(1) 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017 

U.S. SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

NONDEPARTMENTAL WITNESSES 

[CLERK’S NOTE.—The subcommittee was unable to hold hearings 

on nondepartmental witnesses. The statements and letters of those 

submitting written testimony are as follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE 1854 TREATY AUTHORITY

1854 TREATY AUTHORITY 

The 1854 Treaty Authority (Authority) is a tribal organization funded by a Public 

Law 93–638 contract with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) under its Trust-Natural Resources Management-Rights Protection Implementation (RPI) budget. 

—The Authority supports the administration’s proposed $40,161,000 for BIA 

Rights Protection Implementation (an increase of 2,500,000) and a proportionate 

share for the Authority. However, while the Authority supports the 2,500,000 

increase to RPI funding, we do not agree that the increase should be open to 

a ‘‘competitive proposal-based process’’ as outlined in the BIA fiscal year 2017 

Justifications (a.k.a. BIA Greenbook), but any increase should be allocated in 

the same proportions as it has historically been distributed. 

—The Authority supports the full finding of contract support for its Public Law 

93–638, Self-Determination contract at no less than the administrations proposed $278,000,000. 

—The Authority supports maintaining funding for the EPA Great Lakes Restoration budget at least at its current level of $300,000,000. 

The Authority is a tribal organization responsible for protecting, preserving, and 

regulating the treaty-reserved hunting, fishing and gathering rights in the territory 

ceded to the United States by the Chippewa in the Treaty of September 30, 1854, 

10 Stat. 1109. The Bois Forte Band and the Grand Portage Band created the authority following Federal court affirmation of the rights in 1988. As part of a courtapproved agreement with the State of Minnesota, the Bands have obligations to preserve the natural resources in the five (5) million acre ceded territory and to regulate the activities of Band members through a conservation code, enforcement officers, and a court. The Authority has also been involved with a variety of inter-agency efforts to study the effect of invasive species, climate change, and activities that 

impact treaty resources. 

Although it has significant responsibilities in a geographic area the size of Massachusetts, the Authority has only fifteen (15) full-time employees. With those limited 

resources, the Authority has been able to collaborate with State, tribal and Federal 

agencies to become a prominent presence in the conservation of resources critical 

to the subsistence hunting, fishing and gathering activities of the Chippewa. 

However, the successes of the Authority are overshadowed by the challenges facing the trust resources that are at the heart of the treaty rights. The Minnesota 

moose population has declined precipitously in just a few years and for reasons unknown, invasive species and climate change threaten the treaty fishing and wild rice 
2 

production areas across the ceded territory, and human activities continue to deplete or displace wildlife populations. 

The Authority urges the subcommittee and the Congress to acknowledge that the 

resources we seek to protect are trust resources, reserved in treaties that the United 

States has a legal obligation to protect and preserve. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ALEUTIAN PRIBILOF ISLANDS ASSOCIATION

The requests of the Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association (APIA) for the fiscal year 

2017 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget are as follows: 

—Funding for a health facility replacement project in Atka, Alaska. 

—Provide or require the IHS to allocate an additional $12.5 million to fully fund 

Village Built Clinic Leases and make it a line item in the budget. 

—Place IHS funding on an advance appropriations basis. 

—Continue with indefinite funding for Contract Support Costs (CSC) but without 

the fiscal year 2016 proviso limiting carry-over authority, and make indefinite 

CSC funding permanent and mandatory. 

The Aleutian Pribilof Islands Association (APIA) is a regional non-profit tribal organization with members consisting of the 13 federally recognized tribes of the Aleutian Chain and Pribilof Islands Region. APIA provides healthcare services to the 

Alaska Natives in four of the tribal communities of this Region through funding received from IHS under Title V of the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA). We also provide health-related services through various nonIHS grants and agreements. 

ATKA CLINIC REPLACEMENT

We are requesting $2.9 million for a health facility replacement in Atka, Alaska. 

—During World War II, Atka Health Clinic was also destroyed along with the entire community by the United States Navy to keep our enemies from using the 

area. 

—In Atka the APIA is working with and helping the City of Atka on a grant and 

funding package. 

—In Unalaska a Joint Venture application with the Indian Health Service is approved, which also includes Atka. 

—The Current Atka Health Clinic is inadequate to provide the care the community deserves, it is beyond repair and even a simple window replacement cannot 

be supported with the existing structure. It is vulnerable to weather & the life 

safety code. 

—The Atka IRA Council, the City, APIA & APIDCA have taken the first steps 

to finance the design in the amount of $128,000. 

—Site-work plans, foundation design, floor plans & draft RFP for a modular building is completed. 

—The Atka Health Clinic is a newly designated Community Health Center that 

serves everyone regardless of race or ability to pay; it is a Veterans service site, 

as well as an Indian Health Service site. 

—We are ready to take this project to the next level & begin the construction 

phase. 

—We are specifically requesting support for construction funding in the amount 

of $2,923,100. 

FUNDING FOR VILLAGE BUILT CLINICS IN ALASKA

The Village Built Clinics (VBCs) continue to face a significant funding crisis. We 

thank you for the $2 million appropriated in fiscal year 2016 to supplement what 

was being spent on clinic leases and are heartened by the administration’s request 

of $11 million in fiscal year 2017 ($9 million increase plus $2 million from fiscal 

year 2016) for this same purpose. 

VBCs are leased by the IHS from other entities and are a vital component of the 

provision of basic healthcare services in rural Alaska, as they serve as the clinic 

space for the Community Health Aide Program (CHAP). The CHAP utilizes a network of community health aides and practitioners to provide primary healthcare 

services in otherwise unserved rural and isolated areas. Rental amounts for the 

VBCs have failed to keep pace with costs—the majority of the leases for VBCs have 

not increased since 1989. As a result, many of the VBCs are unsafe or have had 

to be closed, leaving some villages in Alaska without a local healthcare facility. 
3 

1 America’s Great Waters Coalition recognizes 21 Great Waters based on specific criteria. 

These waters are the Albemarle-Pamlico Sound, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin, 

Chesapeake Bay, Coastal Louisiana, Colorado River, Delaware River, Everglades, Galveston 

Bay, Great Lakes, Gulf of Maine, Lake Champlain, Long Island Sound, Mississippi River, Missouri River, Narragansett Bay, New York/New Jersey Harbor and Hudson Estuary, Ohio River, 

Puget Sound, Rio Grande, San Francisco Bay, and St. Johns River. 

In addition, the President’s proposed fiscal year 2017 clinic lease bill language 

may need some clarification, depending on IHS’s interpretation of the reference that 

healthcare be delivered in a space acquired through a ‘‘full service lease’’. In some 

cases tribes receive VBC funding as part of their recurring base, and so the IHS 

no longer has ‘‘full service leases’’ in place for those clinics. We know that the Appropriations Committees do not intend to limit VBC eligibility based on unclear terminology. 

In sum, these amounts are a step in the right direction but the 2105 ANHB study 

that analyzed the funding deficiency statewide for these facilities identified an increased need of $12.5 million increase. We urge that the full amount needed be appropriated. We also support maintaining this funding as a line item in the bill. 

IHS ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS & MANDATORY CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

We continue to support placing the IHS budget on an advance appropriations 

basis, as Congress has done with the Veterans Administration (VA) health accounts. 

The fiscal year 2016 budget justification for the VA said advance appropriation is 

necessary to ‘‘fulfill the administration’s commitment to provide reliable and timely 

resources to support the delivery of accessible and high-quality medical services for 

veterans.’’ Advance appropriations for the IHS is equally important to the predictable and timely funding of healthcare for Alaska Natives and American Indians, and 

for us to more effectively use our resources in what is otherwise a difficult fiscal 

environment. 

We wish to extend our appreciation to the subcommittee for its support for full 

funding of CSC. We support the President’s proposal for an appropriation in fiscal 

year 2017 of ‘‘such sums as may be necessary,’’ with an estimated $800 million for 

CSC for the IHS in a separate accounts within the IHS’s discretionary budget. We 

join with others in Indian Country, however, in asking that the proviso from the 

fiscal year 2016 appropriations language (‘‘amounts obligated but not expended by 

a tribe or tribal organization for contract support costs for such agreements for the 

current fiscal year shall be applied to contract support costs otherwise due for such 

agreements for subsequent fiscal years’’) be removed in 2017 and thereafter. We also 

believe that indefinite CSC funding should ultimately be made permanent and mandatory, beginning no later than fiscal year 2018. 

We appreciate your consideration of our request outlined in this testimony. On behalf of APIA and the people we serve, I am happy to provide any other additional 

information desired by the subcommittee. 

[This statement was submitted by Dimitri Philemonof, President and CEO.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICA’S GREAT WATERS COALITION

Albemarle-Pamlico Sound • Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Basin 

Chesapeake Bay • Coastal Louisiana • Colorado River • Delaware River 

Everglades • Galveston Bay • Great Lakes • Gulf of Maine • Lake Champlain 

Long Island Sound • Mississippi River • Missouri River • Narragansett Bay 

New York/New Jersey Harbor and Hudson Estuary • Ohio River 

Puget Sound • Rio Grande • San Francisco Bay 

St. Johns River 

Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall: 

We express our strong support for your subcommittee’s dedication to the restoration of America’s Great Waters. As the fiscal year 2017 appropriations bills are developed, we respectfully urge you to maintain strong funding for programs that enable important work to restore landscapes like those in and around the America’s 

21 Great Waters.1 In addition to these waterways being valuable ecological re-
4 

sources, they are also significant economic drivers for large swaths of the Nation, 

providing much-needed jobs and opportunities for untold numbers of Americans. As 

you make difficult decisions regarding funding, we want to highlight the solid return 

on taxpayer investments in Great Waters restoration. 

As you prepare the fiscal year 2017 Interior appropriations bill, we encourage you 

to maintain robust funding for programs that support aquatic ecosystem restoration 

and exclude policy riders that harm our Great Waters and derail ongoing restoration efforts. Programs important for restoring Great Waters in the Interior bill include but are not limited to: 

—EPA’s Geographic Programs, which include robust and successful restoration 

programs in the Chesapeake Bay, Lake Champlain, Great Lakes, Long Island 

Sound, Puget Sound and others. 

—The National Estuary Program, which has restored and protected 1.75 million acres of coastal habitats in 28 estuaries since 2000 and has leveraged $18 of 

investment for every dollar provided by EPA. 

—Department of the Interior priorities such as the National Park Service’s Everglades restoration initiatives; the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Coastal Program, Cooperative Landscape Conservation Program, National Coastal Wetlands Grant, and North American Wetlands Conservation Act programs; and 

Joint Ventures, which bring together partners to conserve habitat. 

—Clean Water State Revolving Fund and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, 

which provide important resources for States and municipalities to make muchneeded upgrades to wastewater treatment systems and include dedicated Green 

Project Reserves in each fund. 

—Section 319 Nonpoint Source Management Program, which is the primary 

grants program for States, Territories, and tribes to address nonpoint source 

challenges. 

—USGS National Water Quality Program, which provides robust water quality 

monitoring and data for informed decisionmaking. 

At a time when Federal lawmakers need to make smart spending choices, restoration offers one of the best returns on investment in the Federal budget. Restored 

watersheds improve our quality of life, increase property values, provide clean 

water, support fish and wildlife and enhance outdoor recreation for our families. The 

on-the-ground work to restore our coasts, lakes, rivers, and estuaries produces jobs 

and utilizes skills and machinery available in the local workforce that provide many 

benefits to local economies. 

—According to Restore America’s Estuaries, restoring our coasts can create more 

than 30 jobs for every million dollars invested, which is more than twice as 

many jobs as the oil and gas and road construction industries combined. 

—Along the Mississippi River, estimates show that more than 50 habitat restoration projects contribute approximately $16.5 million to small businesses and 

employ more than 300 people in rural counties where, so often, unemployment 

is the highest following the closure of factories and other industries along the 

river. 

—A report by the Chesapeake Bay Foundation found that economic benefits provided by nature in the Chesapeake watershed will total $130 billion annually, 

an increase of $22 billion annually, when the Chesapeake Clean Water Blueprint is fully implemented. 

—A study conducted by Mather Economics found that for every $1 invested in restoring the Everglades, there is at least a $4 return in economic benefits, and 

that over the next 50 years, the incremental impact of Everglades restoration 

is expected to produce more than 440,000 jobs. 

—A study of the Delaware River Watershed found that it contributes $25 billion 

in annual economic activity and $21 billion in ecosystem goods and services. 

The America’s Great Waters Coalition represents diverse national, regional, State 

and local organizations working to protect, preserve and restore our Nation’s waters. 

The Coalition is a result of years of work by national and local organizations to 

bring the broader restoration community together to ‘‘lift all boats.’’ Together, we 

urge you to continue to provide the highest level of funding possible for Federal programs critical for effective Great Waters restoration. 

Sincerely, 

Molly M. Flanagan, Vice President, Policy 

—Alliance for the Great Lakes 

Jim Bradley, Vice President, Policy and Government Relations 

—American Rivers 
5 

Eric Draper, Executive Director 

—Audubon Florida 

Wayne Daltry, President 

—Audubon of Southwest Florida 

Paul J. Marinelli, President 

—Audubon of the Western Everglades 

Jennifer Browning, Executive Director 

—Bluestem Communications 

John R. Paul III, President 

—Caloosahatchee River Citizens Association (Riverwatch) 

Alix Murdoch, Federal Policy Director 

—Chesapeake Bay Foundation 

Kathleen E. Aterno, Florida Director 

—Clean Water Action 

Madeline Urbish, Director 

—Coalition for the Delaware River Watershed 

Clark Bullard, Director 

—Committee on the Middle Fork Vermilion River 

Kelly Reed, Vice President, Government Relations 

—The Conservation Fund 

Duane De Vries, President 

—Dwight Lydell Chapter, Izaak Walton League of America 

Dan Silver, Executive Director 

—Endangered Habitats League 

Jennifer Rubiello, State Director 

—Environment Florida 

Manley Fuller, President 

—Florida Wildlife Federation 

Ted Auch PhD, Great Lakes Program Coordinator and Lead Researcher 

—The FracTracker Alliance 

Elinor Williams, President 

—Friends of ARM Lox NWR 

Jeff Skelding, Executive Director 

—Friends of the Upper Delaware River 

Matt Rota, Senior Policy Director 

—Gulf Restoration Network 

Indra Frank, MD, MPH, Environmental Health & Water Policy Director 

—Hoosier Environmental Council 

Darwin Adams, Chairman 

—Illinois Council of Trout Unlimited 

Robert Stegmier, National Director 

—Izaak Walton League of America 

Ivan J. Hack, Jr., President, Headwaters Chapter 

—Izaak Walton League of America 

Scott Kovarovics, Executive Director 

—Izaak Walton League of America 

Tom FitzGerald, Director 

—Kentucky Resources Council, Inc. 

Judy Petersen, Executive Director 

—Kentucky Waterways Alliance 

Lori Fisher, Executive Director 

—Lake Champlain Committee 

Sandy Bihn, Executive Director 

—Lake Erie Waterkeeper Inc. 

John Ruskey, Director 

—Lower Mississippi River Foundation 

Cheryl Nenn, Riverkeeper 

—Milwaukee Riverkeeper 

Theresa Pierno, President & CEO 

—National Parks Conservation Association 
6 

Adam Kolton, Vice President of Federal Policy 

—National Wildlife Federation 

Sarah Murdock, Director, U.S. Climate Resilience and Water Policy 

—The Nature Conservancy 

Todd Miller, Executive Director 

—North Carolina Coastal Federation 

George L. Jones, Director of Special Projects 

—Ocean Research and Conservation Association, Inc. Duerr Laboratory 

for Marine Conservation 

Kristy Meyer, Managing Director Natural Resources 

—Ohio Environmental Council 

Rich Cogen, Executive Director 

—Ohio River Foundation 

Carol Hays, Executive Director 

—Prairie Rivers Network 

Millard McCleary, Executive Program Director 

—Reef Relief 

Allison Colden, Senior Manager of External Affairs 

—Restore America’s Estuaries 

Nicole Barker, Executive Director 

—Save the Dunes 

Lee Willbanks, Executive Director, Upper St. Lawrence Riverkeeper 

—Save the River 

Stephen Mahoney, Conservation Chair 

—Sierra Club Miami Group 

Brett Fitzgerald, Executive Director 

—Snook and Gamefish Foundation 

Dana Wright, Water Policy Director 

—Tennessee Clean Water Network 

Paul Botts, President & Executive Director 

—The Wetlands Initiative 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN ALLIANCE OF MUSEUMS

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing me to submit this testimony. My name is Laura 

L. Lott and I serve as President and CEO of the American Alliance of Museums 

(AAM). We urge your support for at least $155 million each in fiscal year 2017 for 

the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the 

Humanities (NEH), as well as $922.2 million for the Smithsonian Institution. We 

also request your support for the Historic Preservation Fund (HPF), including at 

least $55 million for State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs), $15 million for 

Tribal Historic Preservation Offices (THPOs) and $28 million to preserve the sites 

and stories of the Civil Rights Movement. We request restored funding of $30 million and $4.6 million respectively for the Save America’s Treasures (SAT) and Preserve America programs. 

Before detailing these funding priorities for the museum field, I want to express 

my deepest appreciation for the increases enacted by the subcommittee in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public Law 114–113. The additional funds for the 

NEH, NEA, Smithsonian Institution and historic preservation activities will enhance museums’ work to enrich their communities and preserve our many heritages. 

I know the subcommittee once again faces a very limited 302(b) allocation, and must 

make difficult decisions. In this context, however, we would posit that each of our 

priorities outlined below is a vital investment that will both protect our Nation’s cultural treasures and provide a tremendous economic benefit. 

AAM is proud to represent the full range of our Nation’s museums—including 

aquariums, art museums, botanic gardens, children’s museums, culturally specific 

museums, historic sites, history museums, maritime museums, military museums, 

natural history museums, planetariums, presidential libraries, science and technology centers, and zoos, among others—along with the professional staff and volunteers who work for and with museums. AAM is honored to work on behalf of the 

Nation’s approximately 35,000 museums, which employ 400,000 people, invest more 

than $2 billion annually in educational programs, receive more than 55 million vis-
7 

its each year from primary and secondary school students, and directly contribute 

$21 billion to their local economies. 

Museums are essential in our communities for many reasons: 

—Museums are key education providers.—Museums already offer educational programs in math, science, art, literacy, language arts, history, civics and government, economics and financial literacy, geography, and social studies, in coordination with State and local curriculum standards. Museums also provide experiential learning opportunities, STEM education, youth training, job preparedness, and a range of programs geared toward homeschooling families. They 

reach beyond the scope of instructional programming for schoolchildren by also 

providing critical teacher training. There is a growing consensus that whatever 

the new educational era looks like, it will focus on the development of a core 

set of skills: critical thinking, the ability to synthesize information, creativity, 

and collaboration. We believe museums are uniquely situated to help learners 

develop these core skills, and this is borne out by evidence. According to a recent University of Arkansas study, students who attended just a half-day field 

trip to an art museum experienced an increase in critical thinking skills, historical empathy and tolerance. For students from rural or high-poverty regions, the 

increase was even more significant. 

—Museums create jobs and support local economies.—Museums serve as economic 

engines, bolster local infrastructure, and spur tourism. Both the U.S. Conference of Mayors and the National Governors Association agree that cultural 

assets such as museums are essential to attracting businesses, a skilled workforce, and local and international tourism. 

—Museums address community challenges.—Many museums offer programs tailored to seniors, veterans, children with special needs, persons with disabilities, 

and more, greatly expanding their reach and impact. For example, some have 

programs designed specifically for children on the autism spectrum while others 

are addressing veterans’ post-war trauma or providing youth job training opportunities. 

—Digitization and traveling exhibitions bring museum collections to underserved 

populations.—Teachers, students, and researchers benefit when cultural institutions are able to increase access to trustworthy information through online collections and traveling exhibits. Most museums, however, need more resources 

to digitize collections. 

The National Endowment for the Humanities is an independent Federal agency 

created by Congress in 1965. Grants are awarded to nonprofit educational institutions—including museums, colleges, universities, archives, and libraries—for educational programming and the care of collections. NEH supports museums as institutions of learning and exploration, and as keepers of our cultural, historical, and 

scientific heritages. 

In 2015, through Preservation & Access, one of NEH’s national program divisions, 

63 peer-reviewed, competitive grants totaling over $3.6 million dollars were awarded 

to museums, historical societies and historic sites for a variety of projects to preserve and provide access to our Nation’s rich cultural heritage. Across all NEH divisions (including Preservation and Access, Research, Education, Public Programs, 

Challenge Grants and Digital Humanities), these institutions received 118 awards 

totaling over $12.5 million. Demand for humanities project support, as demonstrated by NEH grant application rates, far exceeds available funding. In fiscal 

year 2015, NEH received 4,928 competitive grant applications representing $482.8 

million in requested funds, but was only able to fund 15.4 percent of these peerreviewed proposals. 

NEH also provides approximately 40 percent of its funding directly to States 

through grants to humanities councils located in every State and U.S. Territory. In 

2015, 55 State councils supported 4,266 events in museums, reaching a total audience of more than 2.1 million people. 

Here are just two examples of how NEH funding supports museums’ work in your 

communities: 

—In 2015, Chugachmiut was awarded $250,000 for the creation of an online digital archive of approximately 700 ethnographic objects, art works, and photographs, representing the cultural heritage of the Chugach people of southern 

Alaska. The project will gather, upload, display, and disseminate historical information about all Chugach ethnographic collections worldwide on a dedicated 

Web site accessible to researchers. 

—In 2015, The International Folk Art Foundation in Santa Fe, New Mexico was 

awarded $400,000 for The Red that Colored the World, including implementa-
8 

tion of a traveling exhibition, a catalog, and public programs about the history 

and global significance of cochineal, an insect-based dye source whose origins 

date to the pre-Columbian Americas. 

The National Endowment for the Arts makes art accessible to all and provides 

leadership in arts education. Established in 1965, NEA supports great art in every 

congressional district. Its grants to museums help them exhibit, preserve, and interpret visual material through exhibitions, residencies, publications, commissions, 

public art works, conservation, documentation, services to the field, and public programs. 

In 2015, more than 2,000 museums participated as Blue Star Museums—a partnership between NEA, Blue Star Families, and the Department of Defense—to offer 

free admission to all active duty and reserve personnel and their families from Memorial Day through Labor Day. This particular effort served more than 839,000 people, while many other museums offer military discounts or free admission throughout the year. 

In 2015, NEA made more than 160 direct awards to museums, totaling over $5 

million. Forty percent of NEA’s grant funds are distributed to State arts agencies 

for re-granting, and many museums benefit from these funds as well. Receiving a 

grant from the NEA confers prestige on supported projects, strengthening museums’ 

ability to attract matching funds from other public and private funders. On average, 

each dollar awarded by the NEA leverages more than nine dollars from other 

sources. 

Here are two examples of how NEA funding is used to support museums’ work 

in your communities: 

—In 2015, the American Jazz Museum received $20,000 to support an indoor and 

outdoor jazz and blues festival, including education programming for youth and 

adults as well as potential performance opportunities for local youth jazz ensembles. 

—In 2015, Art Mobile of Montana, in Dillon, received $15,000 to support a traveling exhibition and visual arts education program. A specially equipped van 

travels throughout the State, providing access to original artworks by Montana 

artists. The program provides resources for teachers in selected schools on Indian reservations. 

In addition to these direct grants, NEA’s Arts and Artifacts Indemnity program 

also allows museums to apply for Federal indemnity on major exhibitions, saving 

them roughly $30 million in insurance costs every year and making many more exhibitions available to the public—all at virtually no cost to the American taxpayer. 

The Smithsonian Institution comprises some of the most visited museums in the 

world, including the National Museum of American History, the National Air and 

Space Museum, and the National Museum of Natural History. The Smithsonian 

reaches visitors and learners of all ages, in the Nation’s capital and across the country, with innovative exhibits and programs. Its 20 museums—including the National 

Zoo—attracted over 28 million in-person visitors last year, its Web sites reached 

more than 100 million unique visitors, and its content and curriculums are used by 

teachers all over the country. 

The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget request of $922.2 million includes critical 

funding necessary for the maintenance, operation, and security of the National Museum of African American History and Culture, which is due to open in September. 

Additional funding for collections care, cutting-edge research of every type, facilities 

maintenance, and technology upgrades will allow the Smithsonian to continue caring for the Nation’s treasures and increase access for all. 

The Historic Preservation Fund is the funding source of preservation awards to 

States, tribes, local governments, and nonprofits. State and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices carry out the historic preservation work of the Federal Government 

on State and tribal lands. These duties include making nominations to the National 

Register of Historic Places, reviewing impacts of Federal projects, providing assistance to developers seeking a rehabilitation tax credit, working with local preservation commissions, and conducting preservation education and planning. This Federal-State-local foundation of America’s historic preservation program was established by the National Historic Preservation Act. We urge you to provide $55 million 

for SHPOs and $15 million for THPOs through the Historic Preservation Fund. 

We also urge you to restore funding of $30 million for Save America’s Treasures 

and $4.6 million for Preserve America, which have not been funded in recent years. 

From 1999 to 2010, Federal funding of $315 million for 1,287 Save America’s Treasures projects leveraged an additional $400 million in non-Federal funds. These 

projects protected some of America’s most iconic and endangered artifacts, including 
9 

Ansel Adams’ prints and negatives, Frank Lloyd Wright structures including 

Fallingwater, and the American flag that inspired the Star Spangled Banner. SAT 

projects also created more than 16,000 jobs in local communities across the country. 

We are disappointed that the administration did not include this funding in its fiscal year 2017 budget. 

Also in the context of the Historic Preservation Fund, we support the administra- tion’s requested increases for the Civil Rights Initiative, including $25 million for 

competitive historic preservation grants to preserve the stories and sites associated 

with the Civil Rights Movement as well as $3 million to help Historically Black Colleges and Universities conduct similar documentation and interpretation. 

The 2005 Heritage Health Index of archives, libraries, historical societies, and 

museums concluded that action is needed to prevent the loss of millions of artifacts, 

and an updated Heritage Health Index due soon is predicted to show a continuing 

urgent need. Historic preservation programs are not only essential to protecting our 

many heritages; they also serve as economic development engines and job creators. 

I want to once more acknowledge the difficult choices that the subcommittee faces. 

I hope that my testimony has made it clear why these priorities are of critical importance to the Nation and will provide a worthwhile return on investment to the 

American taxpayer. Thank you again for the opportunity to submit this testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY

As Congress and the administration consider funding priorities for fiscal year 

2017 in a tight budgetary environment, the American Chemical Society (ACS) urges 

policy makers to support the important work carried out by the Environmental Protection Agency’s Science and Technology Program. In reviewing the President‘s 

budget request, ACS has identified two areas of focus for EPA: 

1. Funding the EPA Science & Technology account at the requested amount of 

$754 million and increasing support for scientific research supported by the 

agency, particularly through the Office of Research and Development (ORD). 

2. Restoring $10 million the Science To Achieve Results (STAR) fellowships program to the fiscal year 2016 enacted amount of $49.8 million. 

The American Chemical Society (ACS) would like to thank Chairperson Lisa Murkowski and Ranking Member Tom Udall for the opportunity to submit testimony 

for the record on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) science and technology programs for fiscal year 2008. 

ACS is a non-profit scientific and educational organization, chartered by Congress, 

representing approximately 157,000 individual chemical scientists and engineers. 

The world’s largest scientific society, ACS advances the chemical enterprise, increases public understanding of chemistry, and brings its expertise to bear on State, 

national, and international matters. 

We look to science to understand environmental challenges and to develop more 

intelligent, less burdensome solutions. Over the past two decades, demand for more 

scientific evidence—whether to set or improve regulations—has grown substantially. 

The amount of research envisioned in EPA-related authorizations also has increased. Nevertheless, appropriations for EPA science programs have not kept pace 

with the need for more and better science. 

Over the last 20 years, the EPA S&T account, which includes the ORD and research programs in other EPA Offices, has fluctuated between 7 and 10 percent of 

the agency’s total budget. In order for EPA set science-based national environmental 

standards, conduct research and environmental monitoring, and provide technical 

assistance to States, local governments, and businesses, the S&T account needs to 

increase as a percentage of the agency’s total budget, ultimately to a stable 10 percent level. The President’s budget request is $754 million, a roughly 2.6 percent increase over fiscal year 2016, and 9.2 percent of the total agency request. While ACS 

supports the President’s request, we urge the subcommittee to find additional resources to boost S&T spending at EPA to eventually reach 10 percent of the agency 

budget. 

In the long term, ACS recommends the ORD account should eventually receive 

$646 million, consistent with its 2004 funding high point. This represents an increase of 20.5 percent percent relative to fiscal year 2016 funding levels. ACS 

strongly urges to the subcommittee to work with EPA to boost resources for ORD 

to request and appropriate steadily increasing amounts to eventually reach the 2004 

level. ACS recommends that the additional funds be applied to the following priority 

areas: 

—Provide at least a $10 million increase in funding for STAR fellowship program. 
10 

—Increase funding of green chemistry and engineering to advance the development and use of innovative, environmentally benign products and processes. 

—Invest in EPA’s ability to recruit, develop, and retain an effective scientific 

workforce. 

—Continue investing in Federal research and technology development to reduce 

or avoid greenhouse gas emissions and address the potential impacts of global 

climate change. 

—Support innovative and high-risk research to help identify and explore future 

environmental problems and develop new sets of technologies to solve existing 

problems. 

The fiscal year 2008 budget request continues a pattern of flat support for science 

at EPA for the Office of Research & Development, which is the largest part of the 

S&T account. The administration requested $512 million for ORD for fiscal year 

2017. This represents a ¥.2 percent cut in ORD resources over fiscal year 2016. The 

decrease, when accounting for inflation, in ORD accounts from fiscal year 2016 

threatens ORD’s mission to carry out world class environmental research, further 

damaging the Government’s ability to provide top notch research on behalf of the 

American taxpayer and ensure America’s policy makers use sound scientific advice 

in decisionmaking. 

The administration’s proposal to reduce funding in the STAR fellowship program 

is a good case in point. This program is the only Federal program dedicated to graduate study in environmental sciences at colleges and universities across the country. 

The STAR fellowships are part of a cohesive effort to characterize critical or emerging environmental problems and create solutions to address them. EPA designed 

this extramural research grant program to work in cooperation with a fellowship 

program. Together, they provide ideas, information, new discoveries, and new researchers. Today’s STAR fellows will become tomorrow’s environmental experts 

working for industry, Government agencies like EPA, and academic institutions. 

The loss of this program’s resources will further erode the agency’s capability to attract an excellent workforce and will reduce the amount of scientific information 

available to inform agency decisions. Over the last decade, STAR fellowship funding 

has been reduced by over half. We urge the subcommittee to restore funding to the 

appropriated level of $49.8 million from the budget request of $39.1 million. 

ACS supports increased funding for green chemistry and engineering programs to 

advance the development and use of innovative products and process, reducing or 

eliminating the use of hazardous substances. Because chemistry and chemical products fuel the economy of every industrialized nation, the tools and strategies chemists and chemical engineers develop will be instrumental in meeting the dual challenges of protecting the environment and strengthening the economy. 

ACS is a long term advocate for increased attention to research programs at EPA, 

both in budgetary and in management terms, and our enthusiasm for these programs remain strong. 

[This statement was submitted by J. Carl Maxwell, Director, Energy and Environment Policy, Office of Public Affairs.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN FOREST FOUNDATION

America’s family-owned forests, over one-third of the Nation’s forested landscape, 

are critical to meeting the Nation’s clean air and water, wildlife, and wood supply 

needs today and in the future. With impending threats to these forests from catastrophic wildfires, development pressures, insects, diseases, and other issues, continued delivery of these benefits is not guaranteed. Funding for critical U.S. Forest 

Service programs is essential for helping the 22 million people who own these lands, 

continue to provide these necessities for all Americans. In particular, we request the 

following funding levels and policy improvements for critical programs in the USDA 

Forest Service budget: 

—Revise budgeting structure for wildfire suppressing to allow expenses for large 

wildfires to be paid for from emergency funds and to reverse both the ‘‘borrowing’’ and the gradual decline of key agency program funding. 

—$479 million for the hazardous fuels program accompanied with policy direction 

to support increased cross-boundary collaboration and implementation, especially with private landowners, through the hazardous fuels program. 

