cut made to the and
Clean Water State Revolving Fund. Given the significant
infrastructure needs across the country, can you discuss how
you anticipate this cut will impact State, local, and tribal
governments that are working to invest in clean water
infrastructure?
Ms. McCarthy. It is definitely a shift in what we see, and
it is based on the needs out there, long term. It is a shift a
little bit more toward the drinking water side than it is the
clean water side.
Part of the challenge we have is to make sure that we
certainly live within our budget, and we have done our best to
reflect where we think the priorities need to be.
But beyond that, we are trying to look at how in this
fiscal year start supporting WIFIA, because that leverages or
has an opportunity to leverage private sector dollars as well
in a way that is a much larger leveraging opportunity than we
have under the State Revolving Fund.
So we are looking at a $20 million investment there. We are
also looking at our Water Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance
Center to continue to support that effort, because they are
providing a lot of opportunity to work with rural communities
and small systems to think more creatively about what
opportunities are available.
We are looking at continuing to look at the flexibilities
that we have under the State drinking water fund.
But I think, all in all, we are also looking at using I
think some visibility and concern that have arisen as a result
of Flint to sort of raise the flag, if you will, to say that
all of these efforts are good, and we are directing more
efforts to the Mexico-U.S. border and to Alaska, tribes, but we
need to do more.
We really need to step back and recognize that our water
infrastructure is old and investments are not being made at a
rate that would keep that to be the modern system that we once
had. There are challenges both with legacy and emergent
contaminants that really require us to think about new
technologies, on how to drive those and invest in them.
So there does need to be a larger discussion and
opportunity to take a deep breath and see whether or not clean
water remains a core need and value of this country, and
whether or not we are providing the investments we need for
that.
Mr. Kilmer. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Simpson.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Following up on that answer, we had a hearing here 3 years
ago--on alternative financing methods to address this backlog
of unmet needs, because, quite frankly, the way we are going at
it now, it is going to grow. We are never going to get to the
end of this backlog of maintenance needs in water and sewer
programs.
So I think the industry and regulators and others need to
get together with Congress and look at alternative methods of
financing these.
REGION 10 EMPLOYEE APPRECIATION
But I just want to agree with Mr. Kilmer that Dennis
McLerran does a great job out in Region 10. We are having a
little difference with Region 10 and the State on fish
consumption. But we have differences, and we will hopefully
work those out.
But again, I will submit that for the record.
But I just wanted to point out, as we are kind of getting
ready to wrap things up here, I think the chairman said that
nondefense discretionary spending under the budget deal is at
$40 million. Is that right?
Mr. Calvert. I think. Approximately.
FY 2017 BUDGET PROPOSAL
Mr. Simpson. That is assuming we can accept a budget deal
at some point in time and get a budget passed, under the best
of all possible worlds, given the budget deal that was passed
last year.
So nondefense discretionary spending is about $40 million.
You have asked for an increase of $127 million. There are
gimmicks in it, as in the energy and water bill and other
bills, shifting things into mandatory funding, things that we
know are not going to happen, tax increases that we are pretty
sure are not going to happen. I do not see putting on an oil
barrel tax, or some of the other things that are used to pay
for the budget request.
So we have all of those conflicts, yet you sit here and you
listen to all of us. We talked about the Long Island Sound
needing more funding, the Puget Sound needing more funding, the
Great Lakes initiative needing more funding, DERA needing more
funding, rural water technical programs needing more funding,
STAG grants needing more funding, and given the circumstances
that we are probably going to have at least a flat and maybe
even a reduced budget in certain appropriations bills this
coming year.
That is the challenge that we are going to face. We are
going to have to balance those competing interests and try to
put together a bill because it is not just the EPA and the
programs within the EPA that we will have some differences on.
It is all the myriad and different programs that are under
Chairman Calvert's purview in that bill.
It is going to be a tough one to write, a lot tougher than
most people think. So I just wanted to bring that into reality
here.
Ms. McCarthy. None of us have an easy job with this. I
really appreciate the subcommittee, and obviously the committee
chair being here to try to identify a path forward. It is
always a respectful and good conversation here, and I thank you
for it.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Mr. Calvert. Ms. Pingree.
POLLINATORS--PESTICIDES
Ms. Pingree. I thank you, Mr. Chair.
Both of my last two colleagues mentioned the clean water
revolving fund. I just want to add that for many of the
municipalities in our State, that is critically important. I
think you know that.
And I will just throw in brownfields, too, because that is
another thing that has just been really beneficial to economic
development.
I do not have to tell you, but those are really critically
important when it comes to funding. I will just bring up one
last topic, and that is about bees and pollinators.
I know that you take that very seriously. Mr. Calvert
brought up one of the issues around pesticides and allowing new
pesticides. All of us are very concerned about the Zika virus
and many of these things and making sure that we really do have
a way to control them. The reverse of that is the impact on
pollinators.
I know Mr. Simpson is deeply concerned about the Monarch
butterfly. We have our own mini-caucus here that has never been
formalized but is there.
But I just want to bring up the fact that this recent GAO
report criticized the EPA for ignoring the assessment of the
impacts of multiple pesticides on bees. This is not an easy
topic, but we know that neonicotinoids are one of the biggest
issues. In some areas, they are banned, in other countries.
It is critically important, given the fact that 80 percent
of all flowering plants around the world need to be pollinated
by bees. We have already had a few crises.
We are very worried about the impact of glyphosate-
resistant weeds in our agricultural system. We have 70 million
acres of the United States that are infested with them. We are
worried about their impact on the Monarch butterfly through
milkweed. I do not have to tell you all this.
Ms. McCarthy. It makes me feel good that you share the
pain.
Ms. Pingree. I am sharing your pain.
And the GAO just has a brand-new report out, saying USDA
and EPA have to do more on this. You have to coordinate better.
Frankly, this is very complex, particularly with the use of
multiple chemicals in the same agricultural setting. So it is a
tough balance, because we want to make sure we have those
pesticides available when it comes to disease control and other
things like this mosquito-borne virus. But on the other hand,
we cannot afford to lose our pollinators.
So how can you do a little more on this? How are you going
to address the concerns the GAO just brought out?
Ms. McCarthy. I think the GAO is always right in that we
need to continue to collaborate. That is why the White House
pulled together the National Pollinator Health Strategy that
was announced back last year in May.
I mean, it is extremely important for us to look at sending
all the right signals to the industry itself, so that you have
beekeepers and the agriculture community able to communicate
with one another and develop a strategy that both protects the
pollinators as well as allows us to utilize pesticides and
other things that are vital to agriculture moving forward.
These are not easy issues. One of the things we did, as I
think you know, is we are really requiring registrants to look
at conducting new bee safety studies as they are looking at new
types of pesticides.
We are doing the best we can to start building it into the
system as a fundamental look, and we are looking to work more
effectively with USDA, as well as the services, at the full
range of impacts, not just health, but ecological impacts and
impacts to the pollinators as well.
So we are doing the best we can and we are getting more
information. As the attention has gone up, the science is
getting better. As the science gets better, we utilize it in
our decisionmaking. We are looking forward to collaborating
more effectively in the future with our Federal family.
Ms. Pingree. Great.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
POLLINATORS--PESTICIDES
Mr. Calvert. I do not disagree with Ms. Pingree. Obviously,
if there are other alternatives to pesticides, I am all for it.
As a matter fact, in my own area at the University of
California, we have I think the largest laboratory in the
United States on beneficial insects. We in California have used
those over 100 years to combat various types of insects.
But if there is a health emergency, we all here agree that
we do not want that to happen, but sometimes decisions have to
be made. I would hope that you plan for the worst-case
scenarios as well as to be prepared if, in fact, we have to
react quickly, because you may be in a situation here shortly
where you have to. This may not be as bad a problem as we
think, but it may be a lot worse than we think.