—$29 million for the Forest Stewardship Program with continued direction to encourage a focus on outcomes and measurable impact. 

—$23.5 million for the Landscape Restoration Program. 

—$83 million for the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program. 
11 

1Family Forest Research Center, 2014 Preliminary Data. 

—$27 million for the Forest Products Laboratory. 

—$48 million for Forest Health Protection on Cooperative lands. 

The American Forest Foundation is a nonprofit conservation organization that 

works on the ground with the more than 22 million family woodland owners 

through a variety of programs, including the American Tree Farm System®, to protect the values and benefits of America’s family forests, with a specific focus on 

clean water, wildlife, and sustainable wood supplies. Unfortunately, new data suggests that by 2020, more than 18 million acres of family forests will be threatened 

by housing development. Furthermore, almost 14 million acres are at risk of mortality due to insects and disease, while 29 million are at high or very high risk of 

destruction from wildfire.1 At the same time, less than 15 percent of family forest 

owners have sought out technical service for the stewardship of their forests; therefore, it is essential that we provide families with the tools, technical information, 

and policy support to keep their forests as forests and help them accomplish their 

management objectives while also protecting the critical benefits Americans depend 

on every day. 

WILDFIRE SUPPRESSION FUNDING FIX

Over the last decade, wildfire expenses have significantly increased, and the Federal wildfire budgets are often insufficient to cover the costs, leading Federal agencies to transfer funds from non-fire accounts to cover fire-fighting expenses. Additionally, as the budgeted 10-year average of wildfire fighting costs has increased in 

a limited budget, non-fire programs have gradually been squeezed. Programs like 

the Forest Stewardship Program have seen as much as a 20 percent decline in the 

last few years, causing serious challenges with State forestry agency’s abilities to 

work with family landowners. 

We urge passage of legislation that will both end the disruptive borrowing and 

reverse the trend of wildfire fighting costs consuming the Forest Service budget at 

the expense of other critical programs. 

HAZARDOUS FUELS PROGRAM CROSS BOUNDARY DIRECTION

A recent AFF survey of family landowners in the West showed that family owners 

are aware and interested in implementing management to reduce wildfire risks on 

their properties but there are two important barriers: cost and concern about lack 

of action by their neighbors. Why is this important? AFF also completed recent analysis that shows if we want to protect critical watersheds in the West from the risks 

of catastrophic wildfire—which can destroy the storage and filtration benefits forests 

provide-leading to water quality and quantity problems— we’ve got to engage family 

landowners in wildfire mitigation. In fact our analysis shows that nearly 40 percent 

of the land that keeps water clean in important watersheds that are at a high risk 

of wildfire, are private and family-owned. Cross-boundary collaborative projects that 

engage all landowners in a landscape or a watershed— both public and private, will 

help address these challenges and will also help motivate landowners to act. Thus, 

we ask the subcommittee to provide direction to the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior to work in partnership with State forestry agencies to encourage cross-boundary collaboration and implementation of wildfire mitigation at a 

landscape scale, through the hazardous fuels program. We also ask the subcommittee to fund the Forest Service hazardous fuels program at $479 million. 

This approach is working. For example, in the Blue Mountains of Oregon, AFF 

is working through a local collaborative, that involves public agencies and local organizations working together to support wildfire mitigation across the landscape. 

This collaborative has realized that treating only one piece of the puzzle—the public 

lands side which has been where most of the focus has been—is not going to full 

protect communities, homes, lives, and water supplies. To date, we have succeeded 

in engaging landowners who are now managing almost 22,000 acres for wildfire 

mitigation, in the patchwork of public and private lands. We are similarly working 

in collaboratives in Colorado’s Front Range, Montana’s Great Falls, and California’s 

Northern Sierra’s. 

FOREST STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM

The Forest Stewardship Program (FSP), implemented through State forestry 

agencies, provides Federal support for the boots-on-the-ground needed to engage 

family landowners in stewardship. With strong funding of $29 million for fiscal year 

2017 and strategic changes, FSP could do more. FSP can be, and in some States 
12 

already is, an essential lynchpin for conducting outreach, marketing, and interaction 

with landowners in ways that can measurably protect clean water, wildlife habitat, 

and sustainable wood supplies. Without the presence on the ground, effective landowner engagement will be impossible. We encourage the subcommittee to continue 

to provide direction to support the changes underway in the program to better focus 

the program on measurable outcomes, encourage targeted marketing and engagement so resources are focused on the highest priorities, and encourage sustained engagement with landowners so resources are used most effectively to achieve priority 

outcomes on the landscape. 

LANDSCAPE SCALE RESTORATION PROGRAM

The Landscape Scale Restoration Program (LSR), which provides resources 

through a competitive process, to States and partner organizations to implement 

work that results in measurable outcomes, is a very effective program. Through 

LSR, State agencies are working with partners like AFF to move the needle on key 

issues like protecting clean water in the West or restoring critical ecosystems in the 

south which will be essential to preventing another flood of species listings in the 

south. The program is leveraging private sector funding as well. AFF strongly urges 

the subcommittee to support $23.513 million for the Landscape Restoration Program. 

FOREST INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM

The Forest Inventory and Analysis Program provides critical data to inform natural resource decisions, such as where to site a new mill, where to implement wildfire mitigation treatments for the greatest impact, how much carbon is captured and 

stored in our forests. FIA also provides trends in family forest ownership and demographics so that we can better understand how to work with this significant ownership group. We appreciate the work of the subcommittee in fiscal year 2016 to increase funding for this program and we encourage an increase to $83 million in fiscal year 2017, to allow the agency to implement the current measurement cycle, at 

a minimum. 

FOREST PRODUCTS LABORATORY

The Forest Products Laboratory, part of USFS Research and Development, provides critical research for increasing the market opportunities for forest products. 

Recently, the Laboratory has been essential to providing the science and data needed to build the new tall wood buildings we are beginning to see in the U.S., that 

have both economic and environmental benefits. The Lab is also key to researching 

new products for forests—from biomass energy to nanotechnology products. Markets 

that provide landowners with income to implement management such as hazardous 

fuels reduction or habitat creation, will be essential if we’re to address the issues 

facing family lands and continue to see the benefits from these lands. We appreciate 

the increase the subcommittee provided for the Lab in fiscal year 2016 and we ask 

that this funding level, of $27 million be at least maintained in fiscal year 2017. 

We also urge the subcommittee to provide direction that the increased funds be used 

for a combination of research, development, and technology transfer for advancing 

wood building construction, nanotechnology, and biomass technology development. 

STATE FIRE ASSISTANCE

We ask the subcommittee to provide $87 million for State Fire Assistance to support the program’s coordinated fire protection and mobilization for fire suppression 

on both Federal and non-Federal lands. In addition, the funds support State-coordinated hazard mitigation activities in the wildland-urban interface, focus on reducing 

property loss, decrease fuels hazards, increase public awareness, develop fire plans, 

and increase citizen-driven solutions in rural communities. 

FOREST HEALTH INVESTMENTS

Threats from invasive species and pests continue to pervade American tree-farmers’ lands, thus posing economic and environmental hardships. Close to 500 species 

of tree-damaging pests from other countries have become established in the United 

States, and a new one is introduced, on average, every 2 to 3 years. The USFS Forest Health Protection (FHP) Program is necessary to help prevent, contain, and 

eradicate these dangerous pests and pathogens. The program provides critical assistance to other Federal agencies, State agencies, local agencies and private landowners. We ask the subcommittee fund the Forest Health Cooperative lands pro-
13 

gram at $48 million, to provide protection from insects and diseases on non-Federal 

lands, including family lands. 

Thank you for considering these requests. We know the subcommittee has difficult 

decisions to make, in this era of limited budgets, especially with the rising costs of 

wildfire suppression. We hope that the subcommittee will consider the impact the 

above mentioned priorities can have on millions of family forest owners, along with 

all other Americans who reap the benefits of well-managed, working forests. 

We, at AFF, thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to provide some insight 

on these programs. 

[This statement was submitted by Tom Martin, President & CEO.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMERICAN FORESTS

Dear Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and honorable subommittee 

members: 

American Forests appreciates the opportunity to submit public testimony regarding our fiscal year 2017 appropriation recommendations. We understand the continuing economic realities facing the Nation, and we thank this subcommittee for 

its support of key Federal conservation programs in the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act of 2016. The return on investing in our Nation’s forests is great, whether those 

forests are public or private, in urban areas or in wildlands. The economic, social, 

and environmental benefits healthy forests provide are clear incentives for Federal 

investment. American Forests’ funding recommendations are generally consistent 

with the President’s budget requests for the USDA Forest Service, Department of 

Interior, and the Environmental Protection Agency, with the exception of programs 

that merit an elevated request. 

Founded in 1875, American Forests is the oldest national nonprofit conservation 

organization in the United States. Its mission is to restore threatened forest ecosystems and inspire people to value and protect urban and wildland forests. American Forests has planted 50 million trees in 1,000 high-impact forest restoration 

projects, as well as works in cities across the country helping to increase urban forest canopy and demonstrating innovative greenspace projects. 

USDA FOREST SERVICE (USFS)

National Forest System 

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP): CFLRP was created to promote job stability, a reliable wood supply, and forest health while reducing emergency wildfire costs and risks. American Forests’ request is $20 million 

above the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget ask, and identical to agency budget 

requests from the past 2 years. Increased funding would support the continued implementation of the 23 existing projects, and allow for the competitive selection of 

up to 10 additional landscapes across the Nation. 

—American Forests recommends an increase from the President’s request to $60 

million. 

State and Private Forestry 

Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF): U&CF plays an integral part in promoting sound stewardship of our Nation’s urban and community forests and trees. 

By providing important technical and financial support, U&CF helps cities and 

towns across the Nation enhance tree and forest cover, prepare for storms and other 

disturbance events, contain threats from native and invasive pests, and maximize 

the economic, social, and ecological benefits of their tree resources. U&CF is a highimpact program and a smart investment as Federal support is often leveraged 2:1 

(or in many cases significantly more) by States and partner organizations. As a 

model Federal program, U&CF consistently increases communities served, brings together diverse partners and resources, and shows that Federal investment can have 

huge and lasting impacts on communities of all sizes. 

—American Forests recommends U&CF be funded at $31.3 million. 

Community Forests and Open Space Program (CFP): CFP has made substantial 

progress in preserving forests by increasing opportunities for Americans to connect 

with forests in their own communities and fostering new public-private partnerships. CFP has supported 27 community forest projects in cities and towns across 

15 States and Territories. In the latest round of CFP grants, project partners leveraged $8.7 million in Federal funds to secure $31.8 million in non-Federal funding. 
14 

As a result of these partnerships, more than 14,000 acres of private forestlands have 

been or soon will be acquired to create new or expand existing community forests. 

—As interest in this program far exceeds the fiscal year 2016 allocation of $2 million, American Forests recommends an increase to $5 million. 

Forest Health Management: The Forest Health Management programs provide essential expertise and assistance to State and municipal agencies and private landowners in countering non-native pests. Municipal governments across the country 

are spending more than $3 billion each year to remove trees on city property killed 

by these non-native pests. Homeowners are spending an additional $1 billion to remove and replace trees on their properties and are absorbing an additional $1.5 billion in reduced property values. 

—American Forests asks that the subcommittee appropriate $52 million for Federal lands and $48 million is designated for cooperative lands. 

Forest Legacy Program: Since authorized in 1990, the Forest Legacy Program has 

protected 2.49 million acres across the country, including 169,250 acres of water 

bodies and 3,288 miles of streams. It is imperative to continue protecting our Nation’s forests for future generations while simultaneously providing the myriad of 

ecosystem services to current Americans. 

—American Forests supports the President’s request of $62.35 million allocated 

through the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 

Landscape-Scale Restoration: The Landscape Scale Restoration program strategically prioritizes resources by competitively allocating the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act funds. It focuses on targeting Federal investments —leveraged by State 

funding resources—to areas of greatest need, highest value, or strongest innovation 

potential as stipulated in each State Forest Action Plan. 

—American Forests recommends funding the Landscape Scale Restoration program at $23.5 million. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT (BLM)

Public Domain Forest Management: The BLM is entrusted with the management 

of 58 million acres of forests and woodlands across 12 western States, including 

Alaska. 14 million acres—or 24 percent—of BLM forests are overstocked increasing 

insect and disease attacks and catastrophic wildfire. Increased funding to address 

these serious risks is necessary across all land management agencies. 

—American Forests supports the President’s fiscal year 2017 request at $10.08 million. 

National Conservation Lands: The National Conservation Lands encompasses signature landscapes including some of America’s finest natural and cultural treasures, 

many of them forested. Yet, despite their codification in law and growing popularity, 

the system of national monuments and national conservation areas is still undercapitalized. These areas lack sufficient staff and financial resources to adequately 

protect their valuable natural and cultural resources and maximize their recreational potential. 

—American Forests supports the President’s fiscal year 2017 request for $50.65 

million. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE (FWS)

Ecological Services: Ecological Services achieves conservation of FWS trust resources, focusing on imperiled species, and works closely with external partners and 

agencies for the conservation of natural resources across the landscape. The Ecological Services Program facilitates implementation of the Endangered Species Act 

through the programmatic divisions of listing, planning and consultation, conservation and restoration, recovery and provides assistance to States under the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund. 

—American Forests supports the President’s fiscal year 2017 request of $252.29 

million for Ecological Services. 

Coastal Program: As part of the habitat conservation arm of FWS, the Coastal 

Program is a cooperative program to implement habitat restoration and protection 

projects on public and private lands in 24 priority coastal ecosystems, including 

areas in the Great Lakes and U.S. Territories. It delivers on-the-ground conservation by working collaboratively with partners to restore, enhance, and protect coastal habitat for priority Federal trust species. 
15 

—American Forests supports the President’s fiscal year 2017 request of $13.49 million for the Coastal Program. 

National Wildlife Refuge System: The National Wildlife Refuge System, with 563 

refuges covering more than 150 million acres across the country, is vital to protecting America’s wildlife and ensuring that their habitats are a priority. Because 

refuges are visited by nearly 48.5 million people each year, contributes a total of 

$4.5 billion to the economy, and support more than 35,000 jobs, investment in the 

Refuge system is an investment in our communities. With 101 refuges within 25 

miles of 250,000 or more people, the Refuge System is a vital component of our 

urban forests, as well. 

—American Forests supports the President’s fiscal year 2017 request for $508.20 

million with the additional $5.5 million requested for the Refuge Visitor Service 

allocated to the urban wildlife refuges. 

State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Program (STWG): As authorized by the Fish and 

Wildlife Act of 1956, STWG provides Federal grant funds to States and Tribes to 

develop and implement programs for the benefit of fish and wildlife and their habitats. All funded activities must link with species, actions, or strategies included in 

each State Wildlife Action Plan (Plan). The success of this program is evident in the 

1.9 million acres of habitat for species of greatest conservation need and the nearly 

131,000 acres of habitat it has protected through land acquisition or conservation 

easements. 

—American Forests supports the President’s fiscal year 2017 request for $66.98 

million for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

National Park System: During this historical centennial year of the National Park 

Service, American Forests’ requests improved funding for the agency’s operations, 

construction, and partnerships. Specifically, the National Park Partnerships (a.k.a. 

Centennial Challenge) is an economically wise program that leverages private dollars to match Federal funds. The funds support projects to improve the visiting experience at national parks. An fiscal year 2016 investment of $15 million has yielded more than twice that in private donations, and many more opportunities await 

with a funding boost. 

—American Forests supports the President’s fiscal year 2017 request of $2.524 billion for ‘Operations’, $252 million for ‘Construction’ and $35 million for National 

Park Partnerships. 

Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Program (ORLPP): The State and Local 

Assistance Program provides matching grants to States and localities for protection 

and development of parks and recreation resources and is the primary Federal investment tool to ensure that families have easy access to urban forests in parks and 

open space, and neighborhood recreation resources. This nationally competitive program complements the existing State and local assistance program by creating opportunities for outdoor play as well as developing or enhancing outdoor recreation 

partnerships in cities. 

—American Forests supports the President’s fiscal year 2017 request of $110 million for the State and local assistance program, which includes $12 million for 

ORLPP. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF): Green infrastructure is a cost-effective and resilient approach to stormwater infrastructure needs that also provide 

many other community benefits. American Forests supports EPA’s goal of strengthening green infrastructure activities to further its sustainability goals. 

—American Forests request that not less than 20 percent the CWSRF funding be 

made available for green infrastructure or environmentally innovative projects 

that promote water system and community resilience. 

LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE REQUESTS

Wildfire Suppression Funding 

America’s forests and forest-dependent communities are at risk from outbreaks of 

pests and pathogens, persistent drought, and the buildup of hazardous fuels. Urbanization and development patterns are placing more homes and communities near 

fire-prone landscapes, leading to more destructive and costly wildfires. Unfortunately and again in fiscal year 2015, the 10-year average was not enough to meet 
16 

the USFS suppression needs, forcing the agency to transfer $700 million from nonsuppression accounts to make up for the shortfall. The current wildfire suppression 

funding model and cycle of transfers and repayments has negatively impacted the 

ability to implement forest management, among many other activities. Additionally, 

the increasing 10-year average to has not met annual suppression needs since before 

fiscal year 2002, which is why we are thankful to the subcommittee for the full 

transfer repayment and increased suppression funding in fiscal year 2016. However, 

we understand this is not expected to occur every year. DOI and USFS need a longterm fire funding solution that would result in stable and predictable budgets. 

We appreciate the subcommittee’s support of the bipartisan Wildfire Disaster 

Funding Act, which addresses Federal fire funding challenges as well as other bipartisan congressional efforts in this regard. We respectfully request a bipartisan 

fire funding solution that would (1) access disaster funding, (2) minimize transfers, 

and (3) address the continued erosion of agency budgets over time, with the goal 

of reinvesting in key programs that would restore forests to healthier conditions. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund 

American Forests supports the permanent authorization of full and dedicated 

funding, without further appropriation or fiscal year limitation, for the Land and 

Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). LWCF programs protect natural resource lands, 

outdoor recreation opportunities, and working forests at the local, State and Federal 

levels. This program ensures that these important lands are protected for current 

and future generations. 

—American Forests supports the President’s fiscal year 2016 budget request, which 

calls for permanent authorization of $900 million in mandatory funding for 

LWCF programs in the Departments of Interior and Agriculture. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN GEOPHYSICAL UNION

The American Geophysical Union (AGU), a non-profit, non-partisan scientific society, appreciates the opportunity to submit testimony regarding the fiscal year 2017 

budget request for the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The AGU, on behalf 

of its more than 60,000 Earth and space scientist members, respectfully requests 

Congress to appropriate $1.17 billion for the USGS. Currently, Federal funding for 

USGS is 4.5 percent below what it was in fiscal year 2010. Since fiscal year 2010, 

USGS has not seen a funding increase above 2 percent. Restoring strong funding 

to USGS will allow the agency to sustain current programs and make strategic investments to improve knowledge and understanding of critical geologic, environmental, and ecological systems needed by decision makers across the country. 

USGS BENEFITS EVERY STATE AND TERRITORY IN THE UNION

USGS is uniquely positioned to provide information and informed responses to 

many of the Nation’s greatest challenges and has a mission that positively impacts 

the lives of all Americans. USGS plays a crucial role in assessing water quality and 

quantity, reducing risks from earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, landslides, wildfires, 

and other natural hazards; providing emergency responders with geospatial data to 

improve homeland security; assessing mineral and energy resources (including rare 

earth elements and unconventional natural gas resources); and providing the science 

needed to manage our ecosystems and combat invasive species that can threaten 

natural and managed environmental systems and public health. 

Through its offices across the country, the USGS works with partners to provide 

high-quality research and data to policymakers, emergency responders, natural resource managers, civil and environmental engineers, educators, and the public. A 

few examples of the USGS’ valuable work are provided below. 

WATER QUALITY

The Survey collects scientific information on water availability and quality to inform the public and decision makers about the status of freshwater resources and 

how they are changing over time. During the past 130 years, the USGS has collected streamflow data at over 21,000 sites, water-level data at over 1,000,000 wells, 

and chemical data at over 338,000 surface-water and groundwater sites. This information is needed to effectively manage freshwaters—both above and below the land 

surface—for domestic, public, agricultural, commercial, industrial, recreational, and 

ecological purposes. 
17 

NATURAL HAZARDS

The USGS plays an important role in reducing risks from floods, wildfires, earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, landslides, and other natural hazards that 

jeopardize human lives and cost billions of dollars in damages every year. Seismic 

networks and hazard analysis are used to formulate earthquake probabilities and 

to establish building codes. USGS monitors volcanoes and provides warnings about 

impending eruptions that are used by aviation officials to prevent planes from flying 

into volcanic ash clouds. Data from the USGS network of stream gages enable the 

National Weather Service to issue flood and drought warnings. The bureau and its 

Federal partners monitor seasonal wildfires and provide maps of current fire locations and the potential spread of fires. In domestic and global events, emergency 

managers and public officials rely on USGS to inform them of risks and hazards 

posed to human and natural systems. 

MINERAL AND ENERGY RESOURCES

USGS assessments of mineral and energy resources—including rare earth elements, coal, oil, unconventional natural gas, and geothermal—are essential for making decisions about the Nation’s future. The Survey identifies the location and quantity of domestic mineral and energy resources, and assesses the economic and environmental effects of resource extraction and use. The agency is mapping domestic 

supplies of rare earth elements necessary for widespread deployment of new energy 

technologies, which can reduce dependence on foreign oil. The USGS is the sole Federal source of information on mineral potential, production, and consumption. 

LAND MANAGEMENT

USGS science plays a critical role in informing sound management of natural resources on Federal and State lands. The USGS conducts research and monitoring 

of fish, wildlife, and vegetation—data that informs management decisions by other 

Interior bureaus regarding protected species and land use. Ecosystems science is 

also used to control invasive species and wildlife diseases that can cause billions of 

dollars in economic losses. The Survey provides information for resource managers 

as they develop management strategies for restoration and long-term use of the Nation’s natural resources in the face of environmental change. 

DATA COLLECTION

Research and data collected by the USGS is vital to predicting the impacts of land 

use and climate change on water resources, wildfires, and ecosystems. For 43 

straight years, Landsat satellites have collected the largest archive of remotely 

sensed land data in the world, allowing for access to current and historical images 

that are used to assess the impact of natural disasters on communities and the environment and monitor global agriculture production. A 2013 National Research 

Council study found that the economic benefit of Landsat data was estimated to be 

$2 billion for 2011 alone. The consistency of data sets like those provided by 

Landsat is vital for advances in science, more efficient natural resource management, and profitable applications of data in commerce and industry. 

ENHANCED MAPPING FOR THE NATION

The USGS utilizes unique technologies that enable the nationwide collection of accurate terrain information. This information improves our knowledge of water supply and quality issues; better prepares emergency responders for natural disasters; 

and helps businesses utilize more accurate data for the development of alternative 

renewable energy projects. Modernized, high-resolution topographic maps are provided by the USGS through their 3D Elevation Program (3DEP). 3DEP, which is 

run by the USGS, leverages funds from the private sector and other Federal Agencies throughout the U.S. The initiative provides open-access elevation data to inform 

better flood-inundation maps, cost-effective precision farming, and the development 

of alternative renewable energy projects. 

PUBLIC HEALTH

The USGS plays a critical role in maintaining public health at the local, State, 

and national level. For example, the agency assesses negative health effects caused 

by the dispersion of contaminants after natural and man-made disasters, such as 

hurricanes and oil spills. In one such instance, after Hurricane Sandy, the USGS 

provided soil, water, and sediment information to public health agencies to help 

them protect citizens from toxic contaminants. 
18 

ENGAGING THE NEXT GENERATION OF SCIENTISTS

The USGS meets monthly with other Department of Interior (DOI) divisions to 

collaborate on projects that will engage the next generation of scientists. Collectively, the DOI is actively working to provide least 10 million students with educational, work, and training opportunities. In 2015, the USGS offered learning opportunities to 113,375 students and teachers in activities such as science fairs, mentoring opportunities, camps, and hands-on learning experiences. Programs such as 

the USGS’s Cooperative Research Units (CRU) provide under-represented undergraduate students with mentoring and hands-on experience designed as a pathway 

to DOI recruitment. 

CONCLUSION

AGU is grateful to the Senate Interior Appropriations Subcommittee for its leadership in restoring past budget cuts and strengthening the USGS. We recognize the 

financial challenges facing the Nation, but USGS has been historically strained by 

a large workload and too few resources. With our Nation facing unprecedented challenges such as the loss of ecosystems, demand for limited energy, increasing vulnerability to natural hazards, and need for clean water, the work done by USGS is essential to our environmental, economic, and national security. AGU respectfully requests that Congress work to provide $1.17 billion for USGS 

in fiscal year 2017. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this testimony to the 

subcommittee and thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN GEOSCIENCES INSTITUTE

Thank you for this opportunity to provide the American Geosciences Institute’s 

perspective on fiscal year 2017 appropriations for geoscience programs within the 

subcommittee’s jurisdiction. We ask the subcommittee to support and sustain the 

critical geoscience work of the United States Geological Survey (USGS), the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service, and the Smithsonian Institution. 

Specifically, we ask that you support the President’s request for $1.2 billion for 

USGS, but we respectfully request that Congress place greater emphasis on the geological sciences within the USGS mission. AGI supports balanced funding for Mission Areas within USGS and notes that funding for important geoscience-based programs has consistently lagged funding for other parts of USGS. AGI also supports 

$138 million for Energy and Minerals Management at the Bureau of Land Management; $234 million for the National Park Service’s Natural Resource Stewardship 

and Everglades Restoration activities; and $922 million for the Smithsonian Institution. 

The Earth provides the energy, mineral, water, and soil resources that are essential for a thriving, innovative economy, national security, and a healthy population 

and environment. We must understand the Earth system, and particularly the geological characteristics of Earth’s surface and subsurface, in order to sustain human 

health and safety, maintain energy and water supplies, and improve the quality of 

the environment while reducing risks from natural hazards. 

AGI is a nonprofit federation of 51 geoscientific and professional associations that 

represent approximately 250,000 geologists, geophysicists, and other Earth scientists who work in industry, academia, and government. Founded in 1948, AGI 

provides information services to geoscientists, serves as a voice of shared interests 

in our profession, plays a major role in strengthening geoscience education, and 

strives to increase public awareness of the vital role the geosciences play in society’s 

use of resources, resilience to natural hazards, and the health of the environment. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

AGI supports the President’s request for $1.2 billion for USGS. We respectfully 

suggest that Congress should allocate more resources to USGS’s geoscience functions because there is no alternative source for this expertise. The key Mission 

Areas of Water Resources, Core Science Systems, and Energy & Mineral Resources 

have consistently been underfunded when compared to other USGS Mission Areas. 

AGI strongly supports the proposed increase for USGS Facilities to maintain essential scientific facilities, including monitoring and observation instrumentation. We 

urge additional funding for the USGS Library, which is an important and unique 

resource for researchers and industry. 

Importance of Geoscience Functions at USGS: The need for geological information 

has not diminished since USGS was established in 1879. On the contrary, as we 
19 

place increasing demands on Earth’s system, many critical decisions rely upon geoscience information. The USGS has a wide-ranging mission to provide objective 

data, observations, analyses, assessments, and scientific solutions to support decisionmaking; while there is merit to USGS’s broad remit, its unique geological mission should be paramount. 

Table 1 highlights the Mission Areas that have been singled out for lower increases than other sections of USGS since fiscal year 2014; we note that these contain the majority of USGS’s geoscience functions. We respectfully ask Congress to 

recognize the importance of geoscience research, monitoring, information collection 

and analysis to the Nation’s safety, economy, defense, and quality of life, and to support USGS’s mandated role by funding balanced investment in USGS programs. 

Table 1: Trends in funding for USGS Mission Areas and Accounts, fiscal year 2014– 

fiscal year 2017 request. 

Core Science Systems Mission Area: 

—USGS Library: The USGS Library is a vital resource for geoscientists within 

and outside USGS, servicing hundreds of thousands of requests online and in 

person annually, yet staffing has fallen from 66 Federal staff (FTE) in 2000 to 

18 FTE in 2015. AGI supports increased funding for the USGS Library, which 

serves industry, academia, and government clients and preserves the intellectual stock of the geosciences. 

—National Geospatial Program: Topographic mapping has been a core activity at 

USGS since its inception. AGI strongly supports the 3D Nation interagency 

partnership to build a modern elevation map of the Nation’s territories and 

urges Congress to support USGS’s contribution, the 3DEP (3D Elevation) program. AGI strongly supports investment in lidar and ifsar mapping, and the 

President’s request for $69 million for the National Geospatial Program. 

—National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program (NCGMP): This important, 

decades-long partnership between the USGS, State geological surveys, and universities has a proven track record of delivering cost-effective geological maps. 

Over the past few years the number of grant proposals has increased while 

funding has remained stagnant. AGI asks that Congress increase funding for 

the National Cooperative Geologic Mapping Program to $30 million in fiscal 

year 2017 to meet growing demand. 

—Data Preservation: The National Geological and Geophysical Data Preservation 

Program (NGGDPP) produces more value in terms of economic, environmental, 

hazard mitigation, and regulatory efficiency than it costs to run. AGI urges 

Congress to reauthorize NGGDPP and to fund it at the previously authorized 

level of $3 million. 

Energy and Mineral Resources Mission Area: 

—Mineral Resources Program: AGI is a founding member of the Minerals Science 

and Information Coalition (MSIC), which supports minerals expertise in the 

Federal Government. We are concerned at the dearth of investment in this 

foundational component of the manufacturing supply chain, which is critical to 

our national economy and defense. AGI supports the President’s request for $49 

million for the Mineral Resources Program and asks that Congress add $5 million in new funding to create minerals forecasting capabilities. 

There is no point developing new materials if we cannot supply the raw materials to manufacture them. AGI suggests the creation of a Critical Minerals 

Hub, with funding of $25 million per year for 5 years, to match the Critical Materials Hub in the Department of Energy. 
20 

—Energy Resources Program: AGI supports increased funding for the Energy Resources Program. We note the importance of research on gas hydrates, which 

may play a significant role in future energy and climate scenarios. AGI supports 

funding of $286 million for the Energy Resources Program. 

—We urge USGS to develop opportunities to collaborate effectively with other 

agencies, including integrating more geological information with DOE’s Subsurface Technology and Engineering (SubTER) crosscut, to ensure prudent use 

of Federal funds. 

Climate and Land Use Mission Area: 

—Land Remote Sensing Program: One of the most fundamental concepts in the 

geosciences is that the Earth changes through time. It is impossible to overstate 

the importance of long-term, consistent monitoring of the Earth to provide a 

sound basis for decisionmaking. AGI supports the President’s request for $96.5 

million for the Land Remote Sensing Program, which includes Landsat and 

other Earth observing systems. 

Water Resources Mission Area: 

—Challenges in water supplies and water quality highlight the importance of understanding the quality, quantity, and distribution of our groundwater and surface water resources. AGI urges Congress to ensure the continuity and expansion of nationwide, long-term data collection and research programs that support water planning and decisionmaking across all States, and to fund Water 

Resources at $228 million for fiscal year 2017. 

Natural Hazards Mission Area: 

—Landslide hazards are assessed using detailed topographic data from the National Geospatial Program. AGI supports the proposed increase to $8 million for 

the Landslides Hazards Program in order to reap societal benefits from investments in geospatial information. 

—Earthquakes are increasing in States like Oklahoma and Kansas, and early 

warning systems are needed to avoid potential devastation from large earthquakes. AGI supports funding for the Earthquake Hazards Program of $60.5 

million. 

—AGI supports robust funding of the Natural Hazards Program and urges Congress to appropriate $139 million to this Mission Area. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

AGI notes efforts by the Energy and Minerals Management program to improve 

the return to taxpayers from the extraction of natural resources on our Nation’s 

public lands. AGI supports funding the Energy and Minerals Management activity 

at $138 million. 

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION

The Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History plays a dual role in communicating the excitement of the geosciences and enhancing knowledge through research and preservation of geoscience collections. AGI supports the President’s request of $922 million for the Smithsonian Institution in fiscal year 2017. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

National parks are very important to the geoscience community and the public 

as unique national treasures that showcase the geologic splendor of our country and 

offer unparalleled opportunities for research, education, and outdoor activities. AGI 

supports the President’s request for $224 million for Natural Resource Stewardship 

activities and $10 million for Everglades Restoration during the centennial year of 

the National Parks. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the subcommittee. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN HIGHER EDUCATION CONSORTIUM

REQUEST SUMMARY

On behalf of the Nation’s Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), which collectively are the American Indian Higher Education Consortium (AIHEC), thank you 

for this opportunity to present our fiscal year 2017 appropriations recommendations 

for the 28 colleges funded under Titles I and II of the Tribally Controlled Colleges 

and Universities Assistance Act (Tribal College Act); the two tribally chartered ca-
21 

reer and technical postsecondary institutions (Title V of the TCU Act); the two Bureau of Indian Education postsecondary institutions; and the Institute of American 

Indian Arts (IAIA). The Bureau of Indian Education administers each of these programs, with the exception of IAIA, which is congressionally chartered and funded 

in its own account. 

In fiscal year 2017, TCUs seek: 

—$89,220,000 to fund institutional operations and technical assistance under Titles I and II of the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act 

of 1978 or Tribal College Act, of which $88.5 million is for Titles I & II operating grants (which would fund 28 TCUs at the authorized level for the first 

time in 35 years) and $701,000 is to address increasingly needed technical assistance and a modest increase of $100,000 (this would be the first increase in 

technical assistance funding in over a decade); 

—$11,000,000 for Title V of the Tribal College Act, which provides partial institutional operations funding for the two tribally controlled postsecondary career 

and technical institutions; 

—$11,835,070, as included in the President’s budget, for the Institute of American 

Indian Arts (this includes $2 million towards forward funding of IAIA); 

—Minimum of $21,767,000, as included in the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget, 

for Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute, the Bureau of Indian Education’s two postsecondary institutions; and 

—$18,200,000 for a one-time appropriation to fully transition institutional operating funding for the three federally chartered TCUs, from the Federal fiscal 

year to an academic year, as follows: $3.4 million for IAIA (in additional to the 

$2 million included in the President’s budget) and $14.8 million for Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute. 

IAIA, Haskell Indian Nations University, and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic 

Institute are the only schools funded through the Department of the Interior that 

still receive their institutional funding on the Federal fiscal year (October 1) or more 

likely, much later in the year when the annual Interior appropriation bill is passed, 

rather than the first week of July in preparation for the upcoming school year. Once 

forward-funded these TCUs—like other institutions of higher education—will be 

able to plan multiyear budgets and start (and end) each school year with dependable 

funding. Forward funding does not increase the Federal budget in the long-term. It 

simply allows vital education programs to receive basic operating funds before each 

school year begins, which is critically important when the Federal Government is 

funded under continuing resolutions. 

TCUs are founded and chartered by their respective American Indian tribes, 

which hold a special legal relationship with the Federal Government, actualized by 

more than 400 treaties, several Supreme Court decisions, prior congressional action, 

and the ceding of more than one billion acres of land to the Federal Government. 

Despite the trust responsibility and treaty obligations, the TCUs’ primary source of 

basic operating funds has never been adequately funded. Further, our member institutions—already operating on shoestring budgets—have suffered the ramifications 

of sequestration and other across-the-board cuts. 

TCUs: ‘‘DOING SO MUCH WITH SO LITTLE’’ 

Tribal Colleges and Universities are an essential component of American Indian/ 

Alaska Native (AI/AN) education. Currently, 37 TCUs operate more than 75 campuses and sites in 16 States, within whose geographic boundaries 80 percent of all 

American Indian reservations and Federal Indian trust land lie. They serve students from well over 250 federally recognized tribes, more than 85 percent of whom 

receive Federal financial aid—primarily Pell grants. In total, the TCUs annually 

serve 160,000 AI/ANs and other community members through a wide variety of academic and community-based programs. TCUs are public institutions accredited by 

independent, regional accreditation agencies and like all U.S. institutions of higher 

education must regularly undergo stringent performance reviews to retain their accreditation status. Each TCU is committed to improving the lives of its students 

through higher education and to moving AI/ANs toward self-sufficiency. To do this, 

TCUs serve many roles in their reservation communities, functioning as community 

centers, libraries, tribal archives, career and business centers, computer labs, summer camps, community farms, economic development centers, GED/HiSET training 

and testing centers, child and elder care centers, and more. 

The Federal Government, despite its direct trust responsibility and binding treaty 

obligations, has never fully funded TCU institutional operations as authorized under 

the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Assistance Act of 1978. Yet despite 
22 

funding challenges, TCUs are leading the Nation in preparing AI/AN nurses and 

more recently, in preparing teachers for our Native schools. For example, in 2014, 

half of all AI/AN special education teachers in Montana graduated from Salish 

Kootenai College. TCUs train other professionals in high-demand fields, including 

agriculture and natural resources management, human services, IT technicians, and 

building tradesmen. By teaching the job skills most in demand on our reservations, 

TCUs are laying a solid foundation for tribal economic growth, with benefits for surrounding communities, and the Nation as a whole. But that is not enough. TCU 

leadership understand that we must do more—we must move beyond simple workforce training. Today, TCUs are tackling the tougher—but much more significant— 

issue of job creation because we know that to break the cycle of generational poverty 

and end the culture of dependency that grips so much of Indian Country, simply 

filling jobs that would be filled anyway is not enough. We must create new industries, new businesses, and a culture of self-sufficiency and innovation. Our job creation initiative is focusing initially on advanced manufacturing, through a partnership with the U.S. Department of Energy, National Laboratories, TCUs, and industry. 

Tribal Colleges continually seek to instill a sense of hope and identity within Native youth, who one day will lead our tribal nations. Unfortunately, the high school 

drop-out rate for Native students remains around 50 percent. To help address this 

alarming reality, TCUs are partnering with the Department of the Interior’s Bureau 

of Indian Education to help create a lasting ‘‘college-going culture’’ in Indian middle 

and high schools. TCUs are reaching back to create a bridge for Indian students as 

early as the elementary school, encouraging them to abandon any notion of dropping 

out of high school and instead, to think that the natural course is to finish high 

school and go on to the local TCU. In addition, TCUs offer Dual Credit courses for 

high school students, provide math teachers for local high schools as a strategy for 

improving course delivery, host Saturday academies, after school programs and 

summer camps for middle and high school students, and at the other end of the 

spectrum, they offer GED training and testing. 

As noted earlier, the TCUs’ operations funding is insufficient, and their budgets 

are further disadvantaged because, on a per student basis, the colleges receive funding for only about 85 percent of their academic enrollments. Approximately 15 percent of the TCUs’ collective enrollments are non-Indian students living in the local 

community, but TCUs receive Federal funding based only on Indian students, defined as members of a federally recognized tribe or the biological children of enrolled 

tribal members. While many TCUs do seek funding from their respective State legislatures for their non-Indian, State-resident students (often referred to as ‘‘non-beneficiary’’ students) successes have been, at best, inconsistent. Given their locations, 

often hundreds of miles from another postsecondary institution, TCUs are open to 

all students, Indian and non-Indian, believing that education in general, and postsecondary education in particular, is a catalyst to a better economic future for their 

areas. 

A recent independent, economic impact study proves this, illustrating that TCUs 

create lasting value from multiple perspectives: students, society, and taxpayers. 

TCUs elevate their students’ lifetime incomes, and this in turn benefits society as 

a whole by increasing the region’s economy and generating a wide array of savings 

through improved lifestyles. The increased employment benefits taxpayers through 

increased tax receipts and a reduction in the need for welfare and unemployment 

benefits. In fact, for every dollar spent the lifetime income of students more than 

quadruples; society gains over five times the investment in added income and social 

savings; and the taxpayers get back almost two and a half times the investment. 

In short, the TCUs are a very sound investment of Federal funds. 

FURTHER JUSTIFICATIONS & FACTS

—Breaking the cycle of generational poverty: Tribal Colleges and Universities provide access to higher education for American Indians and others living in some 

of the Nation’s most rural and economically depressed areas. In fact, seven of 

the Nation’s 10 poorest counties are home to a TCU. 

—Growing number of TCUs: Compounding existing funding disparities is the fact 

that although the numbers of TCUs and students enrolled in TCUs have dramatically increased since they were first funded in 1981, appropriations have 

increased at a disproportionately low rate. Since 1981, the number of tribal colleges has more than quadrupled and continues to grow; the number of Indian 

students enrolled has risen over 300 percent. In the past 10 years, six additional TCUs have become accredited and eligible for funding under Title I of the 

Tribal College Act, and two more colleges are expected to be eligible for Tribal 
23 

College Act funding as soon as fiscal year 2018. While AIHEC celebrates the 

growing number of tribally chartered colleges and universities and the increasing numbers of Native students served, these successes have forced TCUs to 

function with smaller slices of an already inadequate annual funding pie. 

—Local Tax and Revenue Bases: TCUs cannot rely on a local tax base for revenue. 

Although tribes have the sovereign authority to tax, high reservation poverty 

rates, the trust status of reservation lands, and the lack of strong reservation 

economies hinder the creation of a reservation tax base. As noted earlier, on Indian reservations that are home to TCUs, the unemployment rate can well exceed 70 percent. By contrast, the national unemployment rate is currently 5 

percent. 

—Gaming and the TCUs: Although several of the reservations served by TCUs 

have gaming operations, the vast majority are not mega-casinos located in 

urban areas and featured in the broad-based media. Only a handful of TCUs 

receive regular income from the chartering tribe’s gaming revenue, and the 

amounts received can vary greatly from year to year. Most reservation casinos 

are small businesses that use their gaming revenue to improve the local standard of living and potentially diversify into other, more sustainable areas of economic development. In the interim, where relevant, local TCUs offer courses in 

casino management and hospitality services to formally train tribal members to 

work in their local tribally run casinos. 

Some form of gaming is legalized in 48 States, but the Federal Government 

has not used the revenues generated from State gaming as a justification to decrease Federal funding to other public colleges or universities. Some have suggested that those tribes that operate the few extremely successful and widely 

publicized casinos located in or near urban areas, should be financing higher 

education for all American Indians. And yet, no State is expected to share its 

gaming revenue with a less successful or non-gaming State. 

APPROPRIATIONS REQUEST FOR FISCAL YEAR 2017

As noted earlier, it has been over 35 years since the Tribal College Act was first 

funded, and the TCUs have yet to receive the congressionally authorized per Indian 

student funding level. Full funding for the TCUs’ institutional operating grants 

($8,000 per Indian student) for fiscal year 2017 would require an increase of approximately $19.4 million over the fiscal year 2016 appropriated level. Additionally, 

to transition the three federally chartered TCUs to receive their operations funding 

on an academic schedule, rather than the Federal fiscal year, requires a $18.2 million one-time appropriation (IAIA—$3.4 million (in addition to the $2 million included in the President’s budget; Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute—$14.8 million). Additionally, if the subcommittee determines that forward funding is to be achieved through incremental 

appropriations, language needs to be included directing that funds appropriated to 

partially fund the transition to forward funding are to be held until the needed sum 

(75 percent of full year funding) is accrued. 

CONCLUSION

AIHEC Member institutions/Tribal Colleges and Universities provide quality 

higher education to thousands of American Indians and other reservation residents, 

as well as essential community programs and services to those who might otherwise 

not have access to such opportunities. The modest Federal investment that has been 

made in TCUs has paid great dividends in terms of employment, education, and economic development. Continuation of this investment makes sound moral and fiscal 

sense. 

We greatly appreciate your past and continued support of the Nation’s Tribal Colleges and Universities and your careful consideration of our fiscal year 2017 appropriations requests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN LUNG ASSOCIATION

The American Lung Association is pleased to present our recommendations for fiscal year 2017 to the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations 

Subcommittee. The work to monitor and clean up harmful air pollution funded by 

this subcommittee will prevent asthma attacks, emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and premature deaths across the country. Founded in 1904 to fight tuberculosis, the American Lung Association is the oldest voluntary health organization 

in the United States. The American Lung Association is the leading organization 
24 

working to save lives by improving lung health and preventing lung disease through 

education, advocacy and research. 

Support and Defend EPA’s Programs to Address Climate Change and Improve Air 

Quality 

Mr. Chairman, the Clean Air Act is a key public health safeguard. It is especially 

important for populations most at risk, including those with asthma and other lung 

diseases; children; older adults; people living in low-income communities; people 

who work, exercise or play outdoors; and people with heart disease and diabetes. 

We urge you to invest in protecting public health from the impacts of dangerous air 

pollution. We also urge you to reject any policy riders that would block, delay or 

weaken EPA’s ability to save lives and improve public health by reducing air pollution, including carbon pollution from power plants and ground-level ozone pollution. 

State, Tribal, and Local Government Work to Improve Air Quality 

The American Lung Association requests that the subcommittee provide $171 million for Federal Support for Air Quality Management. The Federal Support for Air 

Quality Management Program assists States, tribes, and local air pollution control 

agencies in the administration of programs and standards to protect the air we 

breathe. States have the primary responsibility for developing clean air measures 

necessary to meet Federal standards, but rely on support and assistance from EPA 

to create effective comprehensive air quality management programs. The EPA also 

supports training for State, tribal, and local air pollution professionals on 

rulemakings and other significant actions. 

The American Lung Association also requests that the subcommittee provide 

$268.2 million for Categorical Grants: State and Local Air Quality Management and 

$12.829 million for Categorical Grants: Tribal Air Quality Management. State, local 

and tribal air pollution agencies need more funding, not less, to ensure proper protection of the public through implementation of the Clean Air Act. These agencies 

are on the front lines of vital efforts to improve air quality and protect public health, 

yet they are perennially underfunded. This must change in order to secure the benefits promised by Clean Air Act protections. 

Climate Change 

Climate change is one of the greatest threats to public health, including lung 

health. The health threats posed by climate change include worsened air pollution, 

the spread of diseases into new areas, stronger and longer heat waves, and more 

frequent and severe droughts. The EPA has a critical role to play in reducing carbon 

pollution, methane, and other climate pollutants and must have the resources needed to meet the challenge ahead. Reducing climate pollutants will save lives and protect health. We request that the subcommittee provide $115.9 million for the Climate Protection Program. 

Radon 

Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer in the United States, and the 

EPA’s State Indoor Radon Grants are the only nationwide program that helps prevent exposure to it. States and tribes depend on this program as well as technical 

assistance through the Radon Programs to educate the public and fight this deadly 

carcinogen. In 2003, the National Academy of Sciences estimated that radon kills 

21,000 people each year. We request that the subcommittee provide $8.1 million for 

the Categorical Grant for Radon. 

Reducing Pollution From Vehicles 

We request that the subcommittee provide $100 million for the Diesel Emissions 

Reduction Grant Program. Ten million old diesel engines are in use today that pollute communities and threaten workers. Immense opportunities remain to reduce 

diesel emissions through the DERA program. The subcommittee’s continued investments in this program have yielded up to $13 of public health benefit for every $1 

spent on diesel projects, according to an EPA report to Congress from February 

2016. 

The American Lung Association also requests that the subcommittee fully fund 

EPA’s Federal Vehicle Fuels Standards and Certifications Programs at $103.6 million, particularly to improve the effectiveness of the certification and compliance 

testing programs in the face of increasing demand, more challenging oversight requirements, and the increasing diversity of technologies. Currently, EPA conducts 

very limited testing of small imported engines, but a high fraction of these engines 

fail the test. Additional resources are needed to improve testing, including on-road 

testing, and compliance for this important program to protect public health. 
25 

1 ‘‘All the Missing Horses: What Happened to the Wild Horses Tom Davis Bought From the 

Gov’t?’’ ProPublica: September 28, 2012. 

Monitoring and Enforcement 

The American Lung Association requests that the subcommittee provide at least $111.3 million for EPA’s Compliance Monitoring & $282.7 million for Enforcement. 

To protect public health, EPA must ensure that air pollution standards and requirements are met. EPA must, therefore, have the ability and funding needed to reduce 

non-compliance, as well as enforce penalties for violations. EPA must also be prepared to respond to civil enforcement actions authorized by the Clean Air Act. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, air quality is crucial for health. Air pollution can harm anyone, 

but is particularly dangerous for children, people over 65, people with asthma and 

other chronic lung diseases, people with cardiovascular disease and diabetes, people 

living in poverty, and people who work or exercise outdoors. Our Nation has made 

significant progress in reducing levels of dangerous outdoor air pollution. We urge 

this subcommittee to continue making investments into EPA’s life-saving work toward fulfilling the promise of the Clean Air Act: healthy air for all to breathe. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY

TO ANIMALS

On behalf of our 2.5 million supporters, the American Society for the Prevention 

of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) appreciates this opportunity to submit testimony to 

the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and Related 

Agencies. Founded in 1866, the ASPCA is the first humane organization established 

in the Americas and serves as the Nation’s leading voice for animal welfare. We request that the subcommittee consider the following concerns when making fiscal 

year 2017 appropriations. 

WILD HORSES AND THE BLM

In the 45 years since Congress charged the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

with protecting our country’s wild horses and burros, Americans have witnessed the 

agency’s Wild Horse and Burro Program deteriorate into a continuous cycle of 

roundups and removals with little regard for the preservation-focused mandate 

specified in the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act. Our wild horses and 

burros should be revered as historical icons, treated humanely, and managed fairly 

and respectfully on our public lands. We appreciate BLM’s recognition of the great 

need for reform in the Wild Horse and Burro Program. We are encouraged by BLM’s 

interest in incorporating the use of on-the-range management methods, such as 

immunocontraception, and in identifying alternatives to the confinement of wild 

horses in long-term holding facilities. However, the implementation of additional 

significant reforms must be immediate and effective. 

Prohibit BLM Funding for Euthanasia or Sale of Wild Horses as Management Methods 

In December 2004, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal 

year 2005, which amended the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act to allow 

for the sale of certain wild horses and burros. This instant transfer of title from the 

U.S. Government to the individual purchaser revokes the animal’s status as a protected equine and leaves mustangs vulnerable to the still-thriving horse slaughter 

industry. Additionally, in 2008, BLM publicly announced that, for the first time, it 

was considering using its statutory authority to destroy old, sick, or unadoptable 

wild horses and burros by implementing mass euthanasia as a population control 

method. The public uproar that followed forced BLM to quickly withdraw the proposal. However, both the sale provision and the language allowing for the destruction of wild horses and burros remain in the law. 

In September 2012, published reports revealed that since 2009, the BLM had sold 

more than 1,700 captured mustangs—70 percent of the total number of animals sold 

since the program’s onset—to a single Colorado livestock hauler known to be a longtime kill buyer for the horse slaughter industry.1 Although BLM has since implemented measures to prevent the sale of such a large number of horses to one individual, Congress must send a clear message that the slaughter of our Nation’s wild 

horses and burros is a gross violation of the Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros 

Act. In past appropriations bills, Congress has repeatedly confirmed its opposition 

to the slaughter of our Nation’s wild horses and burros; it did so most recently in 
26 

2 ‘‘Wild Horse and Burro Quick Facts.’’ U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. March 23, 2016. http://www.blm.gov/wo/st/en/prog/whbprogram/historylandlfacts/ 

quicklfacts.html. 3 ‘‘Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way Forward.’’ National Research Council. The National Academies Press, 2013. 4Department of the Interior Budget Estimate, fiscal year 2017. https://www.whitehouse.gov/ 

sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2017/assets/int.html. 

the fiscal year 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act, the current funding vehicle for 

the Department of Interior. The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget request also includes an administrative provision to bar appropriations for the euthanasia of 

healthy horses and their sale to slaughter. The ASPCA requests that the subcommittee continue to include the following language, present in both the President’s budget request and previous appropriations bills: ‘‘Appropriations herein 

made shall not be available for the destruction of healthy, unadopted, wild horses 

and burros in the care of the Bureau or its contractors or for the sale of wild horses 

and burros that results in their destruction for processing into commercial products.’’ 

Prioritize On-the-Range Management Over Roundup and Removal 

The Wild Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act makes clear that on-the-range 

management should be preferred over roundup and removal as the primary method 

of wild horse management. BLM has multiple options to make that happen. 

The ASPCA realizes that population control is necessary in some circumstances, 

and we appreciate BLM’s public acknowledgement that fertility control methods 

must be a significant part of wild horse population management. Porcine Zona 

Pellucida (PZP), the contraceptive vaccine that has been used for decades to manage 

horse and deer populations, is registered by EPA and commercially available. In fiscal year 2015, BLM administered 469 fertility control treatments, a decrease from 

nearly 1,200 treatments 3 years prior.2 If PZP is to be a serious part of the solution, 

its use must be increased to levels that will significantly impact population growth. 

A 2013 National Academy of Sciences report noted the promising capabilities of this 

and other forms of chemical fertility control.3 The ASPCA recommends that the subcommittee direct BLM to prioritize the use of humane, reversible fertility control 

when necessary to stem the population growth of wild horse or burro herds. 

Included in the administration’s fiscal year 2017 budget request is an unsettling 

new proposal from BLM. If included in the Interior Appropriations bill, this language would allow for the immediate transfer of wild horses and burros as ‘‘working 

animals’’ to State, Federal, and local agencies.4 This language would set a dangerous precedent, allowing for the immediate disposition of any wild equine that has 

been removed from the range. This means thousands of wild horses could be instantly stripped of their legal protections and could easily fall victim to slaughter, 

as we know has happened to others in the past. Additionally, this language fails 

to address the program’s true need—better on-range management of the wild horse 

population through NAS-recommended methods such as immunocontraception. The 

ASPCA strongly encourages the subcommittee to prioritize humane on-range management methods as it crafts the fiscal year 2017 Interior appropriations bill. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ANIMAL WELFARE INSTITUTE

WILD FREE-ROAMING HORSES AND BURROS ACT

The Bureau of Land Management continues to round up wild horses and warehouse them on private lands at great public expense. This is not a humane or responsible solution, and this subcommittee has called on the BLM to implement humane on-the-range solutions. Since some progress has been made, we are concerned 

that the BLM’s proposed $572,000 decrease for Wild Horse and Burro Management 

could put any advances at risk. We ask the subcommittee to fund the BLM at fiscal 

year 2016 levels and to urge it to continue exploring more effective and longer lasting fertility control agents. We understand the desire to explore alternatives to 

warehousing tens of thousands of healthy wild horses but oppose Sec. 110 ‘‘Transfer 

of Excess Horses’’ of the fiscal year 2017 budget. This language is unnecessary and 

could result in once-protected wild horses ending up in slaughter, a practice this 

subcommittee has long opposed. Thousands of healthy and viable wild horses, not 

bound by limitations of the Act, are currently being held by the BLM and are already available for sale to other Federal, State, and local entities. The subcommittee 

should encourage the BLM to explore this option before changing the Act. Should 

this option be considered, the subcommittee must ensure safeguards are established 
27 

to ensure wild horses sold to other agencies are also protected from slaughter. Finally, we strongly support the continued inclusion of this ‘‘no-kill’’ language to ensure that BLM does not kill healthy wild horses and burros: Provided, that appropriations herein made shall not be available for the sale or destruction of healthy, 

unadopted wild horses and burros in the care of the Bureau or its contractors. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE—NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM—SIGNAGE AND

REPORTING

We support the administration’s request of $506.6 million for operating and main- taining the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), which generates $2.5 billion 

in economic impacts and $342.9 million in tax revenues. To further enhance the 

NWRS’s stated purpose of conserving wildlife (including species threatened with extinction), and to ensure that National Wildlife Refuges are safe for the millions of 

Americans who visit these public lands each year, we request the inclusion of the 

following report language, which is geared towards promoting public safety and 

greater transparency regarding the use of body-gripping traps on wildlife refuges. 

Currently, over half of the System’s 563 refuges allow trapping. Steel-jaw leghold 

traps, Conibears, and strangulation snares pose distinct risks to humans, wildlife, 

and other animals (e.g., pets) given their indiscriminate nature and the trauma such 

devices inflict upon individuals or animals captured in these traps. 

Trapping Report Language: The Committee directs the Fish and Wildlife Service 

to comply with the following for any refuge unit within the National Wildlife Refuge 

System that allows the use of body-gripping traps: The Service shall post sufficient 

signage on the physical premises to protect visitors to the refuge, including children 

and pets; the Service shall post notice of any refuge that allows body-gripping traps 

on the System Web site and on the Web site of the relevant refuge. No later than 

1 year after the enactment of this legislation, the Service shall submit to the Committee on Natural Resources of the House of Representatives and the Committee on 

Environment and Public Works of the Senate a report that provides the following 

information relating to the use of any body-gripping trap in the System for the preceding fiscal year: The identification of any refuge in which the use of a body-gripping trap was authorized; the purpose for such use, such as for management, recreational, or commercial purposes; a description of any non-lethal control methods 

used before authorization was granted for management purposes; the types of bodygripping traps used; trap-check time requirements; the number of Special Use Permit Applications granted, either by Service Region or by State, to engage in trapping on a National Wildlife Refuge; the number and species of target and non-target 

animals that were captured in body-gripping traps on refuges; and a description of 

any injuries sustained by target and non-target animals caused directly or indirectly 

by the capture in body-gripping traps. The Committee encourages the Service to 

continue collecting the aforementioned data and information regarding the use of 

body-gripping traps in the System on an annual basis. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE—OFFICE OF LAW ENFORCEMENT—$75.1 MILLION

The FWS Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) is one of the most important lines of 

defense for wildlife both at home and abroad. OLE enforces over a dozen Federal 

wildlife and conservation laws that frequently impact both domestic and global security. Year after year, OLE protects the public against the illegal trade in wildlife 

and wildlife products—which ranks third only to the illicit trade in narcotics and 

weapons in terms of global revenue—and the United States remains a source of, or 

destination for, much of this contraband. Even those who may not concern themselves with wildlife are reaping benefits as OLE protects against smuggling illegal 

substances and helps to thwart potentially devastating human health threats. We 

support FWS’s proposed appropriation of $75.1 million for OLE, a modest increase 

of $328,000 over the 2016 enacted level. Ensuring that OLE receives adequate funding is crucial in terms of supporting the work of Special Agents and Wildlife Inspectors, and enhancing FWS’s ability to combat wildlife trafficking. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE—INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS—WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING— 

$500,000 INCREASE

Combatting increased wildlife trafficking is a high priority for the administration 

and Congress. Congress in particular (with strong bipartisan support) has taken important steps in this regard, e.g., the House of Representatives passing H.R. 2494, 

the Global Anti-Poaching Act earlier this session. Wildlife trafficking threatens not 

only species conservation, but also global security given its close association with 

terrorism and criminal syndicates. With poaching reaching unprecedented levels, domestic and international governments and private entities have turned to FWS for 
28 

leadership in coordinating, guiding, and implementing a response. This funding increase will help provide financial assistance to projects in foreign countries that advance counter wildlife trafficking activities as outlined in the National Strategy for 

Combating Wildlife Trafficking and actions articulated in the Implementation Plan. 

The goal is to continue efforts to build further capacity and partnerships for species 

conservation. Such measures are in concert with the aims of the Global Anti-Poaching Act and other bills under consideration this Congress, which would facilitate 

partnerships between the U.S. Government and foreign countries fighting terrorist 

organizations and international crime syndicates that profit from wildlife trafficking. 

WHITE-NOSE SYNDROME (WNS)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.—$4,500,000 total; $2 million in Endangered Spe- cies Recovery; $2.5 million in Service Science. 

U.S. Geological Survey.—$1,501,000 in Ecosystems/Wildlife. 

National Park Service.—$3,155,000 in Natural Resource Stewardship. 

Bureau of Land Management.—$500,000. 

U.S. Forest Service.—$2.5 million, Research & Development; $500,000, Forest Systems. 

White-nose syndrome (WNS) remains at the root of North America’s most precipitous wildlife die-off of the past century. The disease is caused by an invasive species 

of fungus, Pseudo-gymnoascus destructans (Pd), which thrives in caves and abandoned mines and infects bats hibernating there, disrupting their physiological processes. WNS has killed at least 6 million bats and has spread to 27 States and 5 

Canadian provinces. WNS has struck seven species, including the federally endangered Indiana and gray bats, while the presence of the fungus has been confirmed 

in three more States and five more species, including one endangered species. It has 

reached the ranges of other endangered bats, including the Virginia big-eared bat 

and the Ozark big-eared bats, and has the potential to affect 25 of our country’s 47 

bat species. Declines due to WNS are so severe that the FWS has designated the 

northern long-eared bat as threatened. The loss of bats from WNS has serious implications for our economy and environment. Bats are primary predators of night-flying 

insects, including pests that attack corn, soybeans, cotton, and other crops. By eating these pests, bats reduce the need for pesticides, lower food production costs, and 

save U.S. farmers an average of $22.9 billion yearly. Bats also aid 66 plant species 

that produce timber. 

Thanks to steady Government funding, progress has been made. USFWS is the 

lead agency for WNS response, serving as an umbrella for nationwide WNS action 

on the part of more than 100 Federal, State, local, tribal, academic, nonprofit, and 

other entities. Grants from FWS fund research that likely would not occur otherwise. Two recent examples are projects spearheaded by teams from the University 

of California-Santa Cruz: one finding evidence of Pd in China, which will offer new 

populations to study for their resistance; and another identifying a potentially promising treatment utilizing bacteria that occur naturally on bats’ skin. In addition, 

FWS is the largest source of funding for State agencies to monitor, manage, and research WNS. 

USGS also plays a critical role in WNS research. In 2006, WNS and Pd were unknown to science. Since then, USGS’s research has laid much of the foundation of 

our understanding of the disease and continues to explore ways to treat WNS. 

USGS developed a more accurate WNS test for bats which, unlike previous methods, 

does not require euthanizing the animals. The agency has expanded surveillance for 

Pd and WNS through sampling of bats and hibernacula and collaborates with State 

agencies to monitor the disease. In 2015, scientists from its National Wildlife Health 

Center and the University of Wisconsin developed an ‘‘energy depletion’’ model to 

explain how WNS kills bats. With a view to possible treatments, USGS has a number of ongoing projects studying Pd’s cave environment to identify conditions conducive to and hostile to the fungus that might yield natural controls, as well as whether other microbes found on bats’ skin could mitigate the effects of Pd. It is also developing an oral vaccine and is working to identify the best delivery method. 

The natural resources of the NPS provide significant challenges for WNS management and information-sharing. NPS staff take seriously their responsibility to ‘‘safeguard bats, their hibernacula, and maternity roosts from WNS . . .’’ They conduct 

bat and disease monitoring in NPS’s many caves and abandoned mines to inform 

the nationwide understanding of the disease. With the largest number of visitors 

every year, NPS properties play an important role in educating the public about 

WNS, through ranger outreach, visitor infrastructure, and multimedia materials. 

NPS’s visitors also heighten the need for the agency to prevent human spread of 
29 

Pd through screening and closures. Conducting chemical disinfection for visitors and 

staff when entering/exiting caves and abandoned mines has enabled NPS to advance 

knowledge of various decontamination methods. NPS is integrating WNS into all 

staff bat-resource activities; for example, conducting wing swabs for WNS is becoming standard procedure whenever NPS staff handle bats. Forty-three projects in over 

40 parks were to have been completed in 2015. One in particular had astounding 

results. A survey conducted at Great Smokey Mountain National Park revealed an 

85 percent decline in the capture rate for one species and a 65 percent decline in 

the capture rate for another. 

With at least 3,000 caves and an estimated 31,000 abandoned mines on its lands, 

the BLM has much work to do on WNS and has never been allocated funds for this 

purpose. Most of BLM’s lands, concentrated in the western U.S., have not yet suffered from WNS, but the threat is moving in that direction. Addressing the disease 

is therefore necessary and urgent, and BLM has begun the task, thanks in part to 

directive language from Congress. To address a paucity of information about bats 

on BLM lands, staff are conducting bat inventories and inspecting bats for signs of 

Pd or WNS, either visually or by swabbing. To minimize the risk of Pd spread, the 

agency has integrated decontamination into protocols for personnel who enter caves 

or abandoned mines and is producing educational programming on decontamination 

for visitors. BLM also aims to prevent Pd spread by closing abandoned mines, installing gates on other mines and caves to keep people out, and selectively closing 

caves to visitors. Through an internal small-grant program, BLM field offices apply 

for up to $2500, which must be matched by other funds, often from State agencies 

or local NGOs. 