Ms. McCarthy. I think we are doing a pretty good job, sir,
when these emergencies arise at approving exemptions that are
in the system. We did that with the State of Florida as they
were approaching their next season when they had to look at how
to apply pesticides in a way that would address citrus
greening. So you are absolutely right.
Fortunately, the law allows us to have that type of
expedited review, and we do the best we can to make sure we do
it in a timely manner.
Mr. Calvert. Florida now, I think they have lost a third of
their citrus throughout the State. The citrus industry believes
they will be totally out of citrus business here, if this
continues, in the next 5 years.
We have psyllid in California, but we do not yet have the
disease associated with it, except in a very defined area,
which we are trying to control.
So we are sometimes asking for those waivers to get in
there and deal with this issue as rapidly as we can.
Ms. McCarthy. We are really trying to respond to them, as
is USDA in looking at how we do research to get a better
solution on the table than these interim exemptions provide.
Mr. Calvert. I think it was Albert Einstein who once said,
if you want to destroy the human race, destroy the bee
population of the world, and it will all be over.
So I understand that we need to make sure that we do not do
that.
Any additional questions?
DRINKING WATER AND WASTEWATER TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES
Ms. McCollum. Mr. Chairman, just if I could, this is going
to be Administrator McCarthy's last time testifying before the
committee. I think of what has happened in my lifetime on
emerging issues: microbeads in personal care products,
hormones, superbugs, antibiotics. These are all pollutants that
have been added to our waterways.
Mr. Simpson pointed out how tight the budget is around
here, but as you look back on what you have worked on, and as
you look forward to some of the challenges the next EPA
administrator is going to have, are there areas where
regulations have not caught up with what you are facing? What
are some of the emerging issues you would say that we as a
committee should be prepared to grapple with as we figure out
how to improve our drinking water and our water treatment
systems?
Ms. McCarthy. Big question. I am not sure that I am going
to be able to answer the question and give it the thought that
it deserves.
But I think what you mentioned in terms of the challenges
for drinking water and wastewater treatment technologies are
some that keep me up at night because I just think that we are
seeing things and contaminants now where we are not properly
protecting our source waters, where we have to look at our
discharges into those waters carefully to understood what is in
there, to look at what is getting into our wastewater treatment
and what we are not prepared to treat, what those systems have
not been designed to effectively get out before it then gets
back into the source water and potentially into our drinking
water source.
So having that in mind as we are looking at not just
upgrading but new technology solutions. We have to stop
pretending that we can fix all those and start accommodating
them through technology investments and getting those
technologies into the market.
I think that you all know that I have spent a great deal of
my time on climate change. I would be I think not doing my duty
if I did not continue to raise that. I think in the energy
world, you see a lot of opportunity and transition already
happening, but we need more solutions on the table, more
investment, more understanding of how we take action on climate
that is commensurate with the risk.
Frankly, part of the challenge the EPA faces is you have
given us a lot of opportunity to prevent problems before they
arise, but we need more. You need investment, if you are going
to stop from having to do these emergencies in Flint, the
emergency in Toledo. Every time we do that, we spend more time
on one incident than infrastructure investment would have been
for three, four, five, six other facilities. Do you know what I
mean? We have to stop thinking crisis by crisis and start
looking more systemically at these issues.
And EPA as well needs to do that, working hand in hand with
Congress. I appreciate the opportunity to have been able to
work with you for as long as I have. I think you have been a
terrific sort of adviser to the work that we are doing. You
remind us constantly of how important that work is. And I know
you have a difficult job, and I appreciate it very much that
you have given it such tremendous attention.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you. We certainly appreciate your
attendance here, and thank you for your service. We wish you
well in the future. We are adjourned.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Wednesday, March 23, 2016.
SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION BUDGET OVERSIGHT HEARING
WITNESS
DR. DAVID SKORTON, SECRETARY, SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION
Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert
Mr. Calvert. The committee will come to order.
Dr. Skorton, I would like to welcome you to today's
hearing. We appreciate you joining us this morning to share
your vision for the future of the Smithsonian and to discuss
your budget priorities for fiscal year 2017.
The members and staff are also grateful that you have
brought some interesting historical items for show and tell. It
is always one of the highlights of our hearing season. You
clearly have one of the most interesting jobs in town. I think
most of us around this table would love to trade places with
you, but something tells me it wouldn't be in the best
interests of the Smithsonian. So we will all keep our jobs.
The Smithsonian's mission is to increase diffusion of
knowledge. As the 13th Secretary of the Smithsonian, you are
entrusted with the challenging responsibilities of operating
and managing one of our country's most revered institutions.
The Smithsonian is often referred to as America's attic, and no
wonder. You are the steward of more than 138 million objects,
and the national collection reflects America's artistic,
cultural, and scientific heritage.
The Smithsonian provides education and outreach programs in
art, culture, history, and science for visitors and scholars
alike. It is governed by a board of regents consisting of the
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the Vice President, nine
private citizens, and six Members of Congress, including our
good friend Tom Cole, who serves on this subcommittee.
Overall, the proposed funding level in the Smithsonian's
fiscal year 2017 budget request is $922.2 million, which is $82
million, or about 10 percent, above fiscal year 2016 enacted
level. Compared with other major accounts under this
subcommittee's jurisdiction, your request is one of the most
ambitious as measured on a percentage basis.
Like most big organizations, the Smithsonian faces some
enormous challenges, which we will be discussing at some length
today. The subcommittee recently learned of the need for
enormously costly repairs to the National Air and Space Museum.
If approved, this effort will place extraordinary burdens on
the Smithsonian's annual budget for the foreseeable future.
The subcommittee congratulates the Smithsonian on the news
of the opening of the National Museum of African American
History and Culture on September 24 this year. The committee
has met its funding commitment, providing $270 million, or one-
half the total cost toward construction of the museum. We are
pleased that this extraordinary public-private partnership,
enabling the museum to be built, has proven successful and the
construction is now nearly complete.
The construction of the African American Museum and the
proposed repairs of the National Air and Space Museum are
illustrative of the very real challenges this subcommittee
faces. There is both increasing demand for and shrinking supply
of Federal dollars to address many legitimate priorities. For
this reason, it is essential that the Smithsonian outline and
clearly communicate its highest and greatest priorities.
Every member of this subcommittee would like to support a
10 percent increase for funding for the Smithsonian, but given
the incredible demands across this bill, it is probably not
realistic. Difficult funding decisions will have to be made.
The subcommittee will do its very best to address the
Smithsonian's most urgent priorities. I look forward to your
testimony and continuing to work together.
In closing, I want to commend you for the Smithsonian's
efforts to improve the display and storage of your vast
collections. Based on the input this committee receives from
Members from both sides of the aisle, it is very clear that the
preservation and the care of these priceless and irreplaceable
collections remain a high priority of this committee and this
Congress.
I am now happy to yield to my good friend and the
subcommittee's ranking member, Ms. McCollum, for any opening
remarks she would like to make.
Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum
Ms. McCollum. Thank you.
I would like to also join the Chairman in welcoming you
here this morning, Doctor. This is going to be your first
budget hearing before the Subcommittee. You were officially
installed as Secretary of the Smithsonian this past October,
and I am pleased to have an opportunity on the Subcommittee to
learn more about your vision for the Institution and how you
plan on working through some of the challenges the Chairman has
pointed out.