With many land and research resources, e.g., the Center for Forest Mycology Research, USFS has been a leader in WNS activities, but it needs and deserves a dedicated funding stream to maintain its effort. USFS scientists contribute significantly 

to our understanding of WNS and Pd. In 2013, agency researchers taxonomically 

reclassified the WNS-causing fungus, laying the foundation for a better understanding of Pd with regard to its closely related benign fungi. Furthering this line 

of inquiry, USFS currently is comparing these fungi to pinpoint Pd’s harmful genes, 

in the hope of silencing them. USFS is also exploring the use of a native soil bacterium to inhibit Pd and improve survival of WNS-infected bats. In the spring of 

last year, FWS released the results of a study involving the bacterium Rhodococus 

rhodochrous, a native soil bacterium that inhibits Pd growth. Among diseased bats 

were treated with this bacterium in the lab, there was a 50 percent increase in survival, and recovered bats were released last May. 

In response to directive language in fiscal year 2012, USFS wrote a WNS science 

strategy. With those goals accomplished, USFS issued an updated strategy in September, the goal of which is to sustain functional WNS-affected bat populations 

through integrated disease management. It is estimated that $4.5 million will be 

needed to implement the plan over 4 years. USFS has also developed A Plan for 

the North American Bat Monitoring Program (NABAT), a program to conduct coordinated, standardized monitoring of multiple bat species across North America to gain 

reliable data for conservation decisionmaking—similar to programs for birds and 

amphibians. USFS also wants to develop an ‘‘electronic nose,’’ a device that identifies the components of an odor and analyzes its chemical make-up to identify it. Pd 

and WNS have ‘‘odors’’ (chemical biomarkers) that could be identified by an ‘‘e-nose,’’ 

thus permitting early detection and application of treatments. The e-nose would also 

enable testing of bats without handling them, thus reducing disturbance and stress. 

It is clear that the Forest Service has made and continues to make major contributions to our understanding, detection, and treatment of Pd and WNS, but it 

has been doing so at the expense of other programs. We believe that the redirection 

of surplus funds from other accounts (such Forest Inventory and Analysis), as well 

as new funds, are more than justified. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBES OF THE FORT PECK

RESERVATION

I would like to thank the subcommittee for permitting the Assiniboine and Sioux 

Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reservation to present testimony concerning fiscal 

year 2017 appropriations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health 

Service (IHS). My name is Floyd Azure. I am Chairman of the Assiniboine and 

Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Reservation. I will focus my testimony today on infrastructure, public safety and public health needs for our tribe which are largely dependent upon the appropriations of this subcommittee to the BIA and IHS. The 

tribes also express strong support for the administration’s request for full funding 
30 

for contract support costs for both agencies. We also fully support the administration’s proposal to make this funding mandatory. 

FORT PECK RESERVATION RURAL WATER SYSTEM

Congress has long recognized that the foundations for economic development and 

prosperity in Indian country lay in community stability which begins with infrastructure such as safe drinking water, roads and utilities. 

This is why we strongly support the administration’s $2.262 million request for 

the Operation and Maintenance (OM&R) funding for the Fort Peck Reservation 

Rural Water System for fiscal year 2017. This funding is essential for this system 

to operate, which now provides drinking water to more than 15,000 residents in 

Northeast Montana and several social and governmental agencies, including the 

BIA Agency Office, Poplar Schools, and Poplar hospital. 

More than 20 years ago, the tribes realized that a new water source was necessary to ensure the health of our people. Located on a former inland sea with a 

high saline content, coupled with unprecedented contamination from oil production, 

water on the reservation and the surrounding communities is not safe for human 

consumption. To ensure our future, we sought to find another water source for our 

people. Congress agreed and in 2000 enacted the Fort Peck Reservation Rural 

Water System Act to build a modern rural water system for the Reservation (Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water System) and to assist the off-reservation communities 

in Roosevelt, Sheridan, Daniels and Valley Counties (Dry Prairie Rural Water Authority) build a rural water system that would ‘‘interconnect’’ with the tribes. 

We are more than 60 percent complete and the project now serves more than 70 

percent of the reservation population with safe, reliable drinking and industrial 

water. The statute requires that the OM&R of the Assiniboine and Sioux Rural 

Water System—the portion on the reservation that is held in trust by the Federal 

Government—be paid in full by the BIA as a Federal obligation. This is consistent 

with the Federal trust responsibility to the tribes, who were promised a permanent 

home when we agreed to move to the reservation. A permanent home requires safe 

drinking water. 

To date, the Federal Government has invested $180 million in constructing the 

Fort Peck Reservation Rural Water System. The Assiniboine and Sioux Rural Water 

System components—the ‘‘common facilities’’—must be maintained. The entire system is dependent upon the safe and proper operation of common facilities which includes the Missouri River intake, the pumping system, the water treatment plant, 

sludge lagoon, and miles of main transmission lines running east-west and northsouth within our 2 million acre reservation. Adequate funding of the operation and 

maintenance of our ‘‘common facilities’’ will extend the useful life of this vita infrastructure project. Thus, the $2.2 million requested for the OM&R of this project is 

critical. If Congress does not appropriate the required funds for OM&R, then this 

System will not operate and the people of northeast Montana will have no drinking 

water. 

PUBLIC SAFETY AND DRUG TRAFFICKING

The reservation lies immediately west and north of the Bakken and Three Forks 

Formation and we are already witnessing the economic impacts of oil and gas development in this region. With rapid development come social ills in the form of increased criminal activity, including methamphetamine use, prescription drug abuse 

and addiction, which are reversing the downward trend our tribal police achieved 

through effective policing techniques, task force collaboration and effective education 

campaigns. 

Six years ago, through effective policing techniques, our Chief of Police was seeing 

a reduction in methamphetamine use on our reservation, but over the last few years 

it has returned with a vengeance. The growing population working in the Bakken 

formation has created an easy source of meth on our reservation. This problem must 

be attacked on all fronts: law enforcement; treatment; and improved social services. 

This is why we support the President’s Generation Indigenous Initiative as a comprehensive interagency response to the challenges facing Indian country, but so 

much more needs to be done if we are to reverse substance abuse. 

A. Law Enforcement 

There is no greater need in Indian County than public safety and justice and 

these programs cannot be sacrificed for any purpose. Our police chief estimates that 

70–80 percent of criminal conduct has a drug component to it, with assaults and 

burglaries arising out of drug use and addiction. The BIA’s own statistics are alarming; over a 5 year period, drug related arrests in Indian Country increased nearly 
31 

10-fold from 443 arrests in fiscal year 2008 to 4,289 arrests in fiscal year 2013. Our 

tribal police department has 18 police officers, two dedicated to drug enforcement, 

three criminal investigators, and we share dispatchers with Roosevelt County. Our 

Police Chief said he could use six drug enforcement agents to help with the rising 

workload. The needs of our community and those throughout Indian Country cry out 

for increase law enforcement and justice funding. We urge you to reject the administration’s proposal to cut law enforcement funding. 

B. Social Services 

In the last year, we have had too many infants born addicted to meth. These infants must be placed in foster in families. This causes tremendous stress on our social services program. The administration’s $53 million request for tribal social service programs and the $19 million requested for Indian Child Welfare programs will 

help meet this need. In addition, the $30 million requested for tribal courts will also 

ensure that our children are safer as these institutions will have additional resources to supervise and monitor the children in their care. 

C. Detention Services 

The Fort Peck Tribes completed a modern detention facility to serve the reservation and other tribes. This allows for inmates to be close to their homes and families. It will do a great deal to ensure continuity in our families. Beyond not requesting additional funds for law enforcement personnel, the budget does not request sufficient funds for the operation of BIA or tribally operated detention facilities that 

were opened in the last 2 years, like Fort Peck. 

The tribes worked with the BIA office of Justice Services when we were building 

this new detention facility, including on the staffing and operations costs. The tribes 

entered into a contract with the BIA for the operation of this facility. And while we 

received some funding associated with this contract, it is approximately 30 percent 

of what we negotiated with the BIA to have a fully functional detention center. 

When we expressed concern, the BIA officials said that the tribes would be made 

whole in fiscal year 2016. This did not happen last year. We ask you do this so that 

we can continue to provide safe and secure detention services in our community and 

protect the tribal and Federal investment. 

ROAD MAINTENANCE

By its own admission, the administration’s funding request for the Road Maintenance Program for fiscal year 2017 will permit tribes to maintain only 16 percent 

of BIA-owned roads and 62 percent of BIA-owned bridges in ‘‘acceptable’’ condition. 

This leaves 8 out of 10 BIA-owned roads and nearly 4 out of 10 BIA-owned bridges 

with funds to maintain them in their current poor or failing condition. This is a 

safety issue. Most of these routes are gravel and earthen school bus routes that require more frequent maintenance than paved roads. We urge the subcommittee to 

add at least an additional $9 million to the Road Maintenance Program out of 

planned increases for the Interior Department for fiscal year 2017. Doing so will increase the percentage of BIA-owned roads and bridges maintained to an ‘‘acceptable’’ 

condition. 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

We continue to build government services and programs on the reservation and 

attract businesses to improve the quality of life for our members. The IHS operates 

two clinics on the reservation; the Verne E. Gibbs IHS Health Center in Poplar, and 

the Chief Redstone IHS Health Center in Wolf Point. In-patient services are available at the non-IHS Poplar Community Hospital and Trinity Hospital in Wolf Point. 

To combat the high incidence of heart disease, cancer and diabetes, the tribes supplement health services on the reservation through our Health Promotion and Disease Prevention (HPDP) Wellness Program, the Spotted Bull Resource and Recovery 

Center, and nursing services for a Youth Detention Center, which we operate pursuant to an ISDA contract with the IHS. 

The tribes’ focus on preventative care is the reason we so strongly support the requested increase of $48 million for Purchased and Referred Care. This level of 

funding will allow more Service Units to move beyond life or limb coverage, and provide a fuller range of healthcare services, instead of crisis care. Everyone agrees 

that focusing on the health of a person instead of crisis care will improve the health 

status of our people. 

One area I would ask the subcommittee to address in its report is that for many 

of our people who have insurance, whether it be private, Medicaid, or Medicare, the 

Service Unit at Fort Peck will not refer people out for anything but life or limb care. 

Thus, even if someone has the ability to cover the cost of a procedure, like gall blad-
32 

der surgery, the person’s primary provider, who is at the Service Unit, will not refer 

them out. If the person gets the gall bladder surgery, the IHS will not pay the copay 

or the deductible because they did not meet the life or limb criteria. Many of our 

tribal members, who have insurance, are the working poor. They cannot pay these 

obligations, which are often times substantial. Thus, they consequently get referred 

to collections. I would ask that the subcommittee direct the IHS to reconsider its 

business practices, because waiting until someone is at life or limb stage to address 

a health issue makes neither good economic or healthcare sense. It would make 

more sense to pay the copay and deductible before someone gets dangerously ill. 

We are disappointed that the Indian Health Service has yet to implement a portion of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act that allows the IHS to provide dialysis services to patients. More than 20 years ago, the Fort Peck Tribes recognized 

the need for dialysis services on our reservation and built and opened a dialysis clinic on the reservation. This was without any assistance by the IHS because, at that 

time, the IHS said it did not have the authorization to provide these services. 

Today, this facility needs to be expanded, and now the IHS has the authority to provide dialysis services. However, the IHS has not requested any funding from Congress to do so. We would urge the subcommittee to direct the IHS to provide an update on how it plans to expand its role in providing dialysis care in Indian Country, 

especially in tribal communities such as on our reservation where existing dialysis 

treatment is overburdened. 

CONCLUSION

We thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to present written testimony concerning the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION FOR FIRE ECOLOGY, INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WILDLAND FIRE, TALL TIMBERS RESEARCH STATION AND LAND CONSERVANCY, AND THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

JOINT FIRE SCIENCE PROGRAM FUNDING IS VITAL FOR MANAGING WILDFIRES SAFELY

AND COST-EFFECTIVELY

The undersigned leading professional wildland fire organizations in the Nation 

and the world are seriously concerned with the proposed cut and a new funding 

process for the USDA Forest Service’s (USFS) Joint Fire Science Program (JFSP). 

The clear current wildfire trend is more acres burned, higher severity, and on more 

days each year, raising our challenge to apply resources in a wise, science-based 

manner. We respectfully request that the USFS JFSP be funded at $7 million 

through the Wildland Fire Management budget. We additionally request that the 

Department of the Interior Joint Fire Science program be funded at $6 million. 

The USFS JFSP has a relatively small budget for a program that successfully 

yields important results which are directly and widely applied across a broad geographic landscape. These tools and technology products support the fire risk reduction community that help track the effectiveness of Forest Service programs, such 

as vegetation management and hazardous fuels reduction. Their applied research 

supports resilient landscapes and communities, and provides key information on 

wildfire mitigation impacts on water quality, atmospheric emissions, and other natural resources and ecosystem services. We are concerned about the zeroing out of 

this program under Wildland Fire Management in exchange for funding a smaller 

portion from the already-constrained Forest & Rangeland Research budget. Restoring the USFS funding mechanism under Wildland Fire Management and ensuring 

an appropriated level of $7 million would help to address the urgent need to maintain and further important research. 

MAINTAINING RESEARCH

The JFSP is a research program that builds on a 15∂ year commitment to focusing research questions on the needs and objectives of fire managers. As such, JFSP 

serves as an independent and vital research arm of the broader efforts to safely and 

efficiently manage wildland fire on all ownerships. Additionally, JFSP: 

—Generates priorities based on the expressed needs of managers and local land 

units, maximizing their relevance and effectiveness in improving fire management. This need-driven priority focus frees it from alternative priorities and 

mandates of any individual agency and ensures funded research is directly applicable to managers. 
33 

—Draws its strength and relevance from being truly collaborative and interdisciplinary—by engaging Federal and university scientists, land/resource managers and multiple stakeholders in advancing the field of fire science. This is 

vital for a profession in which fire knows no bureaucratic boundaries. 

—Serves as an international forum for information and technology exchange particularly important in the face of global climate change. 

MORE RESEARCH, NOT LESS

Wildland fire management requires a significant investment from Federal agencies, in particular the USFS. Currently, JFSP is only 1 percent of the total Wildland 

Fire Management budget. For an agency with approximately half of its budget focused on wildland fire management, it makes fiscal sense to invest in a research 

program like the JFSP in order to understand the science of fire management, fire 

prevention, and landscape-scale climate impacts. 

With continued and even expanded funds for cutting-edge research, we could expect to pioneer safer and less costly methods to manage fires on public lands, thus 

earning long-term cost savings. 

CURRENT POLICY SUPPORTS RESEARCH

The Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy states as two of the guiding principles: 

—‘‘Fire management plans and activities are based upon the best available 

science.’’ 

—‘‘Knowledge and experience are developed among all wildland fire management 

agencies. An active fire research program combined with interagency collaboration provides the means to make this available to all fire managers.’’ 

The National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy states as one of the 

guiding principles and core values: 

—‘‘Fire management decisions are based on the best available science, knowledge, 

and experience, and used to evaluate risk versus gain.’’ 

Fully funding JFSP is one of the few ways to achieve these goals and sustain scientific and technological innovations that are critical for the vitality of wildland fire 

management and for expansion of knowledge and skill. 

We urge you continue to fund the USFS JFSP at $7 million under the Wildland 

Fire Management budget and additionally the DOI JFSP at $6 million. These levels 

and funding structures would emphasis Congress’ commitment to the continued development of research tools that have greatly improved our success in managing 

wildland fire in the past and which are needed even more so in the future. 

Dr. Leda Kobziar 

President, Association for Fire Ecology 

Tom Zimmerman 

President, International Association of Wildland Fire 

Dr. William Palmer 

President/CEO, Tall Timbers Research Station and Land Conservancy 

Cecilia Clavet 

Senior Policy Advisor on Fire and Forest Restoration, The Nature Conservancy 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF ART MUSEUM DIRECTORS

The Association of Art Museum Directors (AAMD) respectfully requests funding 

of $155 million each for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) for fiscal year 2017. We also ask that 

the subcommittee provide the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) with the funding necessary to staff and train personnel in order to avoid placing any additional 

impediments on American art museums that are importing works of art containing 

ivory for the purposes of temporary public exhibition. 

ARTS AND ARTIFACTS INDEMNITY PROGRAM

AAMD again thanks the subcommittee for revising the statutory caps for international and domestic arts exhibition indemnity agreements under the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Act, which is administered by the NEA on behalf of the Federal 

Council on the Arts and the Humanities, of which both NEA and NEH are mem-
34 

bers. Participating AAMD members reported saving an average of more than 

$650,000 in insurance fees in 2015. A partial list of examples of indemnified exhibitions that may be of particular interest to members of the subcommittee includes: 

1. ‘‘Of Heaven and Earth: 500 Years of Italian Painting from Glasgow Museums’’ 

at the Santa Barbara Museum of Art. 

2. ‘‘Portrait of an English Country House: Houghton Hall’’ at Frist Center for the 

Visual Arts (Nashville, Tennessee). 

3. ‘‘Gods and Heroes: Masterpieces from the E ́ cole des Beaux-Arts, Paris’’ at Portland Art Museum (Oregon). 

4. ‘‘The Paintings of Sir Winston Churchill’’ at Mildred Lane Kemper Museum of 

Art (Saint Louis, Missouri). 

5. ‘‘America’s Eden: Thomas Cole and The Voyage of Life’’ at Dixon Gallery and 

Gardens (Memphis, Tennessee). 

6. ‘‘When Modern Was Contemporary: Selections from the Roy R. Neuberger Collection’’ at Mississippi Museum of Art and The Albuquerque Museum of Art 

and History. 

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS

As stated above, AAMD requests that Congress appropriate $155 million for the 

NEA. The agency continues to make modest but important grants that leverage significant private support, disseminate best practices, and foster innovation. 

For example, the Boise Art Museum received a grant to support an exhibition related to the Minidoka National Historic Site, a World War II Japanese internment 

camp in Idaho. This project comprises an exhibition of artwork created at the camp 

or created by artists who have a personal connection with the Minidoka incarceration experience, such as Takuichi Fujii (1892–1964), Kenjiro Nomura (1896–1956), 

Teresa Tamura (b. 1960), Roger Shimomura (b. 1939), and Wendy Maruyama (b. 

1952). To engage visitors of all ages with the Minidoka National Historic Site, educational programming will take place at Boise Art Museum, at the national park 

site, and at Boise State University (BSU). The exhibition is scheduled to coincide 

with the annual Civil Liberties Symposium at BSU. 

The director of the museum, Melanie Fales, explained the significance of the 

NEA’s support: 

‘‘BAM is sensitive to the fact that people have mixed feelings regarding the actions of the U.S. Government during World War II. We want to facilitate the opening of a dialogue about the events that occurred in our State during that time. The 

museum is not taking a stance, rather we intend to present a safe space for artists 

and audience members to discuss the events that took place, focusing on the artistic 

process of documentation and response. We want to present a balanced approach to 

a challenging topic. For topics such as this, which can be considered potentially controversial, it is not always possible to garner funding from local sources. The significance of this discussion is evident at a national level, and we are grateful to the 

NEA for recognizing its value. This funding makes it possible for the museum to 

carry out the project for the benefit of our community and country.’’ 

Examples of recent grants listed on the NEA’s Web site include: 

1. To support an exhibition at the Anchorage Museum featuring indigenous artists and focusing on contemporary indigenous issues in the north. 

2. To support shipping and loan costs for the exhibition ‘‘Multiplied: Edition MAT 

and the Transformable Work of Art, 1959–1965’’ at the Mildred Lane Kemper 

Art Museum in St. Louis. 

3. To support an exhibition at Kemper Museum of Contemporary Art in Kansas 

City of work by contemporary artists. 

4. To support the exhibition ‘‘Phantom Bodies: The Human Aura in Art,’’ at the 

Frist Center for the Visual Arts in Nashville, and accompanying catalogue. 

5. To support reinstallation of the New Orleans Museum of Art’s Spanish Colonial collection, and accompanying catalogue. 

6. To support the exhibition ‘‘Jewel City: Art of the Panama-Pacific International 

Exposition’’ at the de Young Museum in San Francisco, with an accompanying 

catalogue. 

7. To support a professional development program for artists at the RISD Museum in Providence. 

8. To support the Northwest Filmmaker’s Festival and related programming at 

the Portland Art Museum. 

AAMD commends NEA for its commitment to the Blue Star Museums initiative, 

now in its seventh year. AAMD members have responded with overwhelming enthusiasm to Chairman Chu’s invitation to offer free admission to active duty military 
35 

and their families at least from Memorial Day through Labor Day. In 2015, approximately 90 percent of AAMD members in the United States either formally joined 

the program or already offered free admission to all. 

NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES

As stated above, AAMD requests that Congress appropriate $155 million for the 

NEH. 

This important agency assists art museums in presenting humanities scholarship 

to the general public. It also plays an invaluable role in assisting with the preservation and conservation of important collections. This is exactly the type of 

unglamorous work for which it is chronically difficult to raise private funding, making Federal support all the more valuable. 

AAMD commends the NEH for two initiatives in particular. The Common Good 

is designed to demonstrate the critical role that humanities scholarship can play in 

public life. This is especially suitable for museums, which have developed expertise 

in presenting complex ideas to non-specialists. Standing Together, the Humanities 

and the Experience of War, supports programs that explore war and its aftermath, 

promote discussion of the experience of military service, and support returning veterans and their families. Taken in tandem with Blue Star Museums, this program 

clearly demonstrates the commitment of the two agencies to both veterans and active duty military. 

A few of the agency’s grants to art museums include: 

1. To the Santa Barbara Museum of Art to perform an on-site preservation and 

condition assessment of 800 paintings. 

2. To the Palm Springs Art Museum to conduct an assessment of architectural 

drawings, blueprints, renderings, and archival documents within the permanent collection. 

3. To the Jordan Schnitzer Museum of Art at the University of Oregon to improve 

long-term preservation of 156 oversize objects and increase scholarly research 

and public use of these collections. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

The AAMD has had extensive conversations with the Fish and Wildlife Service 

(FWS) about the importance of presenting works of many cultures to the American 

public, works that without temporary exhibitions, Americans would never see. These 

works, entrusted to our museums from both foreign museums and foreign private 

collectors, are fragile, invaluable and represent the highest professional quality. 

American museums borrowing these works must be assured that the works can 

move quickly, safely and be fully protected. 

This is especially true when moving works of art, made in whole or in part of 

ivory, through designated ports as called for in the Director’s Order 210 issued February 25, 2014. The Director’s Order 210 imposed strict requirements on importing 

works of ivory from abroad, with which museums are struggling to comply. 

Unfortunately, the FWS has limited capacity to staff and train personnel at the 

designated ports to process works of ivory for special exhibitions. There must be sufficient staff to ensure that the works move in accordance with professionally accepted procedures and the new requirements at the speed that a temporary exhibition 

requires. The AAMD urges the subcommittee to provide FWS with the funding necessary to staff and train personnel in order to avoid placing any additional impediments on American art museums. 

ABOUT AAMD

The purpose of the Association of Art Museum Directors is to support its members 

in increasing the contribution of art museums to society. The AAMD accomplishes 

this mission by establishing and maintaining the highest standards of professional 

practice, serving as forum for the exchange of information and ideas, acting as an 

advocate for its member art museums, and being a leader in shaping public discourse about the arts community and the role of art in society. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY TRIBAL SCHOOLS INC. 

My name is Tom Miller; President of the Association of Community Tribal Schools 

Inc. (ACTS) and Superintendent of Hannahville Indian School in Michigan. We 

want to thank you for the fiscal year 2016 appropriations. 

The tribal school movement started in 1966 with Rough Rock Demonstration 

School in Arizona. Currently there are over 30,000 students in 129 tribal elementary 
36 

and secondary schools. The schools are in the States of Maine, Florida, North Carolina, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Dakota, Minnesota, North Dakota, Michigan, 

Iowa, Wisconsin, Kansas, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Montana, California, Washington, 

Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico. ACTS represents a significant number of 

the students in the 129 tribally controlled elementary and secondary schools. 

ACTS’s mission is to ‘‘assist community tribal schools toward their mission of ensuring that when students complete their schools they are prepared for lifelong learning and that these students will strengthen and perpetuate traditional tribal societies.’’ 

The following charts illustrate the revenues over the last few years and the proposed fiscal year 2017 appropriations. 
37 

REQUESTED ACTION

1. Divert BIE-Elementary/Secondary Programs—ISEP Program Adjustments and 

Education Program Enhancements to ISEP, Transportation, etc. These funds 

often used to continue paternalistic practice of telling tribes and schools what 

is best for their children.—($17,472,000) 

2. Increase Early Child and Family Development (.70 WSU).—$15,000,000 

3. Continue to annually increase, by 2 percent, these accounts for next 3 (fiscal 

year 2018, 2019, 2020) years: 

BIE-Elementary/Secondary Programs—ISEP $ 8,000,000 

BIE-Elementary/Secondary Programs—Facility Operations $ 2,000,000 

BIE-Elementary/Secondary Programs—Facilities Maintenance $ 2,000,000 

BIE-Elementary/Secondary Programs—Student Transportation $ 2,000,000 

BIE-Elementary/Secondary Programs—Grant Support Costs $ 1,400,000 

$15,400,000 

4. Construction—Education Construction. The BIA reported a nearly $75,000,000 

annual facility deterioration rate, $388 million in deferred maintenance and, 

also reports a $4.4 billion school replacement value. 

Annual Need: 

Replacement School Construction $65,000,000 

Replacement Facility Construction $25,000,000 

Employee Housing Repair and Replacement $10,000,000 

Facility Improvement and Repair $90,000,000 

Add this Administrative Provision: 

—The BIE will accept new school and expansion applications from federally recognized tribes and tribal organizations. This will help determine 

the feasibility of allowing more BIE funded schools for possible fiscal 

year 2019 consideration. 

—The BIE is not to be considered a State education agency, prefer the 

tribal education departments. 
38 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF NAVAJO COMMUNITY CONTROLLED

SCHOOL BOARD, INC. 

The Association of Navajo Community Controlled School Board (ANCCSB), Inc. is 

an organization of 11 member school boards who operate federally funded schools 

on the Navajo Reservation in Arizona and New Mexico under contracts or grants 

from the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE). 

We would like to take the opportunity to thank this subcommittee for making Indian Education a bi-partisan priority. We are deeply grateful for the substantial increases in funding for Indian Education in fiscal years 2015 and 2016. These increases were desperately needed to fund such basic things as text books and student 

transportation. Providing consistent and adequate funding for core functions means 

that we as educators and administrators can focus on providing our students with 

a world class education instead of worrying about how we can afford to heat our 

classrooms during the winter or whether these classrooms are safe to occupy. Looking at the administration’s request for fiscal year 2017, we are grateful to see a commitment to maintain, and in some cases build upon, the gains of the last 2 years. 

We highlight below some of the budget categories that directly impact our schools’ 

educational programs, facilities, student transportation, and administrative management. 

TRIBAL GRANT SUPPORT COSTS

Since the 1988 Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization, tribally 

operated elementary and secondary schools have received funding for the administrative expenses incurred for the operation of BIE-funded schools through an Administrative Cost Grant, now called Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC). These 

funds are used for costs of essential services such as contract/grant administration; 

program planning and development; human resources; insurance; fiscal, procurement, and property management; required annual audits; recordkeeping; and legal, 

security and other overhead services. Tribal Grant Support Costs are the tribally 

operated schools’ Contract Support Costs. 

Impact. In fiscal year 2016, Tribal Grant Support Costs were fully funded for the 

first time. In previous fiscal years when TGSC appropriations had been insufficient 

to meet the level of need without other sources of funding, we had been forced to 

re-direct more and more funds from our education program budgets to cover essential administrative costs. Our schools were forced to make difficult decisions—such 

as delaying purchase of new textbooks and other materials, paying non-competitive 

teacher salaries, reducing the number school days—to fit within these reduced budgets. Even with these cost-saving measures, some schools were still struggling with 

further reductions in management and business-office personnel at the risk of prudent internal controls and meeting the federally mandated requirements for fiscal 

processes and operation of education grants/programs. Since TGSC is forward-funded, the fiscal year 2016 appropriation provided TGSC funds for school year 2016– 

17. 

We are grateful that this year the administration again proposes to follow through 

on commitments to pay full TGSC funding for all BIE-funded schools, and to include 

in its request sufficient funding for schools that are deciding to transition to grant 

or contact school status. ANCCSB applauds this subcommittee’s and the administration’s decision to treat schools’ support costs the same as contractors with the BIA 

and the IHS. 

Request. We fully support the administration’s proposal that TGSC and startup 

costs be funded at $75.3 million, and request that this subcommittee support this 

level of funding. 

FACILITIES OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

Facilities Maintenance funds are intended to provide for the preventative, routine, 

and unscheduled maintenance for all school buildings, equipment, utility systems, 

and ground structures. We are very grateful for the $7 million increase we saw in 

this budget category in fiscal year 2016 and encouraged that the fiscal year 2017 

request for a $3 million increase would build upon these gains. This is a marked 

improvement from years past and while it would not meet all the needs of our 

schools, it will certainly help. 

There are numerous studies which attest to the fact that there is a close correlation between poor or inadequate facility conditions and poor student and staff performance. According to the administration’s fiscal year 2017 request, 55 of the 183 

BIE-funded schools and dormitories (one-third) are still rated in ‘‘poor’’ condition in 

the Bureau’s Education Facility Condition Index (FCI). Further, the administra-
39 

tion’s fiscal year 2017 request elaborates that there is $388.9 million in deferred 

maintenance backlogs! It is clear that there is a long way to go with regard to upkeep of our schools. Part of the maintenance problem will be solved by replacing 

school wholesale, but Federal resources for this crucial need must increase so our 

schools buildings can make it to their replacement date. 

Facilities Operations funding is for the ongoing operational necessities such as 

electricity, heating fuels, custodial services, communications, refuse collection and 

water and sewer service. This budget category also saw a $7 million increase in fiscal year 2016 along with a $3 million requested increase above that for fiscal year 

2017. This is another budget category that has been severely underfunded in years 

past and we are encouraged to see the proposed increase. 

Impact. Our schools are making every effort to make do with very modest facilities funding. Since we cannot delay paying our utilities or avoid taking actions that 

would impact student safety, we often have to resort to using our other education 

or academic program monies. We caution that insufficient funding to for facilities 

maintenance and operations will mean delaying routine, as well as unscheduled, 

maintenance of buildings, equipment, utility systems and grounds—thereby jeopardizing student and staff safety. Attempts to moderate electrical and/or heating costs, 

or reduce custodial and refuse services and similar costs cutting measures would 

only make our already compromised learning conditions more uncomfortable and 

unhealthy for students and staff. If we cannot provide a decent learning environment, how can we expect our students to focus on achieving academic success? 

Request. The administration states that the $59 million requested for Facilities 

Maintenance and the $66.2 million requested for Facilities Operations would fund 

78 percent of calculated Facilities Operations and Maintenance need across BIEfunded schools. We respectfully ask that the subcommittee consider funding 100 

percent. 

STUDENT TRANSPORTATION

The Student Transportation account is intended to cover: (1) the costs of the daily 

bus services for children attending the BIE-funded elementary and secondary 

schools; and (2) air travel for children who attend distant boarding schools. School 

transportation costs include vehicle rental (buses, vans), maintenance and repair, 

fuel, and qualified bus driver salaries. The BIE budget justification states that students at BIE-funded schools travel 16 percent of their miles on unimproved roads, 

and that the BIE-funded schools have transportation routes where the mileage covered is ‘‘significantly higher than in metropolitan areas.’’ 

For the schools located on the Navajo Reservation, the percentage of unimproved 

roads traveled by our buses is much higher and in some cases it can be as much 

as 90 percent. Further, these unpaved roads are often subject to becoming ‘‘washboards’’ due to adverse weather impacts such as mud and snow. At times these 

roads become impassable so we must resort to using 4-wheel drive vehicles to ferry 

the students to a waiting bus. There have been times, however, when even the 4- 

wheel vehicles cannot reach the students so they are prevented from making it to 

class through no fault of their own. These conditions take a tremendous toll on vehicles, resulting in greater maintenance and repair costs, and greatly increase student 

travel time as well as the drivers’ work day. 

From our experience, the 66 BIE-funded schools on the Navajo Reservation must 

supplement our Student Transportation allocated amounts by at least $70,000 to 

$100,000 each year. The best estimates show that there is a $21 million shortfall 

in funding for Student Transportation as the BIE has allowed funding to fall far 

behind need, and has been willing to allow schools to poach other school funds for 

transportation purposes. 

Impact. As with the other program shortages, varied cost cutting measures have 

been instituted—from reducing the number of bus routes (resulting in longer rides 

for our students) to delaying vehicle replacements as long as possible. Nonetheless, 

underfunding Student Transportation will continue to adversely impact classroom 

programs since each year schools have no choice but to use scarce education program dollars to subsidize transportation costs. 

Request. We are relieved to see that the administration is requesting a $4 million 

increase for this critical budget category but we respectfully request that the subcommittee consider providing at least $73 million for Student Transportation in the 

BIE system. 

INDIAN SCHOOL EQUALIZATION PROGRAM (ISEP) FORMULA FUNDS

The Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) Formula is the core budget account for Educational and Residential programs of the BIE elementary and sec-
40 

ondary schools and dormitories. These funds are used for instructional programs at 

BIE-funded schools and include salaries of teachers, educational technicians, and 

principals. The amount provided to each school is determined by a statutorily mandated formula established by regulation. 

During the 8-year period of fiscal year 2003 to fiscal year 2010, the ISEP Formula 

account increased by almost $45.5 million; but in only two of those years—fiscal 

year 2009 and fiscal year 2010—the increase was actually an increase in program 

funding. For the other years, the requested increases were limited to amounts needed for fixed costs and related changes, as opposed to actual program increases. 

Funding for ISEP began to fall in fiscal year 2011, and the fiscal year 2015 level 

was actually $5 million less than in fiscal year 2010. 

Impact. For most BIE-funded schools, the chronic shortfall in the other key school 

accounts has a negative impact on ISEP Formula funding, because ISEP Formula 

funds are often diverted to make up the shortfalls in other accounts such as Student 

Transportation, Facilities, and Tribal Grant Support Costs when a tribe or tribal 

school board has no other source of funding to satisfy those shortfalls. This means 

fewer dollars are available for the education. We are tremendously grateful that 

Congress has increased funding for these critical accounts so ISEP Formula funds 

can be used for their intended purpose. 

Request. The administration’s request for a $6.5 million increase would be very 

helpful but it still does not acknowledge the shortfalls that have been building for 

years. ANCCSB Member Schools respectfully request a total of $431 million for this 

critical budget category. 

EDUCATION CONSTRUCTION

We are very grateful for the substantial increase that Congress provided for Education Construction in fiscal year 2016. We are pleased to see that the fiscal year 

2017 request would maintain this level of funding. Providing consistent funding for 

this budget category each fiscal year means that our aging schools can be replaced 

in an orderly, scheduled fashion. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of this 

subcommittee for the opportunity to relay our needs to you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF PUBLIC AND LAND-GRANT

UNIVERSITIES (APLU) BOARD ON NATURAL RESOURCES (BNR) 

On behalf of the APLU Board on Natural Resources (BNR), we thank you for your 

support of science and research programs within the United States Geological Survey (USGS). We appreciate the opportunity to provide recommendations for the following programs within USGS: $9 million for the Water Resources Research Institutes and $20 million for the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Units. 

APLU BNR requests $9 million for the Water Resources Research Institutes 

(WRRI). The APLU BNR request is based on the following: $7,500,000 in base 

grants for the WRRI as authorized by Section 104(b) of the Water Resources Research Act, including State-based competitive grants; $1,500,000 to support activities authorized by section 104(g) of the Act. Federal funding for the WRRI program 

is the catalyst that moves States and cities to invest in university-based research 

to address their own water management issues. State WRRIs take the relatively 

modest amount of Federal funding appropriated, match it 2:1 with State, local and 

other funds and use it to put university scientists to work finding solutions to the 

most pressing local and State water problems that are of national importance. The 

Institutes have raised more than $16 in other funds for every dollar funded through 

this program. The added benefit is that often research to address State and local 

problems helps solve problems that are of regional and national importance. Many 

of the projects funded through this program provide the knowledge for State or local 

managers to implement new Federal laws and regulations. Perhaps most important, 

the Federal funding provides the driving force of collaboration in water research and 

education among local, State, Federal and university water professionals. This program is essential to solving State, regional and inter-jurisdictional water resources 

problems. As USGS itself has stated: ‘‘The Water Institutes have developed a constituency and a program that far exceeds that supported by their direct Federal appropriations.’’ 

The institutes also train the next generation of water resource managers and scientists. Last year, these institutes provided research support for more than 1,400 
41 

undergraduate and graduate students at more than 150 universities studying waterrelated issues in the fields of agriculture, biology, chemistry, earth sciences, engineering and public policy. Institute-sponsored students receive training in both the 

classroom and the field, often working shoulder-to-shoulder with the top research 

scientists in their field on vanguard projects of significant regional importance. 

In addition to training students directly, Water Resources Research Institutes 

work with local residents to overcome water-related issues. For example, the California Institute for Water Resources, like most of its peers, holds field days, demonstrations, workshops, classes, webinars, and offers other means of education in an 

effort to transfer their research findings to as many users as possible. Outreach that 

succeeds in changing a farmer’s approach to nitrogen application or reducing a 

homeowner’s misuse of lawn treatments can reduce the need for restrictive regulation. 

Below are some examples of work being done in various States: 

—The current drought in California is creating serious economic hardship for agricultural producers and local communities. The University of California’s (UC) 

California Institute for Water Resources (CIWR) has responded by creating an 

information hub that is being accessed by agricultural and urban interests to 

gain vital information on how to adapt during the drought. This hub contains 

valuable information from multiple units within the UC system. It also brings 

together information on workshops and seminars (many of which are and will 

be provided in video form on the Web). In 2014–2015, UC promoted and hosted 

over 350 workshops and has many more planned (ciwr.ucanr.edu). The CIWR 

has also produced a series of drought tip fact sheets and a webinar series of 

short (15-minute) talks with useful information on irrigation practices, salinity 

management, landscape management and more. 

—The Minnesota Water Resources Center has funded a number of research 

projects that address important, nationally-relevant water resources issues with 

USGS/WRRA funding over the last 4 years. This funding has been highly leveraged with university funds and the Minnesota Environmental Trust Fund. Researchers have addressed critical issues, including determining the biogeochemical variables that can be used to predict how much arsenic will get into 

groundwater used for drinking water, and determining the degree of antibiotic 

resistance in wastewater treatment plant effluent. 

—Researchers with the Idaho Water Resources Research Institute have collaborated with Idaho Department of Water Resources scientists to develop technology for assessing crop-water usage over large areas using satellite based remote-sensing information. This technology is now used routinely within the 

Idaho Department of Water Resources for investigating and resolving water 

rights conflicts, for aquifer depletion modeling and for stream flow management. 

This technology is also being adopted by 10 western States and parts of Africa, 

Europe and Australia. 

APLU BNR requests at least $20 million for the Cooperative Fish and Wildlife 

Research Units (CRU). This program: (1) trains the next generation of fisheries and 

wildlife managers; (2) conducts research designed to meet the needs of unit cooperators; and (3) provides technical assistance to State, Federal and other natural resource managers. Originally established in the 1930s to provide training for students in fisheries and wildlife biology, the units were formally recognized by the Cooperative Units Act of 1960 (Public Law 86–686). The CRUs provide experience and 

training for approximately 600 graduate students per year, a critical need as State 

and Federal workforces face unprecedented retirements over the next 5 to 10 years. 

The CRUs also provide valuable mission-oriented research for their biggest clients, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and cooperating State agencies. Today, there are 

40 Cooperative Research Units in 38 States. 

Each unit is a true Federal-State-university-private sector collaboration in that it 

is a partnership between the U. S. Geological Survey, a State natural resources 

management agency, a host university, and the Wildlife Management Institute. For 

every $1 the Federal Government puts into the program, $3 more are leveraged 

through the other partners. The U.S. economy has long relied on the bountiful natural resources bestowed upon this land. Federal investment in the CRUs will be returned many times over though the training of future natural resource managers 

who will guide the Nation in sustainable use of our natural resources. The research 

conducted by CRU scientists directly supports the difficult management challenges 

faced by natural resources managers. The examples below demonstrate the value of 

the CRUs to wildlife issues with local and national importance. 

—Minnesota: The Minnesota CRU is currently researching the olfactory sensitivity of Asian carps to putative sex pheromones. This work has recently re-
42 

ceived national attention, because Asian carps are an invasive species that 

threatens many of the Nation’s freshwater native fishes through competition for 

food. The Minnesota CRU hopes to use the sex pheromones to attract and trap 

Asian carp, removing them permanently from the Nation’s freshwater lakes and 

rivers. Minnesota CRU researchers are also studying human behavior, working 

to understand the motivations of agricultural producers enrolling in USDA 

water quality and wildlife habitat programs. They hope to gain insight into designing and developing programs, practices and messages that encourage broader participation in those programs. —Tennessee: In 2011, an estimated 826,293 anglers fished in Tennessee, creating an economic impact of nearly $1.3 billion for the State. The Tennessee CRU 

supports this economic driver by assessing fish stocks, working on recovery efforts for threatened and endangered species, providing research and technical 

assistance to support State decisions related to fishing. For example, research 

on sauger in the Tennessee River showed that minimum size requirements by 

the State were not leading to increased mortality of released fish below the minimum size. Their research also kept ‘‘stinger’’ hooks available for fishermen by 

showing they also did not contribute to increased mortality. —Oklahoma: The Oklahoma CRU is celebrating its seventh decade of activity. 

Since opening in 1948, the graduate students that conducted research at the 

CRU have completed over 400 theses and dissertations. One on-going research 

project is to gather an accurate count of the black bear population expansion 

out of Arkansas and into eastern Oklahoma. Wildlife managers need this information for appropriate management of the bear population now that black bear 

hunting has been reintroduced in Oklahoma. 

BNR thanks you for the opportunity to provide our views to the subcommittee. 

We look forward to working with you through the fiscal year 2016 appropriations 

process. 

About APLU and the Board on Natural Resources 

APLU’s membership consists of 235 State universities, land-grant universities, 

State-university systems and related organizations. APLU institutions enroll more 

than 4.7 million undergraduate students and 1.2 million graduate students, and 

conduct $42.7 billion annually in university-based research annually. The Board’s 

mission is to promote university-based programs dealing with natural resources, 

fisheries, wildlife, ecology, energy, and the environment. BNR representatives are 

chosen by their president’s office to serve and currently number over 500 scientists 

and educators, who are some of the Nation’s leading research and educational expertise in environmental and natural-resource disciplines. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE DRINKING WATER

ADMINISTRATORS

The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) respectfully 

submits the following recommendations for fiscal year 2017 appropriations on behalf 

of the drinking water programs in the 50 States, 5 Territories, District of Columbia, 

and Navajo Nation. 

Summary of Request: ASDWA respectfully requests that, for fiscal year 2017, the 

subcommittee appropriate funding for three programs at levels commensurate with 

Federal expectations for performance; that ensure appropriate public health protection; and that will result in enhancing economic stability and prosperity in American cities and towns. ASDWA requests $200 million for the Public Water System 

Supervision (PWSS) program; $1.0205 billion for the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) program; and $10 million for State drinking water program security initiatives. A more complete explanation of the needs represented by 

these requested amounts and their justification follows. 

OVERVIEW: THE IMPORTANCE OF SAFE DRINKING WATER FOR OUR COMMUNITIES AND

THE ECONOMY & THE ROLE OF STATE DRINKING WATER PROGRAMS

States need increased Federal support to maintain public health protection and 

to support the needs of the water systems they oversee. State drinking water programs strive to meet the Nation’s public health protection goals through two principal funding programs: the Public Water System Supervision Program (PWSS) and 

the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) Program. These two programs, with their attendant State match requirements, provide the means for States 

to work with drinking water utilities to ensure that American citizens can turn on 

their taps with confidence that the water is both safe to drink and the supply is 
43 

adequate. In recent years, State drinking water programs have accepted additional 

responsibilities in the area of water system security and resiliency that include 

working with all public water systems to ensure that critical drinking water infrastructure is protected; that plans are in place to respond to both natural and manmade disasters; and that communities are better positioned to support both physical 

and economic resilience in times of crisis. 

Vibrant and sustainable communities, their citizens, workforce, and businesses all 

depend on a safe, reliable, and adequate supply of drinking water. Economies only 

grow and sustain themselves when they have reliable water supplies. Over 90 percent of the population receives water used for bathing, cooking, and drinking from 

a public water system—overseen by State drinking water program personnel. Even 

people who have their own private wells will visit other homes, businesses, and institutions served by a public water system. As important as public water systems 

are to the quality of the water we drink and our health, the majority of water produced by public water systems is used by businesses for a variety of purposes, including processing, cooling, and product manufacturing. The availability of adequate 

supplies of safe water is often a critical factor in attracting new businesses to communities. Public water systems—as well as the cities, villages, schools, and businesses they support—rely on State drinking water programs to ensure they are in 

compliance with all applicable Federal requirements and the water is safe to drink. 

Several recent incidents in the United States have led to illnesses, death, or prohibitions against use, due to unsafe drinking water. These have included deaths in several States due to microbiological contaminants; unsafe drinking water in Charleston, West Virginia for over a week due to an upstream chemical spill; unsafe drinking water in Toledo, Ohio for over a day due to algal toxins; and the leaching of 

lead from lead-containing pipelines into the water supply in Flint, Michigan. These 

incidents serve as stark reminders of the critical nature of the work that State 

drinking water programs do—every day—and the reason why State drinking water 

programs must be adequately funded. 

STATE DRINKING WATER PROGRAMS: HOW THEY OPERATE, WHY SUPPORT IS NEEDED, 

AND JUSTIFICATIONS FOR REQUESTED AMOUNTS

The Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Program: 

How the PWSS Program Operates: To meet the requirements of the Safe Drinking 

Water Act (SDWA), States have accepted primary enforcement responsibility for 

oversight of regulatory compliance and technical assistance efforts for over 155,000 

public water systems to ensure that potential health-based violations do not occur 

or are remedied in a timely manner. Over 90 contaminants are regulated in Federal 

drinking water regulations and the pace of regulatory activity has accelerated in recent years. Beyond the contaminants covered by Federal drinking water regulations, 

States are also implementing an array of proactive initiatives to protect public 

health from ‘‘source to tap.’’ These include source water assessments and protections 

for communities and watersheds; technical assistance for water treatment and distribution for challenged utilities; and enhancement of overall water system performance. In recent years, States have also taken on an increasingly prominent role in 

working with Federal and local partners to help ensure sufficient water quantity. 

Many States have worked intensively with numerous small water systems in recent 

years that were within days of running completely dry. The public health and economic consequences of such a catastrophe would have been incalculable to the residents of those communities. In short, State activities go well beyond simply ensuring compliance at the tap—and, States perform all of these tasks more efficiently 

and cheaply than would be the case if the program were federally implemented. 

Well supported State drinking water programs are a good deal for America. 

Why Adequate Support is Needed: State drinking water programs are extremely 

hard pressed financially and the funding gap continues to grow. States must accomplish all of the above-described activities—and take on new responsibilities—in the 

context of a challenging economic climate. State funding has historically compensated for inadequate Federal funding, but State budgets have been less able to 

bridge this funding gap in recent years. State drinking water programs have often 

been expected to do more with less and States have always responded with commitment and integrity, but they are currently stretched to the breaking point. Insufficient Federal support for this critical program increases the likelihood of contamination events that puts the public’s health at risk. $101.9 million was appropriated 

for the PWSS program in fiscal year 2016 and the administration requested only 

$109.7 million in fiscal year 2017 (or, on average, about $2 million per State per 

year). These amounts are woefully inadequate for the enormity of the task faced by 

State drinking water programs. We believe, based on our rigorous assessment of 
44 

every State’s need (in a report we released in January 2014), that at least twice that 

amount is needed. Inadequate Federal funding for State drinking water programs 

has a number of negative consequences. Many States are simply unable to implement major provisions of the newer regulations, leaving the work undone or ceding 

the responsibility back to EPA, which is also challenged by the Agency’s own resource constraints and lack of ‘‘on the ground’’ expertise. States also want to offer 

the flexibilities allowed under existing rules to local water systems. However, fewer 

State resources mean less opportunity to work individually with water systems to 

meet their individual needs. This situation has created a significant implementation 

crisis in several regions of the country and is ultimately delaying or hampering implementation of critically needed public health protections. For the PWSS Program in Fiscal Year 2017, ASDWA Respectfully Requests $200 

million: The number of regulations requiring State implementation and oversight as 

well as performance expectations continue to grow while at the same time, the Federal funding support necessary to maintain compliance levels and meet expectations 

has been essentially ‘‘flat-lined.’’ Inflation has further eroded these inadequate funding levels. The recommended amount is based on ASDWA’s aforementioned January 

2014 resource needs report and begins to fill the above-described resource gap. 

These funds are urgently needed for implementing new drinking water rules, taking 

on a number of other new initiatives, and to account for the eroding effects of inflation. We further recommend that Congress not allow any Federal funds already appropriated to State drinking water programs to be rescinded. 

The Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF) Program: 

How the DWSRF Program Operates: Drinking water in the United States is 

among the safest and most reliable in the world, but it is threatened by aging infrastructure. Through loans provided by the DWSRF, States help water utilities overcome this threat. The historical payback to the DWSRF on this investment has been 

exceptional. In the core DWSRF program, approximately $18 billion in cumulative 

Federal capitalization grants since 1997 have been leveraged by States into over $29 

billion in infrastructure loans to small and large communities across the country. 

Such investments pay tremendous dividends—both in supporting our economy and 

in protecting our citizens’ health. States have very effectively and efficiently leveraged Federal dollars with State contributions to provide assistance to more than 

10,000 projects, improving health protection for millions of Americans. The U.S. 

Conference of Mayors estimates that each public dollar invested in water infrastructure increases private long-term Gross Domestic Product output by $6.35. An important feature of the DWSRF program is States ‘‘set-aside’’ funds and another key reason for adequately funding this critical program. States can reserve up to 31 percent 

of these funds for a variety of critical tasks, such as shoring up the technical, managerial, and financial capacity of public water systems. Set-asides are thus an essential source of funding for States’ core public health protection programs and these 

efforts work in tandem with infrastructure loans. 

Drinking Water Infrastructure Investment is Well below the Documented Need: The 

American Society of Civil Engineers gave the Nation’s drinking water infrastructure 

a D∂ grade and EPA’s most recent National Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs 

Survey (2011) indicated that drinking water system infrastructure needs total $384 

billion over the next 20 years; $72.5 billion of that total is needed to prevent contamination of 73,400 water systems. The American Water Works Association recently estimated that 20 year need at $1 trillion (which more fully accounted for 

water distribution system replacement costs). Investment is needed for aging treatment plants, storage tanks, pumps, and distribution lines that carry water to our 

Nation’s homes, businesses and schools. The DWSRF must continue to be a key part 

of the solution to the Nation’s infrastructure crisis. 

For the DWSRF Program in Fiscal Year 2017, ASDWA respectfully requests 

$1.0205 billion: States were very encouraged by the $1.387 billion appropriated for 

the DWSRF in fiscal year 2010 but have been disappointed by the subsequent generally downward trend—$963 million in fiscal year 2011, $919 million in fiscal year 

2012, $854 million for fiscal year 2013 (a figure not seen since 2006), $907 million 

in fiscal year 2014 and fiscal year 2015, and $863 million in fiscal year 2016. The 

primary purpose of the DWSRF is to improve public health protection by facilitating 

water system compliance with national primary drinking water regulations through 

the provision of loans to improve drinking water infrastructure. Water infrastructure is needed for public health protection as well as a sustainable economy, as explained above. In light of these indicators of success and documented needs, we believe funding at the $1.0205 billion level—the level requested in the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget—will better enable the DWSRF to meet the SDWA compliance 

and public health protection goals for which it was designed. 
45 

State Drinking Water Security and Resiliency Programs 

State Drinking Water Security and Resiliency Responsibilities: State drinking 

water programs are critical partners in emergency planning, response, and resiliency at all levels of government. In fact, States are typically the critical nexus between Federal and local level officials in emergency situations. State primacy agencies provide key resources and critical support—regardless of whether the emergency is rooted in terrorism, natural disasters, or cyber intrusions. States continually work toward integrating security considerations throughout all aspects of their 

drinking water programs and provide information and support to water systems 

needing to better understand cyber threats. 

State Drinking Water Security Funds Are Urgently Needed: After 7 years of congressional support for State security programs through a small grant of approximately $5 million in EPA’s appropriations (from fiscal year 2002 through fiscal year 

2008), no funds have been provided for this purpose since fiscal year 2009 and none 

are requested by the administration for fiscal year 2017. It is very difficult to understand why this small, but essential grant to States has been zeroed out of EPA’s 

proposed budget and why Congress has not supported State drinking water security 

and resiliency programs. State drinking water programs urgently need funds to continue to maintain and expand their security activities, particularly in partnership 

with small and medium public water systems. 

For State Drinking Water Security Programs in Fiscal Year 2017, ASDWA Re- spectfully Requests $10 million: Given the realities and the lessons learned from recent catastrophic events such as Hurricane Sandy in New York and New Jersey; 

tornados in central Oklahoma; wildfires and floods in Colorado; and continuing 

drought in California and Texas—to name but a few—State drinking water programs are working more closely than ever with their water utilities to evaluate, assist, and support drinking water systems’ preparedness, response, and resiliency capabilities. States continue to expand their efforts to reflect a resilient, ‘‘all hazards’’ 

approach to water security and to assist public water systems of all sizes, particularly smaller water systems that most need help. 

Conclusion: ASDWA respectfully recommends that the Federal fiscal year 2017 

budget needs for States’ role in the provision of safe drinking water be adequately 

funded by Congress. A strong State drinking water program supported by the Federal-State partnership will ensure that the quality of drinking water in this country 

will not deteriorate and, in fact, will continue to improve—so that the public can 

be assured that a glass of water is safe to drink no matter where they travel or 

live. States are willing and committed partners. However, additional Federal financial assistance is needed to meet ongoing and ever growing regulatory, infrastructure, and security needs. In 1996, Congress provided the authority to ensure that 

the burden would not go unsupported. For fiscal year 2017, ASDWA asks that the 

promise of that support be realized. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ASSOCIATION OF ZOOS AND AQUARIUMS

Thank you Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall for allowing me 

to submit written testimony on behalf of the Nation’s 219 AZA-accredited zoos and 

aquariums. Specifically, I want to express my support for the inclusion of 

$11,100,000 for the Multinational Species Conservation Funds (MSCF) operated by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), $15,800,000 for the USFWS’s International Affairs program, and $11,100,000 for National Environmental Education 

Act programs at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the fiscal year 2017 

Department of the Interior, environment, and related agencies appropriations bill. 

I also urge you to reject any efforts to include language that would prohibit the 

USFWS from moving forward with its efforts to eliminate loopholes in the commercial elephant ivory trade. 

Founded in 1924, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) is a nonprofit 

501c(3) organization dedicated to the advancement of zoos and aquariums in the 

areas of conservation, education, science, and recreation. AZA-accredited zoos and 

aquariums annually see more than 183 million visitors, collectively generate more 

than $17 billion in annual economic activity, and support more than 166,000 jobs 

across the country. Annually, AZA-accredited institutions spend $160,000,000 on 

more than 2,650 field conservation projects in 130 countries. 

MSCF programs support public-private partnerships that conserve wild tigers, 

elephants, rhinos, great apes, and marine turtles in their native habitats. Through 

the MSCF programs, the United States supplements the efforts of developing countries that are struggling to balance the needs of their human populations and endemic wildlife. MSCF programs help to sustain wildlife populations, address threats 
46 

such as illegal poaching, reduce human-wildlife conflict, and protect essential habitat. By working with local communities, they also improve people’s livelihoods, contribute to local and regional stability, and support U.S. security interests in impoverished regions. This Federal program benefits AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums 

in their field conservation efforts and partnerships with the USFWS. 

The EPA offers valuable environmental education initiatives that AZA encourages 

you to support. Education programs at AZA-accredited institutions provide essential 

learning opportunities, particularly about science, for schoolchildren in formal and 

informal settings. Studies have shown that American schoolchildren are lagging behind their international peers in certain subjects including science and math. In the 

last 10 years, accredited zoos and aquariums formally trained more than 400,000 

teachers, supporting science curricula with effective teaching materials and handson opportunities. School field trips annually connect more than 12,000,000 students 

with the natural world. Increasing access to formal and informal science education 

opportunities has never been more important. 

Tragically, elephants are being slaughtered for their ivory. From 2010 to 2014, 81 

AZA-accredited facilities provided nearly $5.8 million to Asian and African elephant 

field conservation efforts. Sadly, it is estimated that 96 elephants are killed by 

poachers in Africa every day for their ivory, a total of 35,000 per year. Much of this 

ivory ends up in the United States, which continues to be one of the largest markets 

for ivory in the world. 

In 2013, the AZA joined The Wildlife Conservation Society as a partner in the 96 

Elephants Campaign—an effort focused on securing a U.S. moratorium on illegal 

ivory; bolstering protection of African elephants; and educating the public about the 

link between ivory consumption and the elephant poaching crisis. Through the 96 

Elephants campaign, millions of zoo visitors can take action to stop the demand for 

ivory here in the United States and around the world. The USFWS has proposed 

a rule to eliminate loopholes in the commercial elephant ivory trade. Any delay in 

this process comes at the expense of Africa’s elephants which desperately need action now. 

Finally, much of the important conservation work at AZA-accredited zoos and 

aquariums depends on a robust and fully staffed USFWS. Acknowledging the budget 

challenges facing Congress and the agencies, I encourage you to ensure that the 

USFWS has sufficient resources to employ qualified professionals, particularly for 

the programs handling permits, which support the science-based conservation breeding and wildlife education programs that require animals to be moved in an efficient, timely manner: International Affairs (Management Authority), Endangered 

Species, Law Enforcement, and Migratory Birds. 

AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums are essential conservation and education 

partners at the Federal, State, and local levels domestically as well as internationally. To ensure that AZA-accredited zoos and aquariums can continue to serve in 

these important roles, I urge you to include $11,100,000 for the Multinational Species Conservation Funds operated by the USFWS, $15,800,000 for the USFWS’s 

International Affairs program, and $11,100,000 for National Environmental Education Act programs at the Environmental Protection Agency in the fiscal year 2017 

Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations bill. 

Thank you for your consideration of our comments. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE BRISTOL BAY AREA HEALTH CORPORATION

The requests of the Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation for the fiscal year 2017 

Indian Health Service (IHS) budget and our comments on BIA Recognition are as 

follows: 

—Allocate at least an additional $12.5 million to the IHS to fully fund Village 

Built Clinic (VBC) leases and make it a line item in the budget. 

—Active support by the subcommittee to change Contract Support Costs funding 

to a permanent, mandatory funded basis and eliminate provisos on indefinite 

funding that could be misread to conflict with the carryover funding authority 

in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. 

—Increase IHS behavioral healthcare funding. 

—Funding for built-in costs. 

—Urge the Department of Interior to issue a decision regarding recognition of 

Knugank. 

The Bristol Bay Area Health Corporation (BBAHC) was created in 1973 to provide 

healthcare services to Alaska Natives of Southwest Alaska. BBAHC began operating 

and managing the Kanakanak Hospital and the Bristol Bay Service Unit for the 
47 

IHS in 1980, and was the first tribal organization to do so under the Indian SelfDetermination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA). BBAHC is a co-signer to 

the Alaska Tribal Health Compact with the IHS under the ISDEAA and is now responsible for providing and promoting healthcare to the people of 28 Alaska Native 

Villages. 

We have made significant progress but now deal with modern-day health problems. Today, rather than TB and influenza epidemics, we struggle with diseases of 

a modern society that include chronic illnesses such as cancer, diabetes and heart 

disease. The life expectancy of our people has increased from 47 years of age in 1952 

to 69.4 in 1998, still below that of U.S. residents and other Alaskans. We are 

strengthening our programs and services to address chronic illnesses as well as continuing to provide acute care services that dominated healthcare need much of the 

past 100 years for the people of Bristol Bay. 

VILLAGE BUILT CLINICS

We appreciate that the fiscal year 2016 appropriations act included $2 million to 

supplement funds for operational costs at tribal clinics in spaces acquired through 

full service leases, which we understand was intended for all Village Built Clinics 

(VBCs) in Alaska. Even when this additional funding is finally allocated, VBC facilities will continue to face a significant funding crisis in our region. Our 27 VBCs are 

essential to our ability to maintain our Community Health Aide/Practitioner (CHA/ 

P) programs which provide the only local source of healthcare for many of our Alaska Native people. 

Because the CHA/Ps could not operate in most of rural Alaska without clinic facilities in the Alaska Native villages, the IHS established the VBC leasing program 

in the 1970s, but the leases have been chronically underfunded ever since. Lease 

rental amounts for VBCs have failed to keep pace with costs; the majority of leases 

have not increased since 1989. Unlike tribal healthcare facilities in the lower 48 

States, the IHS treats VBCs as being ineligible for maintenance and improvement 

funding, for which Congress appropriated over $73.6 million in fiscal year 2016. 

Current funding for the VBCs is not sufficient to cover the cost of repair and renovation as necessary to maintain the facilities in a safe condition. 

The regional tribal health organizations collaborated with the Alaska Native 

Health Board and the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium to develop an updated needs assessment for VBCs, called ‘‘Village Based Clinics in Crisis 2015.’’ According to the report, lease amounts in fiscal year 2015 covered less than 30 percent 

of the basic operating costs of the VBCs. The report estimates that an additional 

$12.5 million in funding—in addition to the $4.5 million in current annual funding—would be needed to maintain and operate Alaska VBCs on a par with similar 

tribal health facilities elsewhere. We request that you direct the IHS to (1) add an 

additional $12.5 million to the current amount being provided for the VBCs, (2) request that amount in a separate line in the IHS budget, and (3) allocate that 

amount to the VBC lease program. 

CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS (CSC) MANDATORY FUNDING

We wish to extend our thanks for the change made in funding to CSC in the fiscal 

year 2016 appropriations act, which made the fiscal year 2016 CSC funding for an 

indefinite amount. This shift helped to ensure that CSC would be fully funded without having to reprogram funding for critical healthcare services and other programmatic funding to cover the CSC need. 

For fiscal year 2017, we support the President’s request for an appropriation of 

‘‘such sums as may be necessary,’’ with an estimated $800 million for CSC for the 

IHS, and an estimated $278 million for the BIA, in separate accounts in both the 

IHS and BIA discretionary budgets. However, we request the removal of the following proviso: ‘‘amounts obligated but not expended by a tribe or tribal organization for contract support costs for such agreements for the current fiscal year shall 

be applied to contract support costs otherwise due for such agreements for subsequent fiscal years.’’ This proviso is problematic because it could be misread to effectively deny the carryover authority granted by the ISDEAA. 

BBAHC strongly believes, however, that the indefinite appropriation of CSC funding must be made mandatory and permanent. Under the ISDEAA, the full payment 

of CSC is not discretionary; it is a legal obligation, affirmed by the U.S Supreme 

Court. Funding of CSC on a discretionary basis has placed the House and Senate 

Committees on Appropriations, in their own words, of being in the ‘‘untenable position of appropriating discretionary funds for the payment of any legally obligated 

contract support costs.’’ We are committed to working other Native organizations 

and Congress to determine how best to achieve that goal. 
48 

BEHAVIORAL HEALTH FUNDING

BBAHC continues to face particular hardships in providing for our communities’ 

behavioral and mental health needs, particularly with regard to our youth. Our Behavioral Health Counseling Center, located in Dillingham, relies on a staff of mental 

health clinicians to provide outpatient behavioral health services, village outreach 

services, as well as 24 hour crisis stabilizations services for the entire region. To 

say the least it is a challenge and there are major gaps in the provision of behavioral healthcare in the region’s isolated villages. We have well-qualified professional 

staff who serve approximately 8,000 people in our region. The 6 mental health, 2 

master level social work supervisors, 5 alcohol and drug counsellors, and 7 behavioral health aides theoretically would serve more than 300 persons each. The ratio 

of mental health clinicians to clients is 1 to 1,300. In addition the significant increase in heroin use in the region has made the provision of quality services increasingly difficult. 