The Smithsonian was created for an increase in the
diffusion of knowledge. It has the ability to capture the
imagination and the curiosity of both children and adults. It
has something for everyone. In particular, the unique
ImagiNATIONS children's space at the National Museum of
American Indians is truly a delight for families, with the
interactive crafts, Native book stories, and the exploratory
learning that is there. I have to tell you, it is a destination
for some young children I know well whenever they go to the
Nation's Mall.
I also want to applaud you for the triumphant reopening of
the Renwick, which is providing a true experience of wonder and
joy for the record number of visitors, young people and adults
alike. I got to be there for the opening exhibit. It was
fabulous.
The Smithsonian Institution's fiscal year 2017 budget
request is $922 million. It is an increase of $82 million over
the 2016 enacted level. These increases will help support the
Smithsonian's robust research programs, strengthen its diverse
collections, and make essential investments for both the
facility and the workforce.
In regards to your collection, I would note that the
administration has not proposed funding for the Save America's
Treasures program. That National Park Service program began in
1999, and was instrumental in partnering with others to
preserve national historic collections, some of which are
housed in your museums at the Smithsonian. For example, the
Star-Spangled Banner flag was a recipient of Save America's
Treasures.
I hope, if given an opportunity, the Smithsonian will
support efforts to restore this important Park Service program,
which has a direct connection to being able to preserve your
collections.
Like other agencies in this subcommittee's jurisdiction,
the Smithsonian is facing challenges with its facility and
maintenance backlog. Many of the museums are still operating
under the original major buildings systems and equipment and
some are more than 50 years old.
Currently, the Smithsonian's overall facilities condition
index rating from the National Research Council is considered
poor. In order to achieve an acceptable facilities condition
index score and ensure the health and safety for visitors,
staff, and, yes, at the zoo, the animals in its care, the
budget requests $163 million. This amount would continue major
renovations and efforts at the National Zoo and other priority
areas, including the National Museum of American History and
the National Museum of Natural History.
It also provides a $50 million increase for the National
Air and Space Museum, beloved by millions and one of the most
visited museums in the world. Unfortunately, the museum is
facing significant challenges with a deteriorating facade,
which allows moisture into the building, and I am sure we will
hear more about that, Mr. Chairman.
This funding is the first of several significant increases
the Smithsonian will be requesting to address the issues at the
Air and Space Museum. It will fund preconstruction activities
at the museum and construction of offsite storage.
Although these are large investments, they are in the long-
term interests of the Nation. It is also the Federal
Government's responsibility to provide the necessary funding to
ensure the 28 million annual visitors to the Smithsonian are
welcomed each year and have a safe and enriching experience.
I am pleased that the National Museum of African American
History and Culture will be opening this fall. The museum will
provide a place to learn about the rich history and cultural
experience and achievements of Americans of African descent. It
will also be the first digital museum on the National Mall.
That means anyone can share the experience. When Lonnie Bunch,
the Museum's Director, was out in Minnesota, we were talking
about it. People in Minnesota are so excited that they are
going to be able to be there as part of the opening.
Virtual collections provide amazing educational
opportunities for millions of children. You are bringing the
museum right into classrooms, and I say that as a social
studies teacher.
So, Doctor, I appreciate the work that you and all of the
employees at the Smithsonian do to enhance the civic,
educational, scientific, and artistic life of this Nation and
preserve it. So I look forward to your testimony.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the time.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Dr. Skorton, I am happy to yield to you for your opening
statement. You are recognized.
Opening Remarks of Dr. Skorton
Dr. Skorton. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee,
thank you for this opportunity to testify. On behalf of the
entire Smithsonian Institution, we appreciate the continuous
generous support of Congress. This support makes our huge and
varied collections of national treasures accessible to the
American public.
From care and display of the Star-Spangled Banner, to
research on the evolution of T.rex, we take our obligation to
the American people very seriously. We leverage the Federal
dollars with private support to expand our reach and
capabilities. This unique public-private partnership is working
well.
In July, I was privileged to begin my tenure as the 13th
Secretary of the Smithsonian. I am most honored and humbled to
be a part of this great institution.
Today, I would like to share just a few of our recent
achievements and then touch on the two major objectives, the
two major categories of funding: strengthening our intellectual
foundation and programs, and strengthening our physical
infrastructure.
Your support advances the civic, educational, scientific,
and artistic life of our Nation. Just a few recent highlights.
Our stunning new National Museum of African American
History and Culture opens on the National Mall this September.
Smithsonian scientists use our collections to provide
important and very practical insights on a variety of topics.
Consider the Zika virus. The Department of Defense is working
with our National Museum of Natural History to study and map
the Zika outbreak. The National Zoo is exploring how it might
spread through nonhuman vectors. And the Smithsonian Tropical
Research Institute in Panama is examining the Zika-carrying
mosquito's genetic makeup.
Always, but perhaps especially in an election year, the
National Museum of American History and the National Portrait
Gallery offer revealing insights into our Nation's leaders.
Our diverse music-related collections would comprise the
largest music museum in the world if they were all in one
place, and now, in a sense, they are, at a new Web site called
Smithsonian Music.
The Smithsonian American Art Museum's Renwick Gallery
reopened to the public in November following a 2-year
renovation. Its debut exhibition, ``Wonder,'' has attracted
more than 368,000 visitors in just the first 4 months.
And, in 2015, we welcomed a new panda cub, Bei Bei, at the
National Zoo. Beloved by the public, Bei Bei represents our
extensive work in species biodiversity.
In the addition to the nearly 30 million visits at our
museums in Washington and New York City, we are extending
access and education around the country. We now have 208
affiliate museums in 46 States, Puerto Rico, and Panama, and
the Smithsonian Traveling Exhibition Service reaches more than
4.5 million people annually.
We offer online educational materials in K through 12 to
students at all ages and teachers with more than 2,000 learning
resources available online and all of them for free. Our
Science Education Center has been helping to transform formal
science education on the K through 12 level for more than 30
years, and this curriculum is used in every State in the
country and in 25 other countries around the world.
We have more than 138 million objects in our collections,
and to expand access we have created millions of digital images
and electronic records, and we have become leaders in the field
of three-dimensional scanning.
I was recently at the National Air and Space Museum as our
experts carefully climbed into the Apollo 11 command module to
create a three-dimensional scan of its interior, revealing for
the first time notes and a calendar written inside by American
astronauts. What a discovery. All of this information we will
offer online this summer for everyone to explore for free.
Such treasures explain why the Air and Space Museum is
always among the top three most visited museums in the world,
and we are gearing up to transform it so that it will be there
for generations to come. And this is a perfect example of one
of our major objectives, strengthening our physical
infrastructure.
Our request also includes funds for construction of the Air
and Space Museum's collections module at the Udvar-Hazy Center
in Virginia, funds for revitalization projects, and funds for
planning and design of future projects. These funds will enable
the institution to continue major revitalization work at the
National Museum of Natural History, the National Zoo, and the
National Museum of American History.
And as mentioned, our other priority is strengthening our
intellectual foundation and programs. Our ranks of curators
throughout the institution have shrunk substantially,
especially in some of our museums. We need to reverse this
long-term trend in the loss of curatorial and research staff.
We need new experts who can continue to acquire and exhibit our
unique collections while also ensuring the availability of the
collections for critical research.
The Smithsonian does face a future that holds both exciting
opportunities and imposing challenges, and working with the
Congress and the administration, we will aggressively address
these challenges and take full advantage of many new
opportunities.
Again, I thank you for the opportunity of testifying. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
[The statement of Dr. David Skorton follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM RENOVATION
Mr. Calvert. Thank you, Doctor.
As you mentioned in your opening statement, the National
Air and Space Museum, which is the most visited museum in the
United States and second most visited in the world behind only
the Louvre in Paris, is in need of some major repair work. The
projections I have seen project the total cost to be
extraordinary, nearly $600 million. This amount exceeds the
total cost of the new Museum of African American History and
Culture.
Can you explain in some detail the nature of the repairs
needed and why the estimated cost to address them is so high?
Dr. Skorton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The museum, as you know, is about 40 years old, and so we
have projected for a long time the need to update mechanical
systems in the building, and that accounts for something on the
order of magnitude of $200 million of the projected cost.
Much of the rest of the cost is due to an unanticipated
problem that was found in the cladding, or exterior, of the
building, which will require replacement by new cladding for
the safety of the public going into the building and for the
building's own integrity.
It will also be necessary, from my perspective, to keep as
much of the museum open during the revitalization as possible,
given the enormous appetite that the American public has to
visit the museum and to gain from its collections. So some of
the funding will go for the necessity to move items to offsite
storage while a particular part of the museum is being worked
on, and then move it back at that right interval. And when you
add all these things up, it does come out to an extraordinary
number.
Our plan is to continue planning for this project for
approximately another year and then to actually do the
construction over a 5-year period, from fiscal year 2018
through fiscal year 2022.
Mr. Calvert. I am going to ask this question, because if I
don't, somebody's going to ask me, ``Why didn't you ask it? ''
What would be the replacement cost to just tear the existing
museum down and rebuild it?
Dr. Skorton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This was the very
first question I asked when I was brought onboard and they told
me about the very challenging price tag on repairing this
building. And although it is counterintuitive, although at
first you would think it would be much more parsimonious to
replace the building, it turns out to be much more expensive,
on the order of magnitude of $2 billion. And please bear with
me while I explain a bit about why that would be.
We would have to have a place to move the entire
collection. And since it is such an enormous building with such
an enormous collection, all the objects that are in there,
including some very large objects, we would have to rent or
build a massive storage facility. We would have to shut the
museum down for years. And in addition to the very generous
steadfast support that Congress has given us across the whole
Smithsonian, we also have been able to raise some considerable
funds through retail operations--IMAX theater, the shops, and
so on--and, of course, that would all be off, we would lose
that revenue.
And so when you add it all up, although, as I say, it is
counterintuitive, it turns out that this, even though a very
expensive project, to replace it while keeping, let's say, half
of the museum open throughout the project is actually much less
expensive than it would be to replace the entire building. But
I thank you for the question.
Mr. Calvert. Sure. And of the $600 million, how much do you
anticipate would be funded through Federal appropriations and
how much would be addressed through non-Federal funding
sources?
Dr. Skorton. In this particular case, I have to ask that
the entire amount be funded through Federal means. And may I
please expand on that, Mr. Chairman?
I have had the great opportunity in my career to
participate in fundraising of a variety of distinguished
nonprofit institutions, and the Smithsonian also uses the
leverage that you supply by such steadfast support to do
philanthropic fundraising. In my experience, it is difficult to
raise philanthropic funds for a repair or replacement type of
procedure as opposed to something new.
And I must hasten to add that in the planning for the
future of the National Air and Space Museum, we have plans for
approximately $250 million of changes to the way we show
exhibits to the public, increased use of interactive and
electronic technology, a whole different approach, and we
intend to raise those funds, the additional $250 million,
through philanthropy, and we are already on our way to do that.
But the actual reconstruction of the building itself, I am
asking be done completely through Federal funds.
Mr. Calvert. Well, before I ask Ms. McCollum to take over
and ask a few questions, why don't you explain some of the
items that you brought here to show us and to show everyone.
EXAMPLES OF SMITHSONIAN COLLECTIONS
Dr. Skorton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Although I gave you
an amateur's run through it before, I would like to introduce
some professionals who can give you more in-depth, although
succinct, discussion. I am going to name them all, and then
they will get up in the order in which I named them. And I want
to thank you on all of our behalf for allowing us to share a
bit of the collection with you today.
Dr. Harry Rubenstein of the National Museum of American
History has brought the inkwell used by President Abraham
Lincoln to sign the Emancipation Proclamation. Ms. Ann Shumard
of the National Portrait Gallery has the so-called cracked-
plate portrait of Abraham Lincoln taken by the President's
favorite photographer. Dr. Kelly Korreck of the Smithsonian
Astrophysical Observatory has brought a prototype of a
protective heat shield, part of NASA's Solar Probe Plus
spacecraft. And Dr. Eleanor Harvey of the Smithsonian American
Art Museum has brought Thomas Moran's beautiful watercolor of
the Excelsior Geyser at Yellowstone National Park.
Mr. Simpson. America's first national park, right?
Dr. Skorton. I have been warned to stay out of this
argument. So it is above my pay grade.
Harry.
Mr. Israel. Thomas Moran was from Long Island.
Dr. Skorton. Whatever you say, I agree with completely.
Mr. Israel. Okay.
Mr. Rubenstein. Hi. My name is Harry Rubenstein. I am the
chair of the Division of Political History at the National
Museum of American History. And this is an inkstand that sat on
the desk of Thomas Eckert, Major Thomas Eckert, at the War
Department's telegraph office. And as you know, Abraham Lincoln
would go to the telegraph office once or twice a day to keep
tabs on what was happening during the Civil War. And in the
summer of 1862, rather than swapping stories and jokes with the
telegraph operators, he sat quietly at Major Eckert's desk and
began to work on what became the Emancipation Proclamation. And
so Major Eckert kept this and eventually saved it and presented
it to the government.
The inkwell will be in the opening of the African American
Museum and will then move back to American History for our
exhibition on American democracy.
Thank you.
Ms. Pingree. Just quickly, are those little movable--
Mr. Rubenstein. So what these are, so you can see that
these are part of the stand, but these are little inkwells.
Ms. Pingree. Okay.
Mr. Rubenstein. And what is on top are little figures of
griffins.
Mr. Israel. Little figures of what, sir?
Mr. Rubenstein. Griffins.
Mr. Israel. Beautiful.
Dr. Skorton. Thank you, Harry.
Ms. Shumard. Hello. I am Ann Shumard and I am the senior
curator of photographs at the National Portrait Gallery. And
this is one of the Portrait Gallery's and one of the
Smithsonian's genuine treasures. It is a portrait of Abraham
Lincoln that was taken by Alexander Gardner at Gardner's studio
here in Washington, D.C., which was located at the corner of
7th and D Streets, Northwest.
It was taken on February 5 of 1865, just a month before
Lincoln's second inaugural. And at the time, of course, that
the picture was taken, there was the expectation that there
would be many opportunities to photograph the President during
his upcoming second term.
The large glass plate negative that was used to produce
this print cracked probably when a varnish was applied to it
after it was developed, and so just one print was made from
this large glass negative before the negative was discarded. It
was irreparably damaged.
What, of course, makes this image so evocative, I think,
today is the expression that we have on Lincoln's face. This is
a man who has seen so much trial and tragedy, but there is that
hope, I think, you almost see in that sort of faint smile that
the war that has torn the Nation asunder is drawing to a close
and there is hope for the future.
The portrait came to the Portrait Gallery's collection in
1981, and it is, as I say, one of the true treasures of our
holdings.
Dr. Skorton. Thank you so much.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Ms. Korreck. Hi. I am Dr. Kelly Korreck, and I brought with
me today a prototype of the Solar Probe Cup. This cup is going
to fly in 2018 on NASA's Solar Probe mission. This is a mission
to actually touch the sun. And here in the picture, you will
see that the cup is actually sticking out there and is going to
collect parts of the sun.
And it is not just a scientific enterprise, but it is also
somewhat practical. Understanding the sun and what it throws at
us actually will help us understand space weather, which can
help us save our national power grid, as well as communication
satellites. And so this is a part of one of the four instrument
suites; there are other instrument suites aboard here, and they
are all going to fly in 2018.