Particularly concerning is that the treatment for our youth with substance abuse 

problems is lacking. Our 14 bed residential facility for substance abuse (Jake’s 

Place) has an Alcohol and Drug Safety Program funded by the State of Alaska but 

it is primarily an education program, not a treatment program, and much of the 

education is done remotely, via the Internet. And, as you know, there is an epidemic 

of suicide among Alaska Natives. Alaska outpaces the rest of the Nation in suicide 

rates and suicide attempts requiring hospitalization. Alaska Native teens commit 

suicide at a rate nearly six times that of non-Native teenagers. 

It seems that finally there is increased attention nationally by policy makers to 

behavioral health issues. Thus we appreciate the $10 million appropriated in fiscal 

year 2016 in the IHS Alcohol and Substance Abuse line item for the Generations 

Indigenous (Gen-I) initiative to address youth behavioral, mental health and substance abuse issues. This funding will be critical for the hiring of staff to provide 

more services and prevention programs for our youth. We ask for your support to 

fund the expansion of the Gen-I program in fiscal year 2017. The administration is 

requesting a $16.8 million increase focused on youth: $15 million to expand GenI for additional staffing and $1.8 million for a pilot program that would provide a 

continuum of care for youth after discharge from a Youth Regional Treatment Center. 

We also support the administration’s proposed $25 million increase in the IHS 

Mental Health account. It would consist of $21.4 million to integrate behavioral 

health services more broadly in the healthcare system, including to communitybased programs, and $3.6 million for a ‘‘Zero Suicide Initiative’’. 

BUILT-IN COSTS

We support the administration’s fiscal year 2017 request of $159 million for builtin costs: $75.4 million for medical inflation at a 5.8 percent rate; $26 million for pay 

costs; and $43.2 million to partially fund population growth. Built-in costs are often 

sacrificed in the budget negotiation process, but lack of them impacts all programs. 

Inflation—both medical and non-medical, pay raises that must be afforded to employees, and population growth are real facts of life that impact our ability to provide sufficient healthcare services. The cumulative effect of underfunding of builtin costs over a period of years takes a significant toll on our budgets and ultimately 

on our ability to provide a range of quality healthcare services. We urge Congress 

to fund this request. 

KNUGANK RECOGNITION

We bring to your attention the efforts to get the Department of Interior to correct 

the omission of Knugank (which is in the Bristol Bay region) from the list of federally recognized tribes. We are supporting Knugank in this effort and are hopeful 

this this situation will be corrected soon although there has been a series of delays 

in issuing a decision. 

In a January 2012 letter to Senator Murkowski, the Assistant Secretary of Indian 

Affairs explained that Knugank could be added to the list of recognized tribes if it 

meets the standards established by Congress in Section 1 of the Alaska Amendment 

to the Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. § 473a). Several months later, the office 

of the Assistant Secretary agreed to evaluate Knugank’s extensive documentation, 

and based on the statutory standards, issue a decision regarding Knugank’s eligibility to be included on the list of recognized tribes. Several times we have been told 

that a decision (which we believe will be favorable to Knugank) is imminent and 

that all needed information has been provided. Now, after significant investments 

made over the course of many years by BBAHC, Knugank, Members of Congress 
49 

and the Agency to resolve this matter, we understand that the Offices of the Solicitor and Assistant Secretary have completed their review but still have not taken 

the final steps necessary to issue a decision. 

BBAHC is deeply troubled by the Agency’s continued delays. We respectfully request that this subcommittee exercise its oversight responsibility to ensure that the 

Assistant Secretary issues a decision in the coming days so that the substantial investment of Federal and tribal resources is not wasted but instead serves to fully 

resolve Knugank’s tribal status. We expect this decision will correct the Agency’s 

omission of Knugank from the list of federally recognized tribes, affirm their eligibility to organize as a tribe under the standards and precedent established by the 

Alaska Amendment to the Indian Reorganization Act, and allow Knugank its rightful government-to-government status and access to an array of Federal resources. 

Other. There is no room within the page limits to comment on all issues but we 

want you to know that we support a permanent reauthorization of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians, for establishment of Medicare-like Rates for non-hospital 

services thus stretching our Purchased/Referred Care dollars, and, as Congress has 

done for the VA medical accounts, providing funding to IHS on an advance appropriations basis so that may have better lead time for our planning, budgeting, and 

purchasing processes and for our recruitment of personnel. 

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and needs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CENTRAL ARIZONA WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT

On behalf of the Central Arizona Water Conservation District (CAWCD), I encourage you to include $1.5 million for salinity specific projects in the Bureau of Land 

Management’s (BLM) Soil, Water and Air Program in fiscal year 2017. The funding 

will help protect the water quality of the Colorado River that is used by approximately 40 million people for municipal and industrial purposes and used to irrigate 

approximately 5.5 million acres in the United States. 

CAWCD manages the Central Arizona Project (CAP), a multi-purpose water resource development and management project that delivers Colorado River water 

into central and southern Arizona. The largest supplier of renewable water in Arizona, CAP diverts an average of over 1.5 million acre-feet of Arizona’s 2.8 million 

acre-foot Colorado River entitlement each year to municipal and industrial users, 

agricultural irrigation districts, and Indian communities. 

Our goal at CAP is to provide an affordable, reliable and sustainable supply of 

Colorado River water to a service area that includes more than 80 percent of Arizona’s population. 

These renewable water supplies are critical to Arizona’s economy and to the 

economies of Native American communities throughout the State. Nearly 90 percent 

of economic activity in the State of Arizona occurs within CAP’s service area. The 

canal provides an economic benefit of $100 billion annually, accounting for one-third 

of the entire Arizona gross State product. CAP also helps the State of Arizona meet 

its water management and regulatory objectives of reducing groundwater use and 

ensuring availability of groundwater as a supplemental water supply during future 

droughts. Achieving and maintaining these water management objectives is critical 

to the long-term sustainability of a State as arid as Arizona. 

NEGATIVE IMPACTS OF CONCENTRATED SALTS

Natural and man-induced salt loading to the Colorado River creates environmental and economic damages. EPA has identified that more than 60 percent of the 

salt load of the Colorado River comes from natural sources. The majority of land 

within the Colorado River Basin is federally owned, much of which is administered 

by BLM. Human activity, principally irrigation, adds to salt load of the Colorado 

River. Further, natural and human activities concentrate the dissolved salts in the 

River. 

The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has estimated the current quan- tifiable damages at about $382 million per year to U.S. users with projections that 

damages would increase to approximately $614 million per year by 2035 if the program were not to continue. These damages include: 

—A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased water use to meet 

the leaching requirements in the agricultural sector; 

—Increased use of imported water and cost of desalination and brine disposal for 

recycling water in the municipal sector; 

—A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems, water heaters, 

faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and dishwashers, and increased use 

of bottled water and water softeners in the household sector; 
50 

—An increase in the cost of cooling operations and the cost of water softening, 

and a decrease in equipment service life in the commercial sector; 

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

—A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the utility sector; 

and 

—Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit terms and conditions, 

and an increase in desalination and brine disposal costs due to accumulation 

of salts in groundwater basins. 

Adequate funding for salinity control will prevent the water quality of the Colorado River from further degradation and avoid significant increases in economic 

damages to municipal, industrial and irrigation users. 

HISTORY OF THE BLM COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL PROGRAM

In implementing the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974, Congress 

recognized that most of the salts in the Colorado River originate from federally 

owned lands. Title I of the Salinity Control Act deals with the U.S. commitment to 

the quality of waters being delivered to Mexico. Title II of the Act deals with improving the quality of the water delivered to users in the United States. This testimony deals specific with Title II efforts. In 1984, Congress amended the Salinity 

Control Act and directed that the Secretary of the Interior develop a comprehensive 

program for minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from lands administered by BLM. 

In 2000, Congress reiterated its directive to the Secretary and requested a report 

on the implementation of BLM’s program (Public Law 106–459). In 2003, BLM employed a Salinity Coordinator to increase BLM efforts in the Colorado River Basin 

and to pursue salinity control studies and to implement specific salinity control 

practices. Meaningful resources have been expended by BLM in the past few years 

to better understand salt mobilization on rangelands. With a significant portion of 

the salt load of the Colorado River coming from BLM administered lands, the BLM 

portion of the overall program is essential to the success of the effort. Inadequate 

BLM salinity control efforts will result in significant additional economic damages 

to water users downstream. 

The threat of salinity continues to be a concern in both the United States and 

Mexico. On November 20, 2012, a 5 year agreement, known as Minute 319, was 

signed between the United States and Mexico to guide future management of the 

Colorado River. Among the key issues addressed in Minute 319 included an agreement to maintain current salinity management and existing salinity standards. The 

CAWCD and other key water providers are committed to meeting these goals. 

CONCLUSION

Implementation of salinity control practices through the BLM Program has proven to be a very cost effective method of controlling the salinity of the Colorado River 

and is an essential component of the overall Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 

Program. 

CAWCD urges the subcommittee to include $1.5 million for salinity specific 

projects in the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Soil, Water and Air Program. 

The continuation of funding will prevent further degradation of the water quality 

of the Colorado River and further degradation and economic damages experienced 

by municipal, industrial and irrigation users. A modest investment in source control 

pays huge dividends in improved drinking water quality for nearly 40 million Americans. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you for inviting the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma to present written testimony on the fiscal year 2017 President’s proposed budgets for the Indian Health 

Service (IHS) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). I submit this testimony on 

the funding priorities and budget issues important to the Choctaw Nation and its 

citizens. 

The Choctaw Nation requests that Congress exempt tribal government services 

and program funding from sequestrations, unilateral rescissions and budget cuts in 

all future appropriations. 
51 

CHOCTAW NATION TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUESTS IN INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE 

A. $24 million Joint Venture Project Staffing for Choctaw National Regional Medical Center 

NATIONAL BUDGET REQUESTS—INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE AND BUREAU 

OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

B. Special Diabetes Program for Indians—Reauthorize at $200 million/year for 5 

years 

C. Contract Support Costs—Indian Health Service and Bureau of Indian Affairs 1. $800 million for IHS full funding ($82 million above 2016 enacted) 

2. Reclassify CSC funding as Mandatory for 2018–2020 

3. $278 million for BIA full funding ($1.0 million above 2016 enacted) 

4. Remove Provisions from all future appropriations ‘‘amounts obligated but 

not expended by a tribe or tribal organization for the current fiscal years 

shall be applied to CSC otherwise due for such agreements for subsequent 

fiscal years’’ 

D. Purchased and Referred Care (PRC) (Formerly Contract Health Services). The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget includes $48.2 million increase 

E. IHS Mandatory Funding (Maintaining Current Services)—provide an increase of $482.4 million over the fiscal year 2016 President’s proposed budget 

F. Provide Funding Increases to Support the Office of Tribal Self-Governance 

(IHS) and the Office of Self-Governance (DOI) to fully staff the operations to 

build capacity to support the increased number of tribes entering Self-Governance 

The Choctaw Nation supports the fiscal year 2017 budget requests of the National 

Congress of American Indians and the National Indian Health Board. 

THE CHOCTAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA 

The Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma is the third largest Native American tribal government in the United States with over 208,000 members. The Choctaw Nation territory consists of all or part of 10 counties in southeast Oklahoma, and we are 

proudly one of the State’s largest employers. The Nation operates numerous programs and services under Self-Governance compacts with the United States, including but not limited to: a sophisticated health system serving over 33,000 patients 

with a hospital in Talihina, Oklahoma, nine (9) outpatient clinics, referred specialty 

care and sanitation facilities construction; higher education; Johnson O’Malley program; housing improvement; child welfare and social services; law enforcement; and, 

many others. The Choctaw Nation has operated under the Self-Governance authority in the Department of the Interior (DOI) since 1994 and in the Department of 

Health and Human Services’ IHS since 1995. As a Self-Governance Tribe, the Nation is able to re-design programs to meet tribally specific needs without diminishing the United States’ trust responsibility. Self-Governance is now a permanent 

reality for many tribes. 

The Choctaw Nation has improved the health status of our people by operating 

a healthcare system that is responsive and designed to meet the increasing complex 

needs of our users. We have benefitted from access to resources that have enabled 

us to succeed in the challenging healthcare field. We owe much to Self-Governance 

which authorized flexibility to use Federal appropriations in a way that supports 

the expansion and growth of the healthcare system we are continuing to build for 

our people. 

A. $24 MILLION—JOINT VENTURE PROJECT STAFFING FOR CHOCTAW 

NATIONAL REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER 

The Joint Venture Construction Program (JVCP) is a unique opportunity for the 

Indian Health Service to partner with tribes and make scarce Federal dollars 

stretch much farther than in the traditional Federal construction programs. Under 

the JVCP, the Choctaw Nation will use non-IHS funds to construct a tribally owned 

healthcare facility that meets IHS design criteria and approval. The IHS will enter 

into a 20-year nominal lease for the facility and agrees to request appropriations 

for the operation and maintenance during the lease period. 

Choctaw recently settled our past contract support cost claims in both the IHS 

and BIA; although we have only received payment for the IHS settlement. These 

funds have contributed greatly to our ability to continue to cultivate a healthcare 

system. We have enjoyed partnering with the IHS on two JVCP projects; the first 

was the Idabel Indian Health Care Center in Idabel, Oklahoma in 2005 and a new 
52 

Choctaw National Regional Medical Center opening in January 2017. The Choctaw 

Regional Medical Clinic is a new facility at a new location that will serve Bryan 

County. It will be equipped with advanced technology which will require new staffing to operate an expanded health system to meet the healthcare needs of the user 

population. 

As new space, the Choctaw Regional Medical Clinic must meet operational and 

facility readiness. We will have 284 new staff and we have projected that it will take 

2 months to orientate, educate and train them so that nothing is new about their 

jobs on day one. This includes staff orientation, proper operating sequences, appropriate staff alignment, technology integration/implementation and equipment education and implementation. The question remains how will the Choctaw Nation prepare new staff for operational and facility readiness with funding? 

Language in the fiscal year 2016 consolidated appropriations bill and in the 2017 

budget proposal will put a strain on negotiations between the Nation and IHS to 

fund the necessary costs to get the staff in place, trained and ready to open. We 

have been working with IHS to include sufficient funding in the fiscal year 2017 

budget request to satisfy their commitment to fund the operational cost of the facility. It is imperative that we are prepared to open the clinic as scheduled with fully 

orientated, educated and trained staff for operational and facility readiness. 

For tribes seeking to offer, improve and/or expand access to healthcare, the JCVP 

partnership is an added value mutually beneficial partnership between a tribe, its 

members and the Federal Government. Limitations such as the proviso in the appropriations bill will impede the progress and success of the benefits of this effort. 

B. SPECIAL DIABETES PROGRAM FOR INDIANS—SUPPORT 5 YEAR REAUTHORIZATION AT $200 MILLION/YEAR 

The Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI) has been a top priority for the 

Choctaw Nation since it was initially authorized in 1997. SDPI is currently reauthorized through March 31, 2015 at a flat-line rate of $150 million/year (since 2004). 

A flat budget for more than the past decade with the annually rising costs of 

healthcare translates to a significant reduction in the purchasing power of these appropriations since 2004. Continuing support of the SDPI will maintain critical momentum in diabetes research and care to help bring diabetes-related costs under 

control. The permanency of SDPI would be a great asset to promoting stability for 

this important health program and for reversing the trend of Type 2 diabetes in Indian Country. In addition it will provide for staff retention, programmatic long-term 

planning which increases and improves patient care, and more stable outside contracts with vendors and suppliers. 

Congressional funding remains the critical factor in the battle against diabetes 

and we request that as we continue to work for permanent authorization and mandatory program status, that you urge your colleagues to extend the reauthorization 

to five (5) years and increase funding to $200 million/year for the SDPI program. 

C. CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS—INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE AND BUREAU 

OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

We applaud this subcommittee for its foresight, leadership and creativity in finding a workable solution to fully pay CSC within a difficult budget environment. 

1. $800 million for IHS full funding ($82 million above 2016 enacted); Reclassify CSC funding as Mandatory for 2018–2020—The President’s budget request for CSC proposes to fully fund the estimated need for IHS CSC at 

$800 million, an increase of $82 million above fiscal year 2016. The estimated increase also includes a long-term proposal to fully fund CSC by reclassifying IHS CSC to mandatory funding beginning in fiscal year 2018. 

All tribes agree that the payment of CSC, which is a legal obligation, should 

not be achieved by reducing directly services to any tribes. 

2. $278 million for BIA full funding ($1 million above 2016 enacted) 

3. Remove Provisions from all future appropriations ‘‘amounts obligated but 

not expended by a tribe or tribal organization for the current fiscal years 

shall be applied to CSC otherwise due for such agreements for subsequent 

fiscal years’’ 

D. Purchased and Referred Care ((PRC) (formerly contract health services). The 

President’s fiscal year 2017 budget includes $48.2 million increase. The PRC 

program pays for urgent and emergent and other critical services that are not 

directly available through IHS and tribally operated health programs. 

E. IHS mandatory funding (maintaining current services)—provide an increase of 

$482.4 million over the fiscal year 2016 President’s proposed budget. Current 

services calculate mandatory cost increases necessary to maintain those serv-
53 

ices at current levels. These ‘‘mandatories’’ are unavoidable and include medical and general inflation, pay costs, contract support costs, phasing in staff 

for recently constructed facilities, and population growth. If these mandatory 

requirements are not funded, tribes have no choice but to cut health services, 

which further reduces the quantity and quality of healthcare services available 

to American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) people. 

F. Provide funding increases to support the Office of Tribal Self-Governance (IHS) 

to fully staff to support the number of tribes entering Self-Governance. In 

2003, Congress reduced funding for this office by $4.5 million, a loss of 43 percent from the previous year. In each subsequent year, this budget was further 

reduced due to the applied congressional rescissions. As of 2015, there are 351 

Self-Governance (SG) tribes. This represents slightly over 60 percent of all federally recognized tribes. The Self-Governance process serves as a model program for Federal Government outsourcing, which builds tribal infrastructure 

and provides quality services to Indian people. 

The Choctaw Nation supports the budget requests of the National Congress of 

American Indians and the National Indian Health Board. 

Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CHOOSE CLEAN WATER COALITION

Dear Chair Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall: 

The undersigned members of the Choose Clean Water Coalition request continued 

support for programs that are essential to maintaining and restoring clean water 

to the rivers and streams throughout the Chesapeake Bay region and to the Bay 

itself. Two-thirds of the 18 million people in this region get their drinking water directly from the rivers and streams that flow through the cities, towns and farms 

throughout our six State, 64,000 square mile watershed. This water quality is critical to both human health and to the regional economy. 

The efforts to clean the Chesapeake began under President Reagan in 1983. In 

his 1984 State of the Union speech President Reagan said, ‘‘Preservation of our environment is not a liberal or conservative challenge, it’s common sense.’’ 

To follow a common sense path to maintain healthy local water and restore 

Chesapeake Bay, which is critical for our regional economy, we request funding for 

the following programs in fiscal year 2017: 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Chesapeake Bay Program—$73.0 million 

We support level funding of $73.0 million for the base budget of the Chesapeake 

Bay Program, which coordinates Chesapeake Bay watershed restoration and protection efforts. The majority of the program’s funds are passed through to the States 

and local communities for on-the-ground restoration work through programs such as 

the Small Watershed Grants, Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Grants, 

State Implementation Grants, and the Chesapeake Bay Regulatory and Accountability Program grants. 

We strongly support the $12 million for the Chesapeake Small Watershed Grants 

and the Innovative Nutrient and Sediment Reduction Grants—$6 million each—that 

Congress appropriated in fiscal year 2016. These are two well-run, competitive grant 

programs that have contributed significantly to water quality improvements 

throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These are the Bay Program’s only 

grants that go directly to on-the-ground restoration efforts by local governments and 

communities. Without specific congressional direction, EPA has, in the past, reallocated this grant money for purposes other than local restoration. This is not the 

time to stop local implementation of restoration work. We strongly support the language in last year’s 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act, where Congress protected these critical local grant programs: ‘‘The Committee recommends $73,000,000 

for the Chesapeake Bay program. From within the amount provided, $6,000,000 is 

for nutrient and sediment removal grants and $6,000,000 is for small watershed 

grants to control polluted runoff from urban, suburban and agricultural lands.’’ We 

urge you to retain the same language in the fiscal year 2017 Interior, Environment 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill. 

Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) —$1.448887 billion 

This program is critical to the 1,779 local governments throughout the Chesapeake region. The funding level has eroded over the years as the clean water needs 
54 

of local communities have increased dramatically. The Choose Clean Water Coalition supports efforts to close the gap between Federal infrastructure investment in 

clean water and the known need. For instance, legislation has been recently introduced which would authorize the Clean Water State Revolving Fund grant program 

at a level of $5.96 billion for fiscal year 2017. This is the direction in which we 

should be going, but at a minimum, appropriations should not fall below $1.44887 

billion the level appropriated in fiscal year 2014 and 2015, when Congress stabilized 

this critical program. Congress restored most of the President’s cuts last year, but 

the $1.394 billion was 3.7 percent below the fiscal year 2014 and 2015 level. 

These low interest loans are critical for clean water and for ratepayers in the Chesapeake region and nationwide. We urge you to support the $1.448887 billion 

funding level that provided $311 million in low interest loans to local governments 

in Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and the 

District of Columbia. The President’s 2017 budget request would cut $102.146 million from those six Chesapeake watershed States and the District of Columbia—a 

drastic 31 percent cut for our region from the fiscal year 2016 level. We do however, 

strongly support the provision in the President’s budget request that targets 20 percent of the Clean Water SRF funds for ‘‘green infrastructure and innovative projects 

including those to manage stormwater, which helps communities improve water 

quality while creating green space, mitigating flooding, and enhancing air quality.’’ 

The Clean Water SRF allocates money to the States based on a set formula, which 

is then used for low interest loans to local governments for critical capital construction improvement projects to reduce nutrient and sediment pollution from wastewater treatment and stormwater facilities; nonpoint sources of pollution, such as 

farms and development; and other sources. The Clean Water SRF enables local governments in the Chesapeake watershed to take actions to protect their local waters 

to meet Clean Water Act requirements. As the list of clean water infrastructure 

needs in the Chesapeake region continues to expand, we request that Congress restore funding for the Clean Water SRF at least to its fiscal year 2014 and 2015 levels. 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)—Chesapeake Bay Studies—$12.491 million 

We support the President’s 2017 budget request of $12.491 million for the USGS 

to provide the critical science necessary for restoration and protection efforts in the 

Chesapeake Bay region, and to implement the 2014 Chesapeake Watershed Agreement. This includes $500,000 for USGS to collect and use Light Distance and Ranging (LIDAR) data to produce high-quality elevation information needed for the eastern shore of the Chesapeake Bay in Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. The results 

will help the Chesapeake Bay Program to develop high-resolution land cover information to more effectively place conservation practices to improve water quality and 

help conserve healthy watersheds. 

The USGS will focus on: (1) understanding the factors affecting freshwater fisheries and streams, including the effects of shale gas drilling; (2) identifying sources 

and effects of endocrine-disrupting compounds and other contaminants that threaten fisheries and wildlife; (3) assessing the effects of sea level rise and development 

on coastal wetlands important for waterfowl; (4) forecasting the potential effects of 

land and climate change to inform land conservation; and (5) monitoring and explaining water quality change to inform nutrient and sediment reduction efforts. 

National Park Service—Chesapeake Regional Programs—$3.05 million 

The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Office runs a number of small, but 

very important programs that focus on increasing public access and the use of ecological, cultural and historic resources of the Chesapeake region. Expanding access 

and public awareness fosters stewardship and protection efforts. 

The key programs in the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget request that we support are: Chesapeake Bay Gateways and Trails ($2.02 million); Captain John Smith 

Chesapeake National Historic Trail ($391,000); Star Spangled Banner National Historic Trail ($151,000); and, support for coordinating these programs through the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Office ($488,000). 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR/U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

National Park Service/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Bureau of Land Management/U.S. Forest Service—Rivers of the Chesapeake Collaborative Landscape 

Planning Projects—Land and Water Conservation Fund—$28.261 million 

We support the President’s 2017 budget that calls for the strategic use of funds 

for the Land and Water Conservation Fund and, for the second consecutive year, 
55 

requests funding for the Rivers of the Chesapeake Collaborative Landscape Planning initiative. This effort targets conservation funds for priority landscapes 

throughout the country; the Rivers of the Chesapeake is one such priority area. 

These projects will enhance public access and education, preserve key historic and 

heritage sites and will protect important freshwater and tidal habitat areas critical 

to an array of fish and wildlife species. 

—Bureau of Land Management—Nanjemoy National Resource Management Area 

(Maryland)—$1.6 million * 

—Bureau of Land Management—Nanjemoy National Resource Management Area 

(Maryland)—$1.668 million 

—Bureau of Land Management—Meadowood Special Recreation Management 

Area (Virginia)—$1.4 million * 

—Bureau of Land Management—Meadowood Special Recreation Management 

Area (Virginia)—$2.8 million 

—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge (Maryland)—$1.2 million * 

—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—James River National Wildlife Refuge (Maryland)—$0.9 million 

—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—Rappahannock River National Wildlife Refuge 

(Virginia)—$8.5 million 

—U.S. Forest Service—George Washington–Jefferson National Forests (Virginia)—$1.0 million 

—National Park Service—Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic 

Trail (Virginia)—$2.1 million * 

—National Park Service—Appalachian National Scenic Trail (Virginia)—$2.0 million * 

—National Park Service—Piscataway Park (Maryland)—$0.55 million 

—National Park Service—Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County National Military Park (Virginia)—$4.543 million 

* Indicates projects with Current/Discretionary Authority 

National Park Service —Land Protection in Maryland through the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund—$794,000 

We support the President’s 2017 budget that calls for the strategic use of funds 

from the Land and Water Conservation Fund to protect and preserve key assets in 

the National Park System at Piscataway Park ($794,000) in Maryland. This project 

will enhance public access and education, preserve key historic and heritage sites 

and protect key habitat areas critical to an array of fish and wildlife species. 

Thank you for your consideration of these very important requests to maintain 

funding for these programs which are critical to clean water throughout the midAtlantic region. 

Sincerely, 

American Rivers 

Anacostia Watershed Society 

Audubon Naturalist Society 

Blue Heron Environmental Network Inc. 

Blue Ridge Watershed Coalition 

Blue Water Baltimore 

Cecil Land Use Association 

Chapman Forest Foundation 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation 

Chesapeake Wildlife Heritage 

Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future 

Clean Water Action 

Coalition for Smarter Growth 

Conservation Pennsylvania 

Conservation Voters of Pennsylvania 

Delaware Nature Society 

Earth Forum of Howard County 

Eastern Pennsylvania Coalition for 

Abandoned Mine Reclamation 

Environment America 

Environment Maryland 

Environment Virginia 

Friends of Accotink Creek 

Friends of Dyke Marsh 

Friends of the North Fork of the 

Shenandoah River 

Green Muslims 

Interfaith Partners for the Chesapeake 

Izaak Walton League of America 

James River Association 

Lackawanna River Conservation 

Association 

Lynnhaven River NOW 

Maryland Conservation Council 

Maryland League of Conservation Voters 

Mattawoman Watershed Society 

Mehoopany Creek Watershed Association 

Middle Susquehanna Riverkeeper 

National Aquarium 

National Parks Conservation Association 

National Wildlife Federation 

Nature Abounds 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

Otsego County Conservation Association 

Otsego Land Trust 

PennEnvironment 
56 

Pennsylvania Council of Churches 

Piedmont Environmental Council 

Potomac Conservancy 

Potomac Riverkeeper 

Potomac Riverkeeper Network 

Rivanna Conservation Society 

Rock Creek Conservancy 

Sassafras River Association 

Savage River Watershed Association 

Shenandoah Riverkeeper 

Shenandoah Valley Network 

Sidney Center Improvement Group 

Sierra Club—Maryland 

Sierra Club—Pennsylvania 

Sierra Club—Virginia 

Sleepy Creek Watershed Association 

South River Federation 

St. Mary’s River Watershed 

Stewards of the Lower Susquehanna 

Trout Unlimited 

Upper Potomac Riverkeeper 

Upper Susquehanna Coalition 

Virginia Conservation Network 

Virginia League of Conservation Voters 

Water Defense 

West & Rhode Riverkeeper 

West Virginia Rivers Coalition 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CIVIL WAR TRUST

INTRODUCTION

Madame Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony. My name is James Lighthizer, and I am the 

president of the Civil War Trust. I come before you today to respectfully request 

that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee for Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies fund the Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants Program at its authorized amount of $10 million. The program is administered by the National Park Service’s American Battlefield Protection Program (ABPP). 

The Civil War Trust is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to preserving 

America’s remaining Civil War, Revolutionary War, and War of 1812 battlefields. 

Thanks to the generosity of our 200,000 members and supporters, the Civil War 

Trust has protected more than 42,500 acres of critically important battlefield land 

in 23 States. 

The ABPP Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants Program is an authorized competitive matching grants program that requires a 1-to-1 Federal/non-Federal match, although on most occasions the Federal dollars are leveraged much more than 1-to1. The program promotes cooperative partnerships between State and local governments and the private sector to protect high priority battlegrounds outside National 

Park Service boundaries. 

BATTLEFIELD LANDS ARE OUR SHARED AMERICAN HERITAGE

America’s battlefields are an irreplaceable part of our shared national heritage. 

When preserved, these battlefields serve as outdoor classrooms to educate current 

and future generations about the defining conflicts in our country’s history. They 

are living monuments, not just to the men who fought and sacrificed there, but to 

all who have proudly worn our Nation’s uniform. Preserved battlefields are also economic drivers for communities, generating tourism dollars that are extremely important to State and local economies. When these hallowed grounds are lost, they are 

lost forever. 

ORIGINS OF THE PROGRAM

In 1990, Congress created the Civil War Sites Advisory Commission (CWSAC), a 

blue-ribbon panel composed of lawmakers, historians and preservationists, to examine the status of America’s Civil War battlefields. Three years later, the Commission 

released a report identifying the most important Civil War battlegrounds, 

prioritizing them according to preservation status and historic significance. In addition, the Commission also recommended that Congress establish a Federal matching 

grant program to encourage the private sector to invest in battlefield preservation. 

The Commission’s proposal for Federal matching grants was the genesis of today’s 

ABPP Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants Program. 

The National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2015 (Public Law 113–291) 

reauthorized the battlefield acquisition grants program and expanded its eligibility 

to include Revolutionary War and War of 1812 battlefields, in addition to Civil War 

battlefields. Similar to the Civil War grants, which are awarded for priority battlefield land identified in the CWSAC report, funding for Revolutionary War and War 

of 1812 battlefields will target sites listed in a landmark 2007 study by the National 

Park Service. Among the battlefields that could potentially benefit from the expanded program are: Bennington, New York, and Vermont; Brandywine, Pennsyl-
57 

vania; Cowpens, South Carolina; Caulk’s Field, Maryland; Guilford Courthouse, 

North Carolina; Princeton, New Jersey; River Raisin, Michigan; Saratoga, New 

York; and Yorktown, Virginia. 

Since the program was first funded in fiscal year 1999, grants have been used to 

protect more than 24,500 acres of hallowed ground in 17 States. Among the many 

battlefields that have benefited from this program are: Antietam, Maryland; 

Bentonville, North Carolina; Champion Hill, Mississippi; Chancellorsville, Virginia; 

Chattanooga, Tennessee; Gettysburg, Pennsylvania; Harpers Ferry, West Virginia; 

Mill Springs, Kentucky; Prairie Grove, Arkansas; and Wilson’s Creek, Missouri. It 

is important to note that grants are awarded for acquisition of lands from willing 

sellers only; there is—and never has been—any eminent domain authority. 

URGENT NEED FOR FUNDING

The Civil War Trust wishes to thank the subcommittee for its previous support 

for this valuable program. We recognize that these are difficult economic times and 

appreciate the constraints on this subcommittee. However, we must point out that 

the clock is ticking on the remaining battlefields of the Revolutionary War, War of 

1812 and Civil War. The Civil War Trust estimates that, in the next decade, most 

unprotected battlefield land will be either developed or preserved. Full funding for 

the Battlefield Land Acquisition Grants Program at its authorized level of $10 million a year will enable nonprofit groups like the Trust to protect as many key battlefield lands as possible in the limited time remaining. 