Dr. Skorton. Thank you so much.
Ms. Harvey. Good morning. My name is Eleanor Harvey. I am
the senior curator of 19th century art at the Smithsonian
American Art Museum. And as a former geologist, as well as an
art historian, I bring to you today Thomas Moran's watercolor
of Excelsior Geyser in Yellowstone painted in 1873, the year
after Congress in its wisdom set aside Yellowstone as America's
first national park.
The park behind you, Yosemite, was set aside by Abraham
Lincoln as a protected preserve at the middle of the Civil War
as a post-war sanctuary, recognizing the power of nature as
something we hold dear as part of America's cultural
infrastructure.
This watercolor was reproduced, along with a suite of
others, to help promote visitorship to Yellowstone. I also see
the See America proposals from the WPA. They were based on a
Northern Pacific Railroad campaign called See Europe, But See
America First. In order to get people out to places like
Yellowstone, they created both the railroads and the
infrastructure so that you could go watch Old Faithful and
Excelsior Geyser erupt in full display.
So it was a patriotic moment in America when we recognized
that we have such unique features in this country that actually
instill a kind of civic pride and make people want to explore
the vastness of the country that we have here.
Dr. Skorton. Thank you.
And I want to be quick to indicate that the comment on that
park, the first one, was a historical, not a political comment.
Mr. Calvert. Well, since we have the portrait of Abraham
Lincoln here, who wisely designated Yosemite to be the first
federally acquired eventual park, that was very wise of him.
Mr. Simpson. Yes, it was.
Dr. Skorton. As Secretary, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I
and the entire Smithsonian family values every single aspect of
the American park system and the Park Service itself,
celebrating its 100th anniversary.
Mr. Calvert. We have a private joke going.
Ms. McCollum.
LONDON OPPORTUNITY
Ms. McCollum. Thank you. I am sure Ms. Pingree is going to
make a plug for her park, but we have some great ones in
Minnesota, too.
We met in my office, and since then I have been doing more
and more homework. I want to better understand where you see
the Institution going in the future, especially now that we
have all these surprises, should I say, for the Air and Space
Museum renovation.
Last January, the Board of Regents gave the Smithsonian
permission to explore creating an exhibit space in London. It
is my understanding such a venture would be done completely
using private funds, but you have been talking about leveraging
a lot of private funds here today for current collections and
current buildings.
I am concerned that Congress has not been a full part of
this discussion. I bring this up because, at a minimum, the
Smithsonian is an establishment of the United States and its
funds are held in the U.S. Treasury. In the event of a lawsuit,
it is represented by the Department of Justice. So we are
intertwined here.
In 2006, the Smithsonian entered into a business venture
with Showtime network that drew the ire of Congress because of
a lack of consultation. Former Secretary Small later admitted
that in hindsight, the Smithsonian should have consulted with
the Congress. Can you tell us when we can expect to learn more
about the Smithsonian's finance plan regarding London, if it is
on hold, and how you plan on consulting with Congress?
As you look around and are addressing the problems, as I
said earlier, at your domestic facilities like the National
Zoo, can you really rely on having enough private contributions
from private foundations like the Friends of the National Zoo
to assist you with the deferred maintenance operation? If not,
we have to come back and ask the Federal Government to address
some of these problems.
Please give us an update of where you are on London and
elsewhere. Then, if time permits, I have a question on the Arts
and Industries Building as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Skorton. Thank you very much. I would like to try to
answer what I heard were three questions.
First of all, on the extremely important matter of
consultation with Congress, not only do we get two-thirds of
our funding because of your generosity and foresight, but we
are an organization in the public trust. So I couldn't agree
with you more. It is hard for me to look backwards on what
might or might not have happened in earlier consultation, but I
will pledge to you today and to the entire subcommittee that we
will make consultation and transparency a hallmark of our
administration. I think it is very, very important, for all the
reasons that you stated, including but not limited to the
issues that you brought up.
Secondly, I heard you raise the very, very important issue
of leveraging Federal funds in other ways. And I will be very
quick about this, but we do that in two ways, in what I am
going to call roughly business or retail operations, like the
shops in the museums, the IMAX theaters, and the magazine,
other things that you can purchase something or derive a
benefit; and then secondly, philanthropy, outright gifts.
And the Smithsonian has been very effective in both the
retail and philanthropic side of the house, but as you
mentioned and as the chairman mentioned, the needs are very
challenging and it is going to take everything that we can do
to keep faith with the very strong support that you have given
us and keep faith with those who purchase things from us and
those who give philanthropic donations.
So I take that very seriously. And I believe, as a personal
comment, a personal observation, still new at the Smithsonian
and new in Washington, I believe part of the reason that my
predecessors, especially Secretary Clough and Secretary
Horvath, were so successful in raising philanthropic funds is
because of the stalwart congressional support.
And it has been my experience in other public institutions
raising philanthropy that when there is solid public funding,
other people will also join in. So I thank you very much for
that, because you have made the philanthropy possible.
But now, getting to the main focus of your question about
London, it ties together a lot of these issues that you raised
up. And I think the opportunity for the United States to tell
its story overseas in a time of--obviously today is one of
those terrible days where we are thinking so much about the
international situation. I think being able to tell the story
of America overseas would be a good thing for the Smithsonian
and a good thing for the country.
However, given the pressure on Federal funds that the
chairman has indicated and the pressure on us that you,
Congresswoman, have indicated, we have to make sure, and I have
already pledged earlier and will pledge again today, that we
will not use Federal funds from the United States for this
project and we will not do the project unless the finances can
stand completely on their own, including not interrupting other
flows of funds that we have to do, and I believe that is what
you are asking me.
I can't tell you today whether the project will in fact
come to fruition. I hope to be able to have an answer for you
through our Board of Regents on the second week in April at our
next full Board of Regents meeting. But I think it is an
exciting prospect. We have to have it stand completely on its
own bottom, and I am not there yet.
ARTS AND INDUSTRIES BUILDING
Ms. McCollum. The Smithsonian Arts and Industries Building
is an icon on the National Mall and is right next to the
Castle. It is an important role, part of the history of the
Smithsonian. At one time it was included by the National Trust
for Historic Preservation as one of the most endangered
historic sites in the United States. The building was closed in
2004 for renovations. In fact, it was just last spring, almost
10 years later, that the Smithsonian announced that it was
opening the building for short-term exhibits.
Could you please update the committee on how you see the
Arts and Industries Building fitting into your south campus,
and the current condition of the building? When will you
finally be able to host events? Is the challenge still of
adequate plumbing and HVAC systems there? Then I hope that you
also talk to Congress about renovating the gardens there, right
adjacent to the building, because we are already starting to
hear about that.
Dr. Skorton. Thank you very much. And let me talk
specifically about the Arts and Industries Building, and then
if you have more specific questions about the garden or the
areas around, I am very glad to answer those as well.
I have one of these dream jobs, and one of the parts of my
dream jobs is I have a dream office that looks right at the
Capitol. And in my line of sight to the Capitol is the Arts and
Industries Building, and also the carousel, which I am watching
a lot of young people enjoy.
As I look at those three objects, I often focus on the Arts
and Industries Building, and I asked myself the first time I
came for interviews nearly 2 years ago: What are we going to do
with this beautiful Victorian building, second oldest building
in the Smithsonian universe?
And as you said, only very recently has the building been
reopened.
[The information follows:]
The systems that you mentioned--plubming and HVAC--have not
yet been refurbished, though we have installed restrooms.
I asked for my installation to be there. It was last
October. Thank you for recognizing that. And it was a beautiful
chance to use the building.
And so it is ready for those occasional uses right now. We
are opening it for those kinds of uses this year. We are
beginning to plan, and are not at the point yet where I have
something concrete and intelligent to share with you, about
some more strategic uses of the building going forward. But it
is another one of those areas, Congresswoman, where we need to
stay in touch with this and the other subcommittees who oversee
and appropriate funds for the Smithsonian.
But this will be the year, this very calendar year that we
are in, where you will begin to see more use made of that
building.
Ms. McCollum. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And I will follow up with your staff on the questions on
the gardens. Thank you.
Dr. Skorton. Thank you very much.
Mr. Calvert. Mr. Joyce.
Mr. Joyce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no questions at
this time.
Thank you for being here, to gather these wonderful
exhibits for our observation.
Dr. Skorton. Thank you for all that you do for us.
Mr. Calvert. Ms. Pingree.
OCEAN RESEARCH AND OUTREACH
Ms. Pingree. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you very much for being here, Dr. Skorton, and thank
you to everyone who brought such interesting exhibits for us to
see. That was really a pleasure. We are very appreciative of
the work that you do. And I echo all the things that my
colleagues have said earlier.
I just want to talk a little bit about some of the things
that you do through the Smithsonian outside of D.C. I represent
Maine, and we have been very fortunate to work with you on a
variety of things.
Recently the Portland Museum of Art had a major
retrospective on Richard Estes' realism, which they were able
to do with the cooperation of the Smithsonian. And that is
really important for small States like ours that are lucky to
access your resources.
I want to talk a little bit about the MarineGEO program
that is growing within the Smithsonian, and is a very important
part of what you do in research. I have a lot of coastal
communities, of course, that are interested in things like
climate change. But we don't have a MarineGEO site in Maine,
and I want to talk a little bit about some of the additional
funds that are requested for MarineGEO staff.
Will you be able to expand the number of partner sites?
Have you thought about how you could work with small and more
narrowly focused organizations that are interested in becoming
research sites either by providing additional financial
resources to help them expand their research or encouraging a
consortium model, which would allow them to contribute?
Dr. Skorton. Thank you very much. And I hear two important
questions embedded in what you asked me. If I may take just a
moment to talk about our activities outside of D.C.
It is very, very important. It is really a lucky subset of
the United States that can get to the Mall, and it is expensive
to get here. One of the reasons that my predecessors began this
very vigorous thrust on digitization is so that people anywhere
who have access to the Internet, which is most, but not all,
can have a chance to view major parts of the collection.
And also being in the public sector for most of my career,
I think for a federally funded institution where the taxpayers
are paying for it in every corner of the country, it is
exquisitely important that we are responsive to their appetite
to taste the Smithsonian.
Besides the 208 affiliate museums and the Traveling
Exhibition Service, both of which were embedded in your comment
about the Portland museum, we have other projects that through
the research end of it touch the Nation and the world. And our
mission, which was part of the letter that James Smithson wrote
to establish the endowment 170 years ago, our mission is the
increase and diffusion of knowledge.
We talk a lot about the diffusion of knowledge, that is,
the interface between the public and these unbelievable
collections, but the increase part, the research part is
unbelievably important, whether we are talking about Zika,
climate change, you name it.
And so the Forest and MarineGEO consortia, I am going to
call them consortia, was set up to do just exactly what you
said, that is, to have the benefit of the research thinking of
the Smithsonian touching communities everywhere and to help
gain knowledge that would raise all the ships.
And so for those who are not familiar with it, the
MarineGEO is a project that studies coastal waterways. And
coastal waterways are very, very important because that is the
area where there is a tremendous concentration of life forms,
and in our country a tremendous concentration of population.
And so the interaction between the human population and the
wildlife that lives at the edge of the coastal areas is very
important to study.
We do not have enough funding so far to expand to the
extent that I would like to expand. We do have a request as
part of this budget request to continue staffing and planning
for MarineGEO. MarineGEO was made possible actually through a
combination of your support and a very generous contribution of
an individual from our Smithsonian National Board.
And so it is my hope to leverage, again, the funds that you
give us through philanthropy so that we can begin to think more
broadly about bringing more partners on. And so we have very
good intentions in that regard. And I need to be cautious in
what I promise, because we do need to raise more funds.
But I think, having spent my whole career in science, that
it is very important that that scientific research touches not
only different parts of the country, but that scientists and
people who want to participate be able to in areas far spread.
So I am totally with you in intention, and will work to do my
best to make that a reality.
Thank you very much.
Ms. Pingree. Great. We will look forward to staying in
touch about that. Thank you very much.
Dr. Skorton. Thank you.
Ms. Pingree. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you very much.
Mr. Simpson.
NATIONAL AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM RENOVATOIN
Mr. Simpson. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you for being here today. We have votes that have
just started and are going on, so come by my office and talk to
me. I would like to talk to you about some of the things. What
is going on in Panama, and what the Smithsonian does there is
obviously important. I want to talk to you about the cladding.
Is this the same thing that happened with the National Art
Gallery that needed to be replaced? The exterior of it?
Dr. Skorton. Can I answer that piece of it?
Mr. Simpson. Yeah.
Dr. Skorton. In a sense yes, in a sense no. Isn't that a
helpful answer?
Mr. Simpson. Yeah. It is a political answer. I give that
answer all the time.
Dr. Skorton. I am going to stay away from the National Park
on this one.
But it turns out that the cladding when it was cut for the
National Gallery of Art, of which I serve as a board member,
was cut to a thickness about twice as thick as the thickness of
the cladding on the National Air and Space Museum. Our thinner
cladding was done, as I understand it, to save funds and speed
along construction at a time when they were trying to get the
building done for the Bicentennial.
And so in the case of the National Gallery of Art,
Congressman, it was possible to reuse that thicker cladding. It
is not going to be possible to reuse this cladding. It will be
discarded and we have got to start from scratch. And it is part
of the reason, in my answer to the chairman's most important
and reasonable question, why it is such an expensive project.
Mr. Simpson. Is it the same issue relative to what caused
the necessity for replacing it?
Dr. Skorton. In part it is, yes.
[The information follows:]
The issue at the National Gallery was the fasteners that
held the cladding to the building. The issue at the Air and
Space Museum is the cladding itself, which is too thin and is
warping and cupping.
LATINO PROGRAMS AND MUSEUM
Mr. Simpson. Okay.
And the other thing I would like to talk to you about at
some point in time when we have some time is, are you getting
pressure on the Arts and Industries Building to use it for the
Hispanic museum? Or is that a question you don't want to
answer?
Dr. Skorton. No, no. I want to answer any question you
have. I just want to give you the right answer.
So, first of all, part of our charge, part of what you
expect us to do is tell the story of America in all its
completeness and beauty, and the story of the American Latino
has to be a very important part of telling that story.
So, as you know, in recent history a new museum for the
Smithsonian is always established by an act of Congress. That
act has not occurred. However, my predecessors have already
begun some years ago to begin to gear up our efforts to tell
the story of Latinos in America, again, through the two
Secretaries who preceded me.
We have a project that you have been very generous in
funding for a Latino fund that allows us to fund some projects
within the Smithsonian. That has been very, very effective. We
also have been hiring, even though we don't have a specific
museum, we have been hiring curators with expertise in telling
the story of Latinos in America, and they are working in
various places throughout the institution through the
Smithsonian Latino Center. And we have multiple exhibits,
something on the order of five or six in this last year,
touching on some of those areas.
So it will be in your hands to decide should we have a
National Museum of the American Latino, but in the meantime, we
are pushing ahead and I am pushing ahead to tell more
completely the story of the American Latino.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you. I appreciate that.