CONCLUSION

The Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, and the Civil War were defining moments in our country’s history. Our forbearers secured our independence from Great 

Britain and forged our democratic ideals during the Revolutionary War and War of 

1812. During the Civil War, the great armies of the North and South clashed in 

hundreds of battles that reunited our union and sounded the death knell for slavery. 

Preserved battlefields help insure that the sacrifices of these turbulent periods in 

our Nation’s history are never forgotten. 

Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall, I sincerely hope you and your 

subcommittee will consider our request to provide funding of the ABPP Battlefield 

Land Acquisition Grants Program at its authorized level of $10 million. We look forward to working closely with you as we continue our important work to preserve 

America’s sacred battlefield lands. Thank you for the opportunity to address the 

subcommittee. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COALITION AGAINST FOREST PESTS

The Coalition Against Forest Pests consists of non-profit organizations, for-profit 

entities, landowners, State agency associations and academic scholars who have 

joined together to improve our Nation’s efforts to address forest health threats. We 

write to ask your support for adequate funding for the Forest Health Management 

programs—both Federal and cooperative lands—and the Forest and Rangeland Research programs in the USDA Forest Service (USFS). We respectfully request your 

support in funding the Forest Health Management programs at $100 million—$52 

million Federal Lands and $48 million Cooperative Lands—and the Forest and 

Rangeland Research program at $303 million in fiscal year 2017. 

Forested landscapes cover approximately one-third of the total land area of the 

United States, including 136 million acres in urban environments. Our Nation’s forests and trees provide numerous benefits in both rural and urban areas. These benefits include wood products, wildlife habitat, carbon sequestration, clean water and 

air, and aesthetic enjoyment. Harvest of numerous woodland products and forestassociated recreation provide hundreds of thousands of jobs and generate considerable economic activity across all 50 States. 

These benefits are at risk to attacks by non-native insects and diseases. While 

most of the monetized losses occur in cities, the threat is to all forests. The Asian 

longhorned beetle kills trees in 15 botanical families—especially maples and birches 

which constitute much of the forest reaching from Maine to Minnesota. The polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers now spreading in southern California threaten 

more than 300 plant species, including tree species that anchor the region’s riparian 

areas as well as half of the trees planted in urban areas of the region. The beetles 

might also threaten forests in other warm regions of the country such as the Gulf 

Coast, where some of the host trees grow. In 16 coastal California and Oregon counties, sudden oak death has killed over one million tanoaks as well as hundreds of 
58 

thousands of coast live oaks and other trees. Sudden oak death attacks a wide range 

of trees and shrubs native to eastern forests, including northern red, chestnut, 

white, and pin oaks; sugar maple; black walnut; mountain laurel; rhododendrons; 

and viburnum. The emerald ash borer has already killed untold millions of ash trees 

in 25 States, with resulting damage to wetland and riparian areas and posing a potential threat to dependent invertebrates. 

The cost to urban areas and homeowners is staggering: municipal governments 

across the country spend more than $2 billion each year to remove trees on city 

property killed by non-native pests. Homeowners spend an additional $1 billion to 

remove and replace trees on their properties and are absorbing an additional $1.5 

billion in reduced property values. 

Nor are these pests’ damages confined to urban areas. Once a newly introduced 

species has established a beachhead in the city, it spreads—to suburban woodlots 

and then into the forest. This phenomenon is illustrated by the spread of the Asian 

longhorned beetle in Massachusetts, the emerald ash borer across 25 States, and 

the redbay ambrosia beetle in the southeast. 

The risk to forest systems and the benefits we receive from them continues to 

grow. At least 28 new tree-killing pests have been detected over the last decade. 

Every day, an estimated 35 shipping containers from abroad carry to our shores a 

tree-killing pest. 

The USFS Forest Health Management Program is a critical resource supporting 

Federal, State, municipal and landowner efforts to prevent, contain, and eradicate 

these costly and dangerous pests. The Program has supported Oregon’s efforts to 

slow the spread of sudden oak death; Plains States’ strategies to address the threat 

from emerald ash borer; whitebark pine restoration plantings in the Mountain 

States; and the decades-old, successful program to slow the spread of the gypsy 

moth. This program has been cut by 10 percent over the last 5 years, reducing its 

reach and effectiveness. It is particularly essential that funding for work on ‘‘cooperative’’ lands—that is, State, municipal, and private lands—be restored to $48 million. We ask further that the subcommittee instruct program managers to allocate 

a higher proportion of total funds to projects targeting non-native insects or pathogens. In recent years, such projects have received only about $12 million, or 13 percent of total program funds. 

The USFS Forest and Rangeland Research program provides the scientific foundation for developing effective tools to detect and manage forest pests and the pathways by which they are introduced and spread. As America’s forests face increasing 

pressure from the growing number of non-native pests, a greater research engagement is critical. For example, tools are desperately needed to detect and contain the 

polyphagous and Kuroshio shot hole borers. Promising research to support breeding 

ash trees resistant to the emerald ash borer needs to be taken to its conclusion so 

breeders can begin restoring ash trees. Pathways of introduction and spread require 

additional analysis, e.g., wood packaging, nursery stock and firewood. To support 

these efforts, we respectfully request that the subcommittee fund the USFS Forest 

and Rangeland Research program at $303 million in fiscal year 2017. We ask further that the subcommittee recommend that a higher proportion of these funds be 

allocated to projects specifically targeting non-native insects or pathogens. In recent 

years, such projects have received only $5 million—less than 2 percent of total research funding. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COALITION FOR HEALTHIER SCHOOLS

Dear Senators: 

On behalf of more than 150 participating parent, public health, environment, and 

education groups in the Coalition, we urge you to make healthy children and 

healthy indoor environments a priority in the final fiscal year 2017 Department of 

Interior, environment and related agencies appropriations. Specifically, we ask that 

you ensure that EPA’s Office of Children’s Health Protection and EPA’s Indoor Air 

and Radiation have $16 million over fiscal year 2016 enacted. It is a small sum 

which can lead to major improvements in the lives of small children in our Nation’s 

PreK–12 schools. 

Some 55 million children attend public and private schools every day, yet our Nation’s schools—places where 20 percent of Americans who are 95 percent women and 

children learn and work every day—are woefully unaware or under-prepared to 

manage their facilities, as numerous studies on schoolhouse neglect have shown. Research also shows that environmentally healthy learning places that are clean, dry 
59 

and quiet, and have good ventilation, have lower absenteeism and higher test 

scores. As CDC and EPA both know, asthma is the leading cause of school absenteeism, 

yet CDC’s 2012 School Health Policy and Practices key informant survey found too 

few States and districts with policies that are known to boost attendance and 

achievement: 

—only 42.9 percent of States reported helping schools with Indoor Air Quality; 

and, 

—only 36.3 percent of districts reported having a policy to purchase low-emitting 

products which reduce contaminants in indoor air. 

We urge you to ensure that EPA’s Office of Children’s Health Protection receive 

$6 million over fiscal year 2016 enacted to advance children’s health and support 

its voluntary grants for State agencies and for pediatric environmental health services. And we urge that EPA’s Office of Air and Radiation/Indoor Environments (Reducing the Risks from Indoor Air) be allocated $10 million over fiscal year 2016 enacted for voluntary grants to reduce children’s indoor exposures and asthma in 

homes, schools, and child care centers, as well as to help schools’ address resiliency 

to severe weather events. 

Sincerely, 

Alaska Community Action on Toxics 

American School Health Association 

Asthma and Allergy Foundation of 

America 

Association of School Business Officials 

International 

Asthma Regional Council of New 

England 

Center for Cities ∂ Schools, University 

of California, Berkeley 

Children’s Environmental Health 

Network 

Connecticut Foundation for 

Environmentally Safe Schools 

Empire State Consumer Project 

Health and Education Alliance of 

Louisiana 

Health Resources in Action 

Healthy Schools Network 

hellmuth ∂ bicknese architects 

Improving Kids’ Environment (Indiana) 

Maryland Children’s Environmental 

Health Coalition 

Massachusetts Coalition for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Massachusetts Healthy Schools Network 

Moms’ Clean Air Force 

National Association of County and City 

Health Officials 

National Center for Environmental 

Health Strategies 

National Education Association— 

Healthy Schools Caucus 

New York Lawyers for the Public 

Interest 

Parents for Students’ Safety (Tennessee) 

School-Based Health Alliance 

Sheet Metal Occupational Health 

Institute Trust (SMOHIT) 

Take Care of Your Classroom Air (Texas) 

Toxics Information Project (Rhode 

Island) 

Twenty-first Century Schools Fund 

U.S. Green Building Council 

West Harlem Environmental Action 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN SALINITY CONTROL FORUM

Waters from the Colorado River are used by nearly 40 million people for municipal and industrial purposes and used to irrigate approximately 5.5 million acres in 

the United States. Natural and man-induced salt loading to the Colorado River creates environmental and economic damages. The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has estimated the current quantifiable damages at about $382 million per 

year. Congress authorized the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program (Program) in 1974 to offset increased damages caused by continued development and use 

of the waters of the Colorado River. Modeling by Reclamation indicates that the 

quantifiable damages would rise to approximately $614 million by the year 2035 

without continuation of the Program. Congress has directed the Secretary of the Interior to implement a comprehensive program for minimizing salt contributions to 

the Colorado River from lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM). BLM funds these efforts through its Soil, Water and Air Program. BLM’s 

efforts are an essential part of the overall effort. A funding level of $1.5 million for 

salinity specific projects in 2017 is requested to prevent further degradation of the 

quality of the Colorado River and increased downstream economic damages. 

EPA has identified that more than 60 percent of the salt load of the Colorado 

River comes from natural sources. The majority of land within the Colorado River 

Basin is federally owned, much of which is administered by BLM. In implementing 
60 

the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in 1974, Congress recognized that 

most of the salts in the Colorado River originate from federally owned lands. Title 

I of the Salinity Control Act deals with the U.S. commitment to the quality of waters being delivered to Mexico. Title II of the Act deals with improving the quality 

of the water delivered to users in the United States. This testimony deals specifically with Title II efforts. In 1984, Congress amended the Salinity Control Act and 

directed that the Secretary of the Interior develop a comprehensive program for 

minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from lands administered by 

BLM. In 2000, Congress reiterated its directive to the Secretary and requested a 

report on the implementation of BLM’s program (Public Law 106–459). In 2003, 

BLM employed a Salinity Coordinator to increase BLM efforts in the Colorado River 

Basin and to pursue salinity control studies and to implement specific salinity control practices. BLM is now working on creating a comprehensive Colorado River 

Basin salinity control program as directed by Congress. Meaningful resources have 

been expended by BLM in the past few years to better understand salt mobilization 

on rangelands. With a significant portion of the salt load of the Colorado River coming from BLM administered lands, the BLM portion of the overall program is essential to the success of the effort. Inadequate BLM salinity control efforts will result 

in significant additional economic damages to water users downstream. 

Concentration of salt in the Colorado River causes approximately $382 million in 

quantified damages and significantly more in unquantified damages in the United 

States and results in poor water quality for United States users. Damages occur 

from: 

—a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased water use to meet 

the leaching requirements in the agricultural sector, 

—increased use of imported water and cost of desalination and brine disposal for 

recycling water in the municipal sector, 

—a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems, water heaters, 

faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and dishwashers, and increased use 

of bottled water and water softeners in the household sector, 

—an increase in the cost of cooling operations and the cost of water softening, and 

a decrease in equipment service life in the commercial sector, 

—an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment, and an increase 

in sewer fees in the industrial sector, 

—a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the utility sector, 

and 

—difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit terms and conditions, 

and an increase in desalination and brine disposal costs due to accumulation 

of salts in groundwater basins. 

The Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Forum (Forum) is composed of gubernatorial appointees from Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah 

and Wyoming. The Forum is charged with reviewing the Colorado River’s water 

quality standards for salinity every 3 years. In so doing, it adopts a Plan of Implementation consistent with these standards. The level of appropriation requested in 

this testimony is in keeping with the adopted Plan of Implementation. If adequate 

funds are not appropriated, significant damages from the higher salinity concentrations in the water will be more widespread in the United States and Mexico. 

In summary, implementation of salinity control practices through BLM is a cost 

effective method of controlling the salinity of the Colorado River and is an essential 

component to the overall Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Program. Continuation of adequate funding levels for salinity within the Soil, Water and Air Program 

will assist in preventing the water quality of the Colorado River from further degradation and significant increases in economic damages to municipal, industrial and 

irrigation users. A modest investment in source control pays huge dividends in improved drinking water quality to nearly 40 million Americans. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLORADO RIVER BOARD OF CALIFORNIA

This testimony is in support of fiscal year 2017 funding for the Department of the 

Interior’s Bureau of Land Management (BLM) associated with the sub-activity that 

assists Title II of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 

93–320). This long-standing successful and cost-effective salinity control program in 

the Colorado River Basin is being carried out pursuant to the Colorado River Basin 

Salinity Control Act and the Clean Water Act (Public Law 92–500). Congress has 

directed the Secretary of the Interior to implement a comprehensive program for 
61 

minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from lands administered by the 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). BLM funds these efforts through its Soil, 

Water and Air Program. BLM’s efforts are an essential part of the overall effort. 

A funding level of $1.5 million for salinity specific projects in 2017 is requested to 

prevent further degradation of the quality of the Colorado River and increased 

downstream economic damages. 

The Colorado River Board of California (Colorado River Board) is the State agency 

charged with protecting California’s interests and rights in the water and power resources of the Colorado River system. In this capacity, California participates along 

with the other six Colorado River Basin States through the Colorado River Basin 

Salinity Control Forum (Forum), the interstate organization responsible for coordinating the Basin States’ salinity control efforts. In close cooperation with the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and pursuant to requirements of the Clean 

Water Act, the Forum is charged with reviewing the Colorado River water quality 

standards every 3 years. The Forum adopts a Plan of Implementation consistent 

with these water quality standards. The level of appropriation being supported in 

this testimony is consistent with the Forum’s 2014 Plan of Implementation. The Forum’s 2014 Plan of Implementation can be found on this Web site: http:// 

coloradoriversalinity.org/docs/2014%20Final%20REVIEW%20-%20complete.pdf. If 

adequate funds are not appropriated, significant damages associated with increasing 

salinity concentrations of Colorado River water will become more widespread in the 

United States and Mexico. 

The EPA has determined that more than 60-percent of the salt load of the Colorado River comes from natural sources. The majority of land within the Colorado 

River Basin is federally owned, much of which is administered by BLM. Through 

passage of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Act in 1974, Congress recognized that much of the salts in the Colorado River originate on federally owned 

lands. Title I of the Salinity Control Act deals with the U.S. commitment to efforts 

related to maintaining the quality of waters being delivered to Mexico pursuant to 

the 1944 Water Treaty. Title II of the Act deals with improving the quality of the 

water delivered to U.S. users. In 1984, Congress amended the Salinity Control Act 

and directed that the Secretary of the Interior develop a comprehensive program for 

minimizing salt contributions to the Colorado River from lands administered by 

BLM. In 2000, Congress reiterated its directive to the Secretary and requested a 

report on the implementation of BLM’s program (Public Law 106–459). In 2003, 

BLM employed a Salinity Coordinator to coordinate BLM efforts in the Colorado 

River Basin States to pursue salinity control studies and to implement specific salinity control practices. BLM is now working on creating a comprehensive Colorado 

River Basin salinity control program as directed by Congress. With a significant portion of the salt load of the Colorado River coming from BLM-administered lands, 

the BLM portion of the overall program is essential to the success of the entire effort. Inadequate BLM salinity control efforts will result in significant additional economic damages to water users downstream. 

Over the 32 years since the passage of the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 

Act, much has been learned about the impact of salts in the Colorado River system. 

Currently, the salinity concentration of Colorado River water causes about $382 million in quantifiable damages in the United States annually. Economic and hydrologic modeling by Reclamation indicates that the quantifiable damages could rise to 

more than $614 million by the year 2035 without the continuation of the Salinity 

Control Program. For example, damages can be incurred related to the following activities: 

—a reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased water use to meet 

the leaching requirements in the agricultural sector, 

—an increase in the amount of imported water, 

—an increased cost of desalination and brine disposal for recycling water in the 

municipal sector, 

—a reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems, water heaters, 

faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and dishwashers, and increased use 

of bottled water and water softeners in the household sector, 

—an increase in the cost of cooling operations and the cost of water softening, and 

a decrease in equipment service life in the commercial sector, 

—an increase in the use of water and the cost of water treatment, and an increase 

in sewer fees in the industrial sector, 

—a decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the utility sector, 

—difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit terms and conditions, 

and 
62 

1Treaty with the Yakama Nation, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 951; Treaty with the Tribes of Middle Oregon, June 25, 1855, 12 Stat. 963; Treaty with the Umatilla Tribe, June 9, 1855, 12 Stat. 

945; Treaty with the Nez Perce Tribe, June 11, 1855, 12 Stat. 957. 

—an increase in desalination and brine disposal costs due to accumulation of salts 

in groundwater basins. 

The Colorado River is, and will continue to be, a major and vital water resource 

to the nearly 20 million residents of southern California, including municipal, industrial, and agricultural water users in Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San 

Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura Counties. The protection and improvement of 

Colorado River water quality through an effective salinity control program will 

avoid the additional economic damages to users in California and the other States 

that rely on Colorado River water resources. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER INTER-TRIBAL FISH COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal 

Fish Commission (CRITFC) is pleased to share its view on the Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) fiscal year 2017 budget. We have specifically 

identified the following funding needs and one request for review: 

1. $9.95 million for Columbia River Fisheries Management under Rights Protec- tion Implementation, ($5.3 million above fiscal year 2016), to meet the base 

program funding needs of the Commission and the fisheries programs of our 

member tribes; 2. $4.8 million for U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty under Rights Protection Implementation, ($520,000 above fiscal year 2016) to implement obligations 

under the recent agreements adopted by the U.S. and Canada; 3. $8.0 million for Tribal Climate Resilience under Rights Protection Implementation to assist tribes in climate change adaptation and planning (supporting the 

POTUS request); 4. $10.4 million for Fish, Wildlife and Parks Projects, (supporting the POTUS request); 5. $352.5 million for Public Safety and Justice, of which $943,000 supports enforcement of Federal laws at In-Lieu and Treaty Fishing Access Sites on the 

Columbia River. 

History and Background 

CRITFC was founded in 1977 by the four Columbia River Treaty Tribes: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes of the Warm 

Springs Reservation of Oregon, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation, and the Nez Perce Tribe. CRITFC provides coordination and technical assistance to these tribes in regional, national and international efforts to protect and restore our shared salmon resource and the habitat upon which it depends. Our collective ancestral homeland covers nearly one-third of the entire Columbia River Basin 

in the United States, an area the size of the State of Georgia. 

In 1855, the U.S. entered into treaties with the four tribes 1 whereupon we ceded 

millions of acres of our homelands to the U.S. In return, the U.S. pledged to honor 

our ancestral rights, including the right to fish in all Usual and Accustomed locations. Unfortunately, a perilous history brought the salmon resource to the edge of 

extinction with 12 salmon and steelhead populations in the Columbia Basin listed 

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

The CRITFC tribes have arrived as globally-recognized leaders in fisheries restoration and management working in collaboration with State, Federal and private 

entities. We are principals in the region’s efforts to halt the decline of salmon, lamprey and sturgeon populations and rebuild them to levels that support ceremonial, 

subsistence and commercial harvests. To achieve these objectives, our actions emphasize ‘gravel-to-gravel’ management including supplementation of natural stocks, 

healthy watersheds and collaborative efforts. 

The programs in this testimony are carried out pursuant to the Indian Self-Determination and Assistance Act. Our programs are integrated as much as possible with 

State and Federal salmon management and restoration efforts. 

Columbia River Fisheries Management Within Rights Protection Implementation 

We are succeeding. The salmon, returning in greater numbers, tell us so. But 

along with success, management increases in complexity, requiring greater data collection and enforcement. Funding shortfalls prohibit the achievement of tribal selfdetermination goals for fisheries management, ESA recovery effort, protecting non- 
63 

2The Nez Perce Tribe is not a Columbia Basin Fish Accord signatory. 

3See ‘‘Salmon Win A Triple Crown’’ at http://www.critfc.org/text/wanal109.pdf. 

listed species, conservation enforcement and treaty fishing access site maintenance. 

We request an increase of $4.4 million over fiscal year 2015 for a new program base 

of $8.95 million for Columbia River Fisheries Management. 

The BIA’s Columbia River Fisheries Management line item is the base funding 

that supports the fishery program efforts of CRITFC and the four member tribes. 

Unlike State fish and game agencies, the tribes do not have access to Dingell-Johnson/Pittman-Robertson or Wallop-Breaux funding. The increase will be directed to 

support the core functions of the fisheries management programs of the Commission’s member tribes, namely enforcement, harvest monitoring and renegotiation 

support for four primary agreements including Columbia River Treaty modernization. 

In 2008, CRITFC and its member tribes struck three landmark agreements: (1) 

the Columbia Basin Fish Accords with Federal action agencies overseeing the Federal hydro system in the Columbia Basin,2 (2) a 10-Year Fisheries Management 

Plan with Federal, tribal and State parties under U.S. v OR, and (3) a new Chinook 

Chapter of the Pacific Salmon Treaty.3 These agreements establish regional and 

international commitments on harvest and fish production efforts, commitments to 

critical investments in habitat restoration, and resolving contentious issues by seeking balance of the many demands within the Columbia River basin. While through 

these agreements the tribes have committed to substantial on-the-ground projects 

with some additional resources from the Bonneville Power Administration, the overall management responsibilities of the tribal programs have grown exponentially 

without commensurate increases in BIA base funding capacity. For example, the 

tribes’ leadership in addressing Pacific Lamprey declines is this species’ best hope 

for survival and recovery. The tribes’ are also addressing unmet mitigation obligations, such as fish losses associated with the John Day and The Dalles dams. 

The funding provided through the BIA to support tribal fishery programs is crucial to the tribes’ and CRITFC’s ability to successfully carry out tribal rights protection, including these agreements, by providing sound technical, scientific and policy 

products to diverse legal, public and private forums. Rights Protection Implementation funding takes on even greater importance as funding for State co-management 

agencies has become inconsistent or decreased. Below are priority need areas for 

CRITFC and our member tribes. 

Youth Program Initiatives 

The Columbia River Treaty Tribes place an emphasis on preparing our youth for 

careers in Natural Resources Management. However, our tribes, like tribes nationwide, struggle to overcome barriers to Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics achievement, high dropout rates, and low percentages of students pursuing 

natural resources majors. Our Place-Based Workforce Development Initiative seeks 

to address these barriers through a blend of technical assistance, intern and 

externship opportunities and a summer Salmon Camp. 

Columbia River Treaty Modernization 

The Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission’s member tribes are part of a 

coalition of 15 Columbia Basin tribes whose rights, as well as management authorities and responsibilities, are substantially affected by the implementation of the Columbia River Treaty. In order for treaty modernization to succeed, the Columbia 

Basin tribes need to continue to coordinate internally and with other regional and 

national entities, as well as continue their analytical evaluation of the treaty including the impacts of climate change, while the State Department evaluates the Regional Recommendation and completes their national interests review. 

U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty Under Rights Protection Implementation 

The U.S. and Canada entered into the Pacific Salmon Treaty in 1985 to conserve 

and rebuild salmon stocks, provide for optimum production, and control salmon 

interceptions. The treaty established the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC) as a 

forum to collaborate on intermingled salmon stocks. The U.S. Section of the PSC 

annually develops a coordinated budget for tribal, State and Federal programs to 

ensure cost and program efficiencies. Congress increased funding in 2000 in order 

to implement the 1999 Agreement, but funding has significantly eroded since then. 

In 2008, the U.S. and Canada adopted a new long term treaty agreement after nearly 3 years of negotiations. Both parties agreed to significant new management research and monitoring activities to ensure the conservation and rebuilding of the 

shared salmon resource. 
64 

4Letter from Bruce Jim, Chairman, Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission to U.S. 

House of Representatives Chairmen Frank Wolf, Mike Simpson and Doc Hastings, July 11, 

2011. 

For tribal participants in the Pacific Salmon Treaty, the U.S. Section has identified a program need of $4.8 million for the 25 participating tribes. These funds provide for direct tribal participation with the Commission, panels and technical committees. The funding enables the tribes to assist in treaty implementation and facilitates management protecting trust resources. This funding maintains tribal resource assessment and research programs structured to fulfill required treaty implementation activities. The fiscal year 2017 recommended level for this program is an 

increase of $520,000 above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. Our request correlates 

to the U.S. Section’s recommendation. 

Tribal Climate Resilience 

The Columbia River Treaty Tribes are feeling the effects of Climate Change. 

Shifts are occurring in salmon run timing, and berry and root ripening cycles. In 

2015, climate-related stress in the form of historic forest fires and the loss of up 

to 400,000 sockeye salmon due to elevated water temperatures illustrate our climate 

crisis. We support the President’s request of an increase of $2.5 million to implement Tribal Climate Resilience. CRITFC is concerned about the underlying lack of 

fairness in the distribution of climate change funding with Rights Protection Implementation since the fund’s appearance in 2014. Attempts at a collaborative process 

have not yielded a consensus. We conditionally support the President’s directive of 

a ‘‘competitive process’’ as a means to an end. This process could lead to a better 

assessment of treaty-based climate needs and metrics to best put dollars on the 

ground. 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks Projects 

We support the President’s request to support Federal facilities maintenance. 

Public Safety and Justice, Criminal Investigations and Police Services 

Public safety continues to be a high priority for CRITFC and our tribes. Our conservation and criminal enforcement officers are the cornerstone of public safety in 

the popular and heavily used Columbia Gorge area patrolling 150 miles of the Columbia River, including its shorelines in Oregon and Washington. In this area we 

are the primary provider of enforcement services at 31 fishing access sites developed 

pursuant to Public Law 87–14 and Public Law 100–581 for use by treaty fishers. 

CRITFC’s officers have obtained BIA Special Law Enforcement Commissions to aid 

our efforts protecting and serving tribal members and Federal trust properties along 

the Columbia River. We are also very pleased that the BIA has created OJS District 

8 and housed it in Portland. CRITFC entered into a Public Law 93–638 contract 

with BIA in February 2011 for enforcement services along the Columbia River. That 

contract currently provides funding for two enforcement positions. 

Our immediate priority is to add two patrol officers, one sergeant, one investigator 

and one dispatcher. Full funding for this Enforcement need is $943,000 which would 

support a total of four officers, one sergeant, an investigator and a dispatcher. 

A Request for Review of Salmon Mass-Marking Programs 

CRITFC endeavors to secure a unified hatchery strategy among tribal, Federal 

and State co-managers. To that end, we seek to build hatchery programs using the 

best available science, regional expertise and supported by adequate, efficient budgets. A congressional requirement, delivered through prior appropriations language, 

to visibly mark all salmon produced in federally funded hatcheries circumvents local 

decisionmaking and should be reconsidered. We have requested that Federal massmarking requirements, and correlated funding, be reviewed for compatibility with 

our overall objective of ESA delisting and with prevailing laws and agreements: U.S. 

v Oregon, Pacific Salmon Treaty and the Columbia Basin Fish Accords.4 Salmon 

managers should be provided the latitude to make case-by-case decisions whether 

to mark fish and, if so, in the appropriate percentages. 

In summary, through the combined efforts of the four Columbia River Treaty 

Tribes, supported by a staff of experts, we are proven natural resource managers. 

Our activities benefit the region while also essential to the U.S. obligation under 

treaties, Federal trust responsibility, Federal statutes, and court orders. We ask for 

your continued support of our efforts. We are prepared to provide additional information you may require on the Department of Interior’s BIA budget. 
65 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CONGRESSIONAL FIRE SERVICES INSTITUTE, THE

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE CHIEFS, AND THE NATIONAL VOLUNTEER

FIRE COUNCIL

Dear Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the subcommittee: 

On behalf of the Congressional Fire Services Institute, the International Association of Fire Chiefs, and National Volunteer Fire Council, thank you for the opportunity to offer written comments on appropriations levels for fiscal year 2017. Our 

organizations urge you to fund the Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) grant program 

at $16 million, the fiscal year 2010-enacted appropriations level, for fiscal year 2017. 

As you are aware, the United States is facing an alarming trend with the growth 

of wildland fires. The cost of suppressing these fires is reaching new heights as 

more than 50 percent of the U.S. Forest Service’s (USFS) annual budget now goes 

to fighting wildland fires. Local fire departments play a key role in assisting the 

USFS extinguish wildland fires. More than 80 percent of wildland fires are extinguished on initial attack by local fire departments. The USFS estimates that the 

value of the service provided by local fire departments exceeds $36 billion per year. 

Despite the significant value of service provided by our Nation’s fire and emergency 

service, the Federal Government’s commitment to supporting these agencies has 

dwindled since fiscal year 2006. 

The VFA program is an extremely successful and effective program aimed at supporting fire departments that protect communities with a population of 10,000 or 

less. VFA grants are provided on a 50/50 matching basis and are generally used to 

help budget-strapped departments procure new equipment, refurbish old fire apparatus, and train personnel. According to the USFS, in fiscal year 2015, the VFA program assisted 9,318 communities by providing training to 22,272 firefighters, expanding and organizing 20 fire departments, and facilitating the purchase, rehabilitation, and maintenance of $8.1 million in equipment. While these are impressive 

accomplishments for the VFA program, even more communities could be supported 

if VFA received a proper funding level of $16 million. 

The chart below illustrates the dramatic decrease in funding for rural fire departments. Just 10 years ago, in fiscal year 2006, the USFS’ VFA program was funded 

at $14 million and the Rural Fire Assistance (RFA) program, which was a similarly 

operated grant program at the Department of the Interior (DOI), was funded at $10 

million. Together, these programs provided $24 million to America’s rural fire departments. Though these amounts fluctuated over the years, these grants provided 

an average of nearly $21 million per fiscal year to rural fire departments. Sadly, 

the RFA program was eliminated in fiscal year 2011 and has not been funded since. 

In addition to the elimination of RFA, VFA received deep cuts of nearly 30 percent 

in the three fiscal years following the elimination of RFA. While VFA has received 

slight funding increases since fiscal year 2013, VFA is still funded at nearly 20 percent less than it was in fiscal year 2010—a year when $7 million in RFA funding 

also was available to support America’s rural fire departments. 

The decrease in funding for VFA, coupled with the complete elimination of RFA 

in fiscal year 2011, has significantly hampered the ability of local fire departments 

to partner with the USFS and protect at-risk communities. In July 2015, the House 

unanimously adopted an amendment to their fiscal year 2016 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies bill that attempted to provide a modest increase of $1 

million for VFA. Unfortunately, the Senate did not concur with this amendment and 

the VFA program was funded at $13 million for fiscal year 2016. 

With the elimination of RFA in mind, restoring the VFA program to its fiscal year 

2010 funding level will allow a greater level of operational readiness and capability 

for thousands of rural fire departments across the Nation. Improving the capabilities of these fire departments will not only benefit their communities but also the 

USFS as local fire departments will be more effective partners in extinguishing 

wildland fires. Our organizations firmly believe that an investment in the VFA program will yield savings for the USFS’ Wildland Fire Management account. 
66 

Thank you for your support of our Nation’s rural fire departments and for the opportunity to offer these recommendations. We look forward to working with you to 

restore the VFA program to a funding level of $16 million and protecting our Nation 

from the dangers of wildland fire. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CONSERVATION FUND

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Members of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies, thank you for 

this opportunity to submit outside witness testimony on behalf of The Conservation 

Fund (TCF). TCF supports full funding of the President’s budget request of $900 

million in fiscal year 2017 for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) discretionary and mandatory proposals, which includes the Federal land acquisition 

programs of the Bureau of Land Management ($88.77 million), National Park Service ($134.457 million), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ($137.622 million), U.S. Forest 

Service ($128 million), as well as three State grant programs: the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund ($108.495 

million); National Park Service’s State Conservation Grants ($110.006 million); and 

the U.S. Forest Service’s Forest Legacy Program ($100 million). TCF also supports 

full funding of the President’s request for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s North 

American Wetlands Conservation Fund ($35.145 million); the U.S. Forest Service’s 

Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program ($5 million); and the Department of Interior’s (DOI)—Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Program ($9.229 million). TCF requests funding for the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Great Lakes Restoration Initiative ($300 million); EPA’s Clean 

Water State Revolving Funds ($979.5 million) and EPA’s Drinking Water State Revolving Funds ($1,020.5 million). Additionally, TCF supports the proposals for the 

Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act reauthorization, the National Park Service Centennial Initiative, and the U.S. Forest Service proposal for a fiscally responsible funding strategy that considers catastrophic wildland fires as disasters (i.e. in 

line with the Wildland Disaster Fund Act). 