And I have got to tell you, it is not fair that you get to
bring in all this neat stuff and it distracts us that so that
we don't even listen to your testimony or care about your
budget. And, the EPA could bring in something with Quagga
mussels all over it, but it is not very exciting. You have an
advantage that others don't.
Dr. Skorton. It is true. The world isn't fair, but I am so
glad to be on my side of it.
Mr. Simpson. Thank you.
Dr. Skorton. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
Mr. Israel.
OUTREACH, EDUCTION AND PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Mr. Israel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Skorton, thank you for your work and for bringing these
treasures.
I want to follow up on Ms. Pingree's question and your
comments on the value of outreach and education. I think that
we are in an environment right now in this country where we are
witnessing a historic breakdown in people's faith in all
institutions across the board, the institution of government
and institutions just across our social spectrum. And part of
that, I believe, is because there is a lack of civic
engagement. Part of that is because we just don't teach civics
anymore in our classrooms and in our schools.
There is this famous quiz that is circulating that when you
ask a certain age cohort who won the Civil War, a majority will
say the British. That is a function of just not having access
to history and not having access to the traditional civics
lessons that we all were taught when we were growing up.
So I would like you to amplify your comments on the
importance of education, not just in Washington, and whether
the Smithsonian has a mission--or would consider having a
mission--with respect to greater civic engagement and civic
education across the country.
Dr. Skorton. Thank you very much, Congressman.
First of all, before, when I quoted the mission statement
of the increase and diffusion of knowledge, I think it is
unbelievably important that the diffusion of knowledge not just
involve people crossing the thresholds of our beautiful museums
here and in New York City and elsewhere. We have to go out and
help people where they live.
And as I mentioned just very briefly in my opening remarks,
the education work of the Smithsonian, for example in STEM
disciplines, and I am going to get back to the social sciences
in a moment, is very, very well established throughout the
country, as people wish to use it. As you know, our K through
12 system is a local phenomenon largely and, therefore, varies
a lot. But we are there for people who want to use it, and, in
fact, that use occurs in every single State of the United
States.
However, I think we could be doing even more in terms of
outreach, and I think that outreach could and should occur in
two directions. It is one thing for us to go out and offer--all
we can do is offer--educational services and arts and culture
and history and science, for that matter, where it is a partner
with people who want to do scientific research, as
Congresswoman Pingree brought up. It is something else to get
their input.
And one of the hallmarks that I hope to bring to this
Smithsonian, which has already been a part of it, but I hope to
strengthen it, is to listen more to the public about what they
want. And the first thing I am going to do, I am going to start
small and close to home. I think we owe some focus on the city
of Washington, since the city of Washington is where our home
base is.
So with the help of Mayor Bowser, I am establishing a Youth
Advisory Council to meet from among high school students in
Washington, D.C. I am hoping that those high school students
will be able to tell me what they are interested in, what they
believe they need, and I want to go directly to the place where
we would like the education to occur. The first meeting of this
group I hope is going to be this very next month, and I hope to
ask them the very question that you are asking me indirectly,
and that is, what do you think you need that we could do for
you?
In terms of a more direct answer to your question about the
lack of focus on civics, as I am sure you know, because it is
an area of interest of yours and everyone on the subcommittee,
there is a lot of consternation about where American youth are
in terms of their knowledge of American history and civics.
There are other organizations, nonprofits, that have been
brought up to actually deal specifically with the civics
problem. And I think that what we can do is really three things
at the Smithsonian.
We can offer the exposure to the history of the United
States and its culture through the collections themselves.
Secondly, these museums already offer enormous numbers and
very effective types of public programs, public outreach
programs. Some of those are done through the Smithsonian
Associates, some of them are done individually in different
ways. And, again, all we can do is offer and hope that they
will come.
And then thirdly, I want to go out and find out what the
public would like from us, and in asking those questions ask,
what could we do to be helpful in broadening your perspectives.
And just one quick end to this very long, windy answer.
When I have a few minutes in my daily schedule, I like to walk
away from my office and go to the museums and talk to the
visitors, talk to the families and the tourists who come. And
one of the things that they ask most consistently, it is not a
scientific sample, but just in my 9 months of asking them, is
that parents will ask, what can you do to help my kids
understand a bewilderingly changing world? And if they don't
specifically ask about civics, they do ask, what can you do to
help us to bring our kids along? So I really appreciate the
question and your thrust.
Mr. Israel. Well, if you would find some time to visit with
me in my office, I would love to follow up on this and
specifically understand what kind of outreach you have to
teachers and schools across America and how we could be
helpful.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Calvert. Thank you.
And we would love to spend the day with you, Doctor, but,
unfortunately, we have to go vote.
Mr. Israel. Saved by the bell.
Mr. Calvert. Saved by the bell.
I would like to get into more depth, somewhere down the
road I will visit the Air and Space Museum with you, because
that is a huge number, as you know, and we need to find out how
we are going to do this. I know it has to be done, it is your
most visited museum and it is certainly a national treasure.
With that, we are adjourned.
Dr. Skorton. Thank you very much.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
I N D E X
----------
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2017 Budget Request
March 15, 2016, Rayburn B-308
Page
Aquatic Animal Drug Approval Partnership......................... 22
Aquatic Species Conservation Delivery............................ 91
Asian Carp
Authority to Recover Damages..................................... 91
Bay Delta........................................................ 49
Biography--Chris Nolin........................................... 14
Biography--Director Dan Ashe..................................... 12
Burmese Python................................................... 47
Comprehensive Conservation Plans................................. 65
D.C. Booth National Fish Hatchery and Archives................... 66
Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill Settlement: Gulf Coast Restoration
Deferred Maintenance Backlog..................................... 60
Delta Smelt
Duck Stamp
Echinoderms...................................................... 22
Endangered Species Act: Delisting and Downlisting Backlog........ 56
Endangered Species Act: Listing.................................. 56
Endangered Species Act: Reauthorization.......................... 54
Endangered Species Act: State and Tribal Wildlife Grants......... 57
Endangered Species Act: Status Reviews........................... 55
Fish and Wildlife Foundation..................................... 38
Fish Passage
Gray Wolves...................................................... 25
IMARS............................................................ 70
Malheur National Wildlife Refuge
Mexican Wolf..................................................... 31
Minidoka Refuge Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP)
Minnesota Moose Population....................................... 89
Mitigation Policy................................................ 26
Monarch Butterflies.............................................. 24
National Ocean Policy............................................ 67
Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert.............................. 1
Opening Remarks of Director Ashe................................. 4
Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum.................................. 3
Pollinators...................................................... 88
Questions for the Record from Chairman Calvert................... 49
Questions for the Record from Mr. Amodei......................... 77
Questions for the Record from Mr. Jenkins........................ 80
Questions for the Record from Mr. Joyce.......................... 74
Questions for the Record from Mr. Simpson........................ 72
Questions for the Record from Mr. Stewart........................ 75
Questions for the Record from Ms. McCollum....................... 82
Sage Grouse
Statement of Director Ashe....................................... 7
Stillwater Refuge................................................ 47
Stream Protection Rule
Utah Prairie Dog................................................. 30
Virgin Spinedace................................................. 75
Washington State Hatchery Compliance............................. 27
White-Nose Syndrome.............................................. 90
Wildlife Trafficking/International Affairs
National Park Service 2017 Budget Request
March 16, 2016, Rayburn B-308
Acadia National Park: Overcrowding
Acquisitions and Reconnaissance Studies.......................... 128
American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP): Land Acquisition
Grant Program.................................................. 160
Arches National Park: Congestion................................. 118
Biography--Director Jonathan B. Jarvis........................... 111
Biography--Lena McDowall......................................... 112
Biscayne National Park Marine Reserve Zone....................... 154
Bottled Water
Boy Scout Jamboree............................................... 121
Centennial Challenge
Centennial Funding
Co-Marketing of National Parks................................... 122
Competitive Civil Rights Grants.................................. 115
Deferred Maintenance Backlog
Defining Asset Priority.......................................... 126
Enhancing Visitor Services: Use of Technology
Everglades Restoration/Tamiami Trail Bridging Project............ 145
Grand Teton National Park: Land Acquisition Proposal
Growth of the National Park System
Historically Black Colleges and Universities
Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).......................... 150
Memorial Bridge Repairs.......................................... 136
National Heritage Areas
National Mall.................................................... 147
National Mall: Public-private Partnerships....................... 157
National Park Service Endowment.................................. 140
National Park Service Operations: Staff Levels................... 166
National Park Service: Financial Health.......................... 159
Office of Inspector General (OIG) Report......................... 141
Olympic Hot Springs Road......................................... 127
Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert.............................. 95
Opening Remarks of Director Jarvis............................... 97
Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum.................................. 96
Promoting Park Service within Gateway Communities................ 143
Quagga and Zebra Mussels
Questions for the Record from Chairman Calvert................... 134
Questions for the Record from Mr. Kilmer......................... 171
Questions for the Record from Mr. Simpson........................ 163
Questions for the Record from Ms. McCollum....................... 166
Recreation Fee Authority
Reimbursing States
Roosevelt Island................................................. 123
Save America's Treasures
Statement of Director Jarvis..................................... 100
Sustainable Funding.............................................. 123
Tick-borne Illnesses
Transportation Funding
Trash in National Parks.......................................... 114
Utah Parks: Bus and Parking Issues
White House Fence
Yosemite National Park: Intellectual Property/Naming Rights
Zion National Park: Tour of Utah
Bureau of Indian Affairs/Bureau of Indian Education 2017 Budget Request
March 16, 2016, Rayburn B-308
Biography--Lawrence ``Larry'' Roberts............................ 185
Biography--Charles ``Monty'' Roessel............................. 187
Biography--Melissa Emrey-Arras................................... 216
Biography--Michael S. Black...................................... 186
Climate Resilience............................................... 191
Detention and Corrections Facilities
GAO Recommendations.............................................. 220
GAO Report on School Safety...................................... 234
Grade Expansion.................................................. 233
Graduation Rates................................................. 193
Housing Needs for Employees...................................... 196
Indian Education Foundation...................................... 231
Law Enforcement.................................................. 192
Mental Health.................................................... 241
Natural Resources................................................ 244
New Tribal Recognition Policy.................................... 236
OIG Report on Detention Centers.................................. 228
Opening Remarks of Acting Assistant Secretary Roberts............ 175
Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert
Opening Remarks of Ms. Emrey-Arras............................... 202
Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum
Performance Evaluations.......................................... 217
Public Safety and Justice
Questions for the Record for DOI from Chairman Calvert........... 222
Questions for the Record for DOI from Mr. Amodei................. 236
Questions for the Record for DOI from Mr. Kilmer................. 245
Questions for the Record for DOI from Mr. Simpson................ 233
Questions for the Record for DOI from Ms. McCollum............... 240
Questions for the Record for DOI from Ms. Pingree................ 244
Real Estate Services............................................. 190
Realty: Title Conveyances........................................ 237
Road Maintenance................................................. 199
School Construction
School Construction: Alternative Funding Sources................. 196
School Facilities Inspections
School Fire Inspections.......................................... 218
Statement of Acting Assistant Secretary Roberts.................. 177
Statement of Ms. Emrey-Arras..................................... 204
Tiwahe Initiative................................................ 240
Tribal Broadband Access
Tribal Transportation Program.................................... 196
Violence Against Women Act....................................... 224
Environmental Protection Agency 2017 Budget Request
March 22, 2016, Rayburn B-308
Algal Blooms..................................................... 293
Arsenic in Drinking Water........................................ 317
Biography--Administrator Gina McCarthy........................... 262
Biography--David Bloom........................................... 263
Bluon--SNAP Program Approval..................................... 314
Buy America
Citrus Greening.................................................. 302
Clean Power Plan
Clean Power Plan: Kentucky Coal Mines............................ 296
Clean Power Plan: West Virginia Coal Mines....................... 289
Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) Reduction............... 303
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA)................................................... 322
Decentralized Wastewater Treatment Systems....................... 335
Diesel Emissions Reductions (DERA) Grants........................ 264
Drinking Water and Wastewater Treatment Technologies............. 307
Ecolabels........................................................ 321
E-Manifest and Cybersecurity..................................... 334
EPA Budget and Personnel......................................... 309
EPA Lobbying..................................................... 297
EPA Procurement Policies......................................... 337
Epidemiology Studies............................................. 323
Fish Consumption Rate and Water Quality Standards................ 317
Flint, MI
Food Recovery Act................................................ 294
FY 2017 Budget Proposal.......................................... 304
Gold King Mine Spill............................................. 274
Gold King Mine Spill: Animas River............................... 275
Gold King Mine Spill: Reimbursement of Tribes.................... 314
Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GRLI): Tribal Grants......... 299
Hardrock Mining Financial Assurance.............................. 326
Household Action Level for Lead.................................. 339
Lead Paint Rule.................................................. 266
Long Island Sound................................................ 290
Opening Remarks of Administrator McCarthy........................ 254
Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert.............................. 247
Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum.................................. 249
Opening Remarks of Ranking Member Lowey.......................... 253
Ozone............................................................ 329
Perchlorate...................................................... 326
Pesticide Product Label Registration............................. 325
Pollinators--Pesticides
Puget Sound...................................................... 277
Questions for the Record from Chairman Calvert................... 309
Questions for the Record from Mr. Amodei......................... 326
Questions for the Record from Mr. Israel......................... 339
Questions for the Record from Mr. Jenkins........................ 328
Questions for the Record from Mr. Kilmer......................... 337
Questions for the Record from Mr. Simpson........................ 317
Questions for the Record from Ms. McCollum....................... 333
Radon............................................................ 310
Region 10 Employee Appreciation.................................. 304
Rural Water Technical Assistance................................. 272
State Oversight.................................................. 334
Statement of Administrator Gina McCarthy......................... 256
Statement of Chairman Rogers..................................... 251
Superfund: Needs................................................. 312
Superfund: Special Accounts...................................... 313
Targeted Airshed Grants.......................................... 264
Treatment of Veterans--Training for Management................... 315
Water Infrastructure Financing (WIFIA)........................... 333
Waters of the United States/Navigable Waters
Zika Virus....................................................... 302
Smithsonian Institution 2017 Budget Request
March 23, 2016, Rayburn B-308
Arts and Industries Building
Biography--Dr. David J. Skorton.................................. 357
Digitization of the National Collections......................... 376
Examples of Smithsonian Collections.............................. 360
Latino Programs and Museum....................................... 368
London Opportunity............................................... 362
Museum of African American History and Culture................... 372
National Air and Space Museum Renovation
Ocean Research and Outreach...................................... 365
Opening Remarks of Chairman Calvert.............................. 341
Opening Remarks of Ms. McCollum.................................. 342
Opening Remarks of Secretary Skorton............................. 344
Outreach, Education, and Public Engagement....................... 369
Preservation of Collections...................................... 373
Preservation of Cultural Heritage
Questions for the Record from Chairman Calvert................... 371
Questions for the Record from Ms. McCollum....................... 383
Research......................................................... 383
Smithsonian Capital Campaign..................................... 373
Smithsonian Facilities Capital Priorities........................ 371
South Mall Campus Development.................................... 393
Statement of Dr. David J. Skorton................................ 346
Strengthening Collections........................................ 391