TCF is a national, non-profit conservation organization dedicated to conserving 

America’s land and water legacy for future generations. Established in 1985, TCF 

works with landowners; Federal, State and local agencies; and other partners to 

conserve our Nation’s important lands for people, wildlife and communities. To date, 

TCF has helped our partners to conserve over 7.5 million acres. These accomplish-
67 

ments are due, in large measure, to the leadership of this subcommittee over many 

years to appropriate funds to acquire lands for future generations, working forests, 

recreational opportunities, wildlife habitat, and many other benefits. 

Below are highlights of some benefits of the LWCF and land acquisition programs. 

While these projects show the tremendous diversity of benefits of land acquisition 

for the public, they have one thing in common—each of these projects is driven by 

landowners. Many farmers, ranchers and forestland owners have significant financial equity in their land. By enabling a landowner to sell a conservation easement 

or fee title, the LWCF program provides landowners with funds to stay in business, 

reinvest in businesses, or meet other financial goals. 

As the subcommittee crafts its Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, there are several key points we respectfully request you to consider, listed below. 

1. Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) at $900 million ($475 discretionary and $425 mandatory).—Funding at the recommended $900 million is 

critical for the Nation’s premier conservation program, a bipartisan agreement 

from 50 years ago. The Conservation Fund supports the President’s budget for 

$475 million in discretionary requests and $425 in mandatory requests. LWCF 

represents a promise to the Nation that proceeds from offshore oil and gas development will help protect the public trust, and the proposed fiscal year 2017 

projects will fulfill that mission. 

The LWCF Budget includes Collaborative Landscape Planning (CLP) areas 

that we ask you to support: Island Forests at Risk, High Divide, National 

Trails System, Rivers of the Chesapeake, Florida-Georgia Longleaf Pine, 

Southern Blue Ridge, and Pathways to the Pacific. In each CLP, several Federal land agencies are partnering with States, local groups, non-profits and 

private interests to support conservation and make a lasting impact. 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Land Acquisition at $88.77 million ($43.595 million discretionary and $44.818 million mandatory).—The BLM 

and its National Conservation Lands provide some of our Nation’s best recreation and historic areas. From exploring ancient petroglyphs in the canyon at 

Agua Fria National Monument in Arizona to floating the Upper Colorado River 

Special Recreation Management Area, we request full funding of the agency’s 

discretionary and mandatory project lists. 

National Park Service (NPS) Federal Land Acquisition at $134.457 million ($68.242 million discretionary and $66.215 million mandatory).—Hosting more 

than 292 million visitors every year, the over 400 National Park units provide 

an economic boost to their local communities and those employed directly and 

indirectly. Funding for NPS LWCF will help protect key access points for 

recreation, historic areas, trails and more, including at Little River Canyon 

National Preserve in Alabama and Captain John Smith National Historic Trail 

in Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware. We respectfully request full funding of 

the agency’s discretionary and mandatory project lists. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Land Acquisition at $137.622 million ($58.655 million discretionary and $78.967 million).—National Wildlife Refuges (NWR) are our Nation’s protectors of clean water, clean air, abundant 

wildlife and world-class recreation. Funding for fiscal year 2017 FWS LWCF 

will help protect water quality in the Chesapeake Bay area, critical wildlife 

habitat at National Wildlife Refuges in Montana and many other important 

places. We respectfully request full funding of the agency’s discretionary and 

mandatory project lists. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Land Acquisition at $128 million ($65.653 mil- lion discretionary and $62.347 million mandatory).—USFS LWCF funds help 

with forest management by protecting key inholdings and reducing fire 

threats. From the Pisgah National Forest in North Carolina to the CaribouTarghee National Forest in Idaho, we are working with willing landowners at 

priority project areas and respectfully request full funding of the agency’s discretionary and mandatory project lists. 

LWCF State Grant Programs: FWS-Section 6 Cooperative Endangered Species Fund, NPS-State Conservation Grants, and USFS-Forest Legacy.—We encourage the subcommittee to fully fund fiscal year 2017 President’s budget request for: 

—FWS.—Section 6 Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund: 

$108.495 million 
68 

—NPS.—State Conservation Grants: $110.006 million 

—USFS.—Forest Legacy Program: $100 million 

2. DOI and USFS Land Acquisition Programs.—TCF encourages the subcommittee to fund: 

—FWS.—North American Wetlands Conservation Fund: $35.145 million 

—USFS.—Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program: $5 

million 

3. Department of Interior—Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration 

Program at $9.229 million.—The Restoration Program leads the national response for recovery of natural resources that have been injured or destroyed 

as a result of oil spills or releases of other hazardous substances. Recoveries 

from responsible parties can only be spent to implement restoration plans developed by the Trustee Council for each incident. These funds are one hundred 

percent private and represent the amount needed to restore environmental resources or compensate for lost public use since the damage in question. The 

fiscal year 2017 funds would allow the Program to add carefully targeted staff 

allocated to Interior bureaus and offices through its Restoration Support Unit 

in order to accelerate restoration activities. 

4. Environmental Protection Agency—Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GRLI) at 

$300 million.—TCF urges funding of GLRI at $300 million. The Initiative provides critical support for on-the-ground restoration programs and projects targeted at the most significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem. Over the past 5 years, the Initiative has opened up fish access to more 

than 3,400 miles of rivers, expanding recreational opportunities. It has also accelerated the cleanup of toxic hotspots, resulting in the delisting of three formerly contaminated sites. 

5. Environmental Protection Agency—State Revolving Funds.—TCF encourages 

the Committee to fund: 

—Clean Water State Revolving Fund: $979.5 million 

—Drinking Water State Revolving Fund: $1,020.5 million 

6. Reauthorization of the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act.—We support 

the fiscal year 2017 President’s budget request to reauthorize the Federal Land 

Transaction Facilitation Act (FLTFA). FLTFA is a western Federal lands program that facilitates strategic Federal land sales by the BLM in order to provide funding for high-priority land conservation within or adjacent to Federal 

lands in the eleven contiguous western States and Alaska. Over 165 groups are 

working together to support Congress’ efforts to reauthorize FLTFA. FLTFA 

expired in 2011, and reauthorization will enhance the lands and economy by 

facilitating Federal land sales and conservation transactions, at no cost to the 

taxpayer. 

7. Wildlife Disaster Funding Act (S. 235 and H.R. 167) and Avoiding Transfers 

to Wildland Fire Suppression.—We support the proposal in the President’s 

budget that would avoid transferring funds Congress appropriates to other priority programs to fund wildland fire suppression. Unfortunately and again in 

fiscal year 2015, the 10-year average was not enough to meet the USFS suppression needs, forcing the agency to transfer $700 million from non-suppression accounts to make up for the shortfall. In fiscal year 2016, we are thankful 

to the subcommittee for the full transfer repayment and increased suppression 

funding in—however, we understand this is not expected to occur every year, 

and DOI and USFS need a long-term fire funding solution that would result 

in stable and predictable budgets. We support language mirroring the bipartisan Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (S. 235 and H.R. 167), which is needed to 

prevent future transfers and ensure that the USFS and DOI can achieve their 

land management objectives by implementing activities needed to address the 

growing buildup of hazardous fuels on Federal lands. This language provides 

the structure to fund a portion of the USFS and DOI wildfire suppression costs 

through a budget cap adjustment under the Balanced Budget and Emergency 

Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended. The funding structure is similar to 

that used by other agencies who respond to natural disaster emergencies. We 

respectfully request a bipartisan fire funding solution that would: (1) access 

disaster funding, (2) minimize transfers, and (3) address the continued erosion 

of agency budgets over time, with the goal of reinvesting in key programs that 

would restore forests to healthier conditions. 
69 

1Our consortium includes the Cahto Indian Tribe of the Laytonville Rancheria, Coyote Valley 

Band of Pomo Indians, Guidiville Rancheria, Hopland Band of Pomo Indians, Pinoleville Pomo 

Nation, Potter Valley Tribe, Redwood Valley Rancheria, Sherwood Valley Rancheria, and an ex 

oficio member from the Yokayo Provisional Council Tribe. We serve both Native and non-Native 

patients in our area. 

The Conservation Fund stands ready to work with you to secure full and consistent funding for the LWCF, Forest Legacy, and the other critically important programs that help protect the environment, economies, forests, and community values 

across our Nation. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony and your 

consideration of our request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CONSOLIDATED TRIBAL HEALTH PROJECT, INC. 

The requests of the Consolidated Tribal Health Project, Inc. (CTHP) for the fiscal 

year 2017 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget are as follows: 

—Provide mandatory funding for contract support costs, and eliminate language 

that may be misread to conflict with the carryover funding authority in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. 

—Shield the IHS from sequestration in fiscal year 2017 and beyond. 

—Place IHS funding on an advance appropriations basis. 

—Provide funding for built-in costs. 

—Provide the requested $25 million increase for behavioral health. 

The Consolidated Tribal Health Project, Inc. is an intertribal consortium of nine 

tribes in Mendocino County in Northern California. We serve more than 3,200 patients, more than three-quarters of whom are American Indian and Alaska Native. 

We provide comprehensive medical, dental, and behavioral healthcare to our patients, as well as traditional healing and cultural events each month, home visits, 

and health screenings, and—through the Purchased and Referred Care program— 

manage care for our patients when they need services beyond that which CTHP provides. We operate under a self-governance agreement with the IHS under the Indian 

Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA).1

As an intertribal organization providing healthcare services via an ISDEAA agreement, we wish to highlight structural changes in the budget of the IHS that we believe are necessary to ensure the agency’s programs and healthcare outcomes for 

Native people can continue to improve. 

Contract Support Costs Mandatory Funding. We wish to thank Congress for fully 

funding Contract Support Costs (CSC) in fiscal year 2016. For fiscal year 2017, we 

support the President’s request for an appropriation of ‘‘such sums as may be necessary,’’ with an estimated $800 million for CSC for the IHS, provided in a separate 

account in the IHS’s discretionary budget. We strongly disagree with the proviso 

that was included in both the fiscal year 2016 appropriations language and the administration’s proposed fiscal year 2017 budget, which states: ‘‘amounts obligated 

but not expended by a tribe or tribal organization for contract support costs for such 

agreements for the current fiscal year shall be applied to contract support costs otherwise due for such agreements for subsequent fiscal years.’’ This proviso is concerning to us because it could be misread to effectively deny the carryover authority 

granted by the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. We thus 

ask that the proviso be removed for fiscal year 2017 and not included in future appropriations for CSC. 

We also support the administration’s proposal to fully fund CSC on a mandatory 

basis in fiscal years 2018–2020, though we would prefer that begin in fiscal year 

2017 and, of course, that it be a permanent, indefinite appropriation. 

We understand that Member-to-Member communications are incredibly important. You have had a lot of experience in the past speaking with Native leaders 

about their frustrations regarding the inequity of tribes and tribal organizations 

who contract to assume administration of Federal programs without being paid for 

the costs to administer them. We ask for your active help in working with the Budget Committee and any others on this proposal for mandatory CSC funding. 

Protect the IHS from Sequestration. We are glad that Congress took action to 

avert a sequestration of IHS funds in fiscal years 2014, 2015, and 2016. However, 

we are concerned that the IHS’s funding may be subject to sequestration in future 

years. The IHS was subject to sequestration in fiscal year 2013 of roughly 5 percent 

of its overall budget, even though other health programs—such as the Veterans Administration (VA), State Medicaid grants and most of Medicare—were not. The VA 

was made fully exempt from sequestration for all programs administered by the VA. 

See § 255 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (BBEDCA), as 
70 

amended by Public Law 111–139 (2010). We strongly urge Congress to fully exempt 

the IHS from any future sequestration, just as the VA and other health programs 

are exempt. 

IHS Advance Appropriations. We ask to Committee to transition the IHS budget 

to an advance appropriations basis. We know you are sympathetic to our frustrations caused by the funding of IHS and other Federal agencies via Continuing Resolutions. Over the past several fiscal periods, appropriations have been enacted well 

after the beginning of the Federal fiscal year. The current (fiscal year 2016) fiscal 

year funding was enacted two and half months after the beginning of the fiscal year. 

In fiscal years 2015 and 2014 it was 2.5 and 3.5 months, respectively. In fiscal year 

2013 it was 6 months after the start of the fiscal year before the appropriations 

were enacted. This significantly harms our ability to provide healthcare services. We 

want to do the best job possible in planning, decisionmaking and administering programs, but are limited by not knowing how much funding will be available or when 

it will be available. It also requires us to constantly modify our budget—time and 

resources that would be better devoted to providing healthcare services, improving 

the efficiency of service delivery, or pursing third party reimbursements. 

The Veterans Administration (VA) funding is on an advance basis, and the Budget 

and Appropriations Committees have provided the necessary support for that authority. We and others in Indian Country were struck by the justification in the proposed fiscal year 2016 budget (fiscal year 2017 advance appropriations) for the VA: 

For 2017, the Budget requests $63.3 billion in advance appropriations for 

the three medical care appropriations: Medical Services, Medical Support 

and Compliance, and Medical Facilities. This request for advance appropriations fulfills the administration’s commitment to provide reliable and 

timely resources to support the delivery of accessible and high-quality medical services for veterans. This funding enables timely and predictable funding for VA’s medical care to prevent our Nation’s veterans from being adversely affected by budget delays, and provides opportunities to more effectively use resources in a constrained fiscal environment. (Appendix, Budget 

of the U.S. Government, p. 1058). 

The fiscal year 2017 budget proposal continues to discuss VA funding in light of 

the need to provide ‘‘timely, high-quality healthcare for the Nation’s veterans.’’ Our 

need is no less great and the promise made for our healthcare is no less solemn. 

We ask for parity in this regard. 

Funding for Built-in Costs. We appreciate the administration’s fiscal year 2017 request of $159 million for built-in costs consisting of $75.4 million for medical inflation at a 5.8 percent rate; $26 million for pay costs; and $43.2 million to partially 

fund population growth. Built-in costs are often sacrificed in the budget negotiation 

process, and when they are not includes, it affects all programs. Inflation (both medical and non-medical), essential pay raises for employees, and population growth are 

real facts of life that affect our ability to provide sufficient healthcare services. We 

urge Congress to fund this request. 

Funding for Behavioral Health. We support the administration’s much-needed request of a $25 million increase for a Behavioral Health Integration Initiative. The 

goal of that Initiative is to integrate behavioral health services into the primary 

health systems and to collaborate with services that may be provided outside the 

primary healthcare delivery system, such as substance abuse and mental health 

services. A portion of the funds ($3.6 million) are to be used for tribes and tribal 

organizations to establish Zero Suicide programs focusing on the role of medical and 

behavioral health systems in the prevention of suicide. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reports that American Indian/Alaska Native youth have the 

highest rates of suicide-related fatalities in the Nation, and we know it is something 

we struggle with in our communities; we see this funding as essential. 

Thank you for the consideration of the concerns and requests of the Consolidated 

Tribal Health Project. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COOPERATIVE ALLIANCE FOR REFUGE ENHANCEMENT

Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the subcommittee: 

The National Wildlife Refuge System stands alone as the only Federal land and 

water conservation system with a mission that prioritizes wildlife and habitat conservation alongside wildlife-dependent recreation. Since 1995, the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE) has worked to showcase the value of the Refuge System and to secure a strong congressional commitment for conserving these 

special landscapes. 
71 

1 Banking on Nature, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, October 2013, http://www.fws.gov/refuges/ 

about/refugereports/pdfs/BankingOnNature2013.pdf. 2The Economics Associated with Outdoor Recreation, Natural Resources Conservation, and 

Historic Preservation in the United States, Southwick Associates, October 2011, https:// 

www.fws.gov/refuges/news/pdfs/TheEconomicValueofOutdoorRecreation[1].pdf. 

Found in every U.S. State and Territory, national wildlife refuges conserve a diversity of America’s environmentally sensitive and economically vital ecosystems, including wetlands, coasts, forests, prairie, tundra, deserts, and oceans, and provide 

Americans with an opportunity to encounter and engage with these areas. We ask that the subcommittee provide a funding level of $506.6 million for the 

Operations and Maintenance accounts of the National Wildlife Refuge System for 

fiscal year 2017. We also thank you for the much needed $7 million funding increase 

for fiscal year 2016—the continued support of the subcommittee for refuges will be 

much appreciated by all of our organizations. 

This testimony is submitted on behalf of CARE’s 23 member organizations, which 

represent over 16 million American hunters, anglers, bird and wildlife watchers, scientists, managers, and concerned citizens passionate about wildlife conservation and 

related recreational opportunities. 

American Birding Association 

American Fisheries Society 

American Sportfishing Association 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 

Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation 

Defenders of Wildlife 

Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 

Izaak Walton League of America 

Marine Conservation Institute 

National Audubon Society 

National Rifle Association 

National Wildlife Federation 

National Wildlife Refuge Association 

Safari Club International 

Sportsmen’s Alliance 

The Corps Network 

The Nature Conservancy 

The Wilderness Society 

The Wildlife Society 

Theodore Roosevelt Conservation 

Partnership 

Trout Unlimited 

Wildlife Forever 

Wildlife Management Institute 

The National Wildlife Refuge System, established by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903, protects approximately 150 million acres on 563 national wildlife refuges and 38 wetland management districts in every State and Territory in the 

United States. An additional 418 million acres of water within the Pacific marine 

monuments round out the total of 568 million acres within the management jurisdiction of the Refuge System. From the Virgin Islands to Guam to Alaska to Maine, 

the Refuge System spans 12 time zones and protects America’s natural heritage in 

habitats ranging from arctic tundra to arid desert, boreal forest to sagebrush grassland, and prairie wetlands to coral reefs. 

A refuge is within an hour’s drive from most metropolitan areas, enabling the Refuge System to attract a growing number of visitors each year (48.5 million in fiscal 

year 2015, up from 46.5 million just 2 years before) providing opportunities for 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, kayaking, hiking, and outdoor 

education. In fact, from 2006–2011, during our Nation’s greatest economic recession 

since the Great Depression, visitation to our national wildlife refuges increased by 

30 percent, showcasing the value Americans place on the Refuge System. CARE welcomes recreational use of our refuges. Refuge visitors generate $2.4 bil- lion annually to local and regional economies—on average returning $4.87 in economic activity for every $1 appropriated—and support 35,000 U.S. jobs.1 In addition, refuges provide major environmental and health benefits, such as filtering 

storm water before it is carried downstream and fills municipal aquifers; reducing 

flooding by capturing excess rainwater; and minimizing the damage to coastal communities from storm surges. Refuges generate more than $32.3 billion in these ecosystem services each year, a return of over $65 for every $1 appropriated by Congress.2

The Refuge System budget is now $77 million below the level needed to keep pace 

with inflation plus salary increases, relative to the fiscal year 2010 budget of $503.2 

million. Workforce has declined in that time by over 500 positions, who provided 

services such as administration, maintenance, fire management, wildlife management, and research support. That is a loss of 1 out of 7 refuge positions. As a result, 

refuges are struggling to be maintained and provide the adequate visitor services, 

environmental education, access for hunting, and law enforcement that will ensure 

healthy habitat and a safe and enjoyable visitor experience. 

Unfortunately, inadequate funding threatens the System’s ability to carry out its 

mission, which is mandated by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement 

Act of 1997. Between fiscal year 2010 and fiscal year 2013, Refuge System funding 
72 

was reduced by $50 million—a 10 percent cut. Even with increased budgets in fiscal 

year 2016 to $481 million, the Refuge System continues to function at unsustainable 

levels. CARE estimates that the Refuge System needs at least $900 million in annual operations and maintenance funding to meet conservation targets, including 

wildlife management, habitat restoration, and opportunities for public recreation. 

The fiscal year 2015 Refuge Annual Performance Plan (RAPP) reports revealed 

falling performance rates in several important System categories—as a direct result 

of funding shortfalls—including habitat condition, habitat restoration, recreation opportunities, volunteerism, and scientific research. The following measures for which 

performance declined from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2015: 

—Open water acres restored (¥63 percent) 

—Wetland acres restored (¥70 percent) 

—Acres of non-native, invasive plants controlled (¥58 percent) 

—Number of invasive animal populations controlled during the year (¥55 percent) 

—Acres treated for non-native, invasive plants (¥34 percent) 

—Riparian miles restored (¥30 percent) 

—Acres of farming (¥30 percent) 

—Total refuge acres receiving needed management (¥12 percent) 

—Number of volunteers (¥14 percent) 

—Fishing visits (¥5 percent) 

However, many measures of public use increased for the Refuge System over this 

same timeframe, despite budget shortfalls. Funding for fiscal year 2017 needs to ensure Americans will be able to continue these valuable recreational activities. These 

include: 

—Hunting visits (∂2 percent) 

—Waterfowl hunt visits (∂7 percent) 

—Photography participants (∂52 percent) 

—Number of boat trail visits (∂18 percent) 

—Acres of prescribed grazing (∂13 percent) 

—Wildlife observation visits (∂12 percent) 

—Number of visitors (∂9 percent) 

Refuge visitation is growing and is expected to continue. In fact, from fiscal year 

2010 to fiscal year 2015, the Refuge System welcomed 9 percent more visitors. However, refuges are losing valuable staff committed to visitors and volunteers. We 

thank you for the $500,000 increase to the visitor services budget line in fiscal year 

2016, which will be helpful in slowing that loss. Volunteers provide numerous benefits to the Systems, from staffing refuge nature stores, maintenance, interpretation, 

and much more. These volunteer can only work when the System is reasonably 

staffed and thus able to extend requisite volunteer training and oversight. 

Further reductions or stagnation in Refuge System funding will likely show continued declines in the System’s conservation work and public use opportunities. If 

annual operations and maintenance funding does not rise, CARE anticipates further 

impacts both within and outside of refuge boundaries, including: 

—Reduced treatment of invasive plants, reducing habitat quality for wildlife (both 

game and non-game) and placing nearby private lands at higher risk of infestations; 

—Decreased use of prescribed fire, which is used on refuges both to improve habitat for wildlife and to reduce hazardous fuels that pose a wildfire risk to nearby 

communities; 

—Reduced number and quality of visitor programs, with visitor centers operating 

at fewer hours, and delayed plans to add or expand hunting programs at refuges; 

—Lost revenue for local communities as visitor numbers drop. According to the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service fiscal year 2013 budget justification, ‘‘Each 1 percent increase or decrease in visitation impacts $16.9 million in total economic 

activity, 268 jobs, $5.4 million in job-related income, and $608,000 in tax revenue.’’ 

—Elimination of ancillary functions like FWS’s operation of Henderson Field at 

Midway Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, which serves as a critical emergency 

landing site for trans-pacific flights, as well as the public’s main window to the 

vast marine national monuments. 

Challenges abound throughout the system. In California, years of severe drought 

have caused a dramatic reduction of water deliveries to wildlife refuges, while proposals to change deliveries from higher quality surface water to brackish groundwater threaten the functionality of these refuges as waterfowl habitat. In Min-
73 

nesota, the Morris Wetland Management District has seen a staffing reduction of 

70 percent leading to the conversion of native prairie and waterfowl habitat to forest 

as a result of decreased fire management of wetland habitats. At the Loxahatchee 

NWR in Florida, instead of healthy takes, alligator hunters found emaciated animals severely impacted by the drastic increase in invasive species on the refuge. 

The common denominator to all these challenges is a lack of funding. Adequate 

staffing and funding are critical to the maintenance of healthy wildlife populations 

and access for recreational users to a healthy ecosystem. 

We understand the budget constraints the subcommittee is working under; however, we see the systemic declines in performance of the Refuge System on a daily 

basis due to the lack of adequate funding. As stated above, the System needs a minimum of $900 million each year to function the way it was intended, and CARE is 

dedicated to working with your subcommittee to see that this goal is reached. 

CARE is supporting the President’s request of $506.6 million for fiscal year 2017, 

although it is substantially less than what the System needs. Albeit roughly half 

the optimal funding amount, $506.6 million is a $25 million increase, and we hope 

it will help the System maintain its ability to manage refuge lands as intended in 

their purpose for the benefit of the American people. If the requested funding level 

is satisfied, the Refuge System can better: 

—Conduct management and restoration activities to provide healthy habitats that 

attract wildlife and, in turn, draw visitors and increase economic return to communities; 

—Keep refuges open and staffed so quality recreational opportunities continue to 

be offered to the public; 

—Maintain facilities and equipment used to serve the public and manage habitat; 

—Provide Federal wildlife officers needed to keep refuge resources and people 

safe. 

CARE is also requesting an additional $6 million necessary to recoup the cost of 

the occupation of the Malheur NWR in Oregon. For 40 days this winter, armed occupiers took over the refuge, causing injury to infrastructure and habitat. Without 

these additional funds, all costs currently incurred will be taken out of the Service’s 

operating budget, reducing the amount available to the rest of the System. 

We urge Congress to fund the Refuge System at $506.6 m in fiscal year 2017— 

to bridge the growing gap between what the System needs and what it receives, enabling refuges to continue moving America forward. 

On behalf of our more than 16 million members and supporters, CARE thanks 

the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit comments on the fiscal year 2017 

Senate Interior Appropriations bill. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CORPS NETWORK

Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall; 

We write to respectfully urge your support for funding the Department of Interior 

(DOI) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in fiscal year 2017. As you craft the Interior 

appropriations bill, we encourage you take into account the significant leveraging 

of limited Federal resources our Corps accomplish in partnership with these land 

management agencies, and ensure they have adequate funding to expand on our 

proven and cost-effective public-private partnerships. 

In particular, Corps of the Corps Network around the country support DOI and 

USFS budgets for operation, maintenance, and construction which are used to engage Corps to help address the billions in backlogged projects and resource management needs on public lands; the Engaging the Next Generation proposals; the Centennial Initiative; and funding for Wildland Fire Management through both DOI 

and USFS. By partnering with Corps, agencies achieve much more with their budgets and also provide opportunity for youth and veterans to learn job skills and while 

accomplishing high-priority projects. 

Additionally, these accounts help support partnerships with our 21st Century 

Conservation Service Corps (21CSC) initiative, which has received bipartisan support in Congress from Senators John McCain and Michael Bennet, and out, from 

Former Army General Stanley McChrystal and President Bush’s Domestic Policy 

Advisor, John Bridgeland. We’re privileged to also have the support of the past four 

secretaries of the interior—two Republicans and two Democrats—and private sector 

support from KEEN, the North Face, American Eagle Outfitters, the Outdoor Industry Association, and other organizations like the Vet Voice Foundation, and the 

American Recreation Coalition. 
74 

Thank you for your efforts in ensuring those accounts were strong in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016. With additional support from the 2016 Act, our 

Corps will help accomplish millions in critical projects and engage the next generation of resource management leaders while also multiplying limited Federal funds. 

For example, Corps have utilized $150 million in project funding from DOI and 

USFS over the past 3 years and turned that into millions more in matched funds 

and service projects, with the added benefit of engaging youth and veterans in 

meaningful hands-on work experiences outdoors. 

In 2015 alone, our Corps around the country have: 

—Restored 567,000 acres of ecological habitat 

—Removed 365,000 acres of invasive species 

—Reduced 32,000 acres of hazardous fire fuel 

—Responded to 500 wildfire remediation and response needs 

—Built and maintained 11,000 miles of multi-use trails 

—Maintained and improved 16,000 parks and public spaces/facilities 

—Planted and maintained 2.8 million trees 

The Corps Network represents our country’s 130∂ Service and Conservation 

Corps. Descended from the Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), today’s Corps provide youth and veterans with the opportunity to advance their education, obtain 

critical career-readiness and job skills, and earn a stipend while they perform important conservation service projects on public lands. Collectively, our Corps enroll 

24,000 Corpsmembers, engage an additional 100,000 volunteers, and complete thousands of service projects valuing hundreds of millions of dollars each year, with volunteer hours valued at nearly $10 million each year. 

Project sponsors consistently express a high degree of satisfaction with the quality 

of work and productivity of Corps. Virtually all Federal project partners (99.6 percent) say they would work with Corps again and an independent study commissioned by the National Park Service found an over 50 percent cost savings in using 

Corps on projects. In addition, the Corps Model has been rigorously tested and proven to be an effective youth development model and a recent study found that Corpsmembers gained significant career and leadership skills like teamwork, community 

engagement, critical thinking, and communication through their term of service. 

Corps also work to be inclusive and engage many veterans, Native Americans, 

and disconnected youth who have either dropped out of school or are unemployed. 

Over half of Corpsmembers are minorities and nearly half are women. In addition 

to the normal work week, Corpsmembers receive a wide range of personal and professional development including, but not limited to: workforce services; adult and 

peer-mentoring; academic programming; industry-recognized certificates and credentials; and a modest stipend—all to prepare them for postsecondary education and/ 

or career success. 

Fiscal Year 2017 Interior Appropriations Priorities 

The Corps Network respectfully urges the subcommittee to support these programs that will allow public land management agencies to engage youth and veterans through Corps to leverage Federal funds to address more backlogged maintenance needs: 

—Department of Interior—Engaging the Next Generation: $102 million in fiscal 

year 2017; funded at $64.8 million in fiscal year 2016 

—Department of Interior—Wildland Fire Management: $1.1 billion in fiscal year 

2017; funded at $993 million in fiscal year 2016 

—National Park Service—Operation: $2.5 billion in fiscal year 2017; funded at 

$2.3 billion in fiscal year 2016 

—National Park Service—Centennial Initiative: $730.9 million in fiscal year 2017; 

funded at $15 million in fiscal year 2016 (includes NPS Centennial Act authorizations—$500 million) 

—Bureau of Land Management—Management of Lands and Resources: $1.075 billion in fiscal year 2017; funded at $1.072 in fiscal year 2016 

—Bureau of Reclamation—Water & Related Resources: $813.4 million in fiscal 

year 2017; funded at $1.18 billion in fiscal year 2016 

—Bureau of Indian Affairs—Construction: $196 million in fiscal year 2017; funded 

at $194 in fiscal year 2016 

—Fish and Wildlife Service—Construction: $23.7 million in fiscal year 2017; funded at $23.6 million in fiscal year 2016 

—U.S. Forest Service—National Forest System: $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2017; 

funded at $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2016 

—U.S. Forest Service—Capital Improvement and Maintenance: $343 million in fiscal year 2017; funded at $364 million in fiscal year 2016 
75 

—U.S. Forest Service—Wildland Fire Management: $2.45 billion in fiscal year 2017; funded at $2.38 billion in fiscal year 2016 

All these programs help Corps leverage Federal dollars to engage thousands of 

youth and veterans improving and restoring our Nation’s lands, water, and recreation assets. The construction and operation accounts are important as they are the 

main source of project funding, and help the agencies address their backlog maintenance issues. The Centennial Initiative is an innovative approach to addressing the 

myriad of issues in the national parks and this year’s proposal from DOI is targeted 

toward addressing the deferred maintenance backlog on the NPS’ highest priority 

non-transportation assets. 

To build on that work, we also support DOI’s Engaging the Next Generation proposal which is intended to promote public-private partnerships to maximize opportunities for youth through visitor and educational programs, partnerships, volunteerism, and our innovative 21st Century Conservation Service Corps Initiative. 

For example, DOI states that ‘‘Collaborative efforts across all levels of government 

and mobilization of the 21st Century Conservation Service Corps resulted in several 

high impact initiatives... These initiatives enabled significant progress towards 

Interior’s goal to provide 100,000 work and training opportunities to young people 

and veterans by the end of 2017.’’ 

The USFS is a major supporter of our 21st Century Conservation Service Corps 

Initiative as well, explaining in their budget and strategic priorities that ‘‘Our 21st 

Century Service Corp (21CSC) partnership provides an enormous return on investment, allowing the Forest Service to address critical conservation restoration needs 

and simultaneously have a deep and lasting impact on the people who participate, 

thereby building the next generation of natural resource professionals.’’ 

These accounts through USFS enable our Corps to help the USFS address important projects. USFS states in their budget that ‘‘The 21st Century Conservation 

Service Corps will continue to provide enhanced and expanded opportunities to work 

with partners to address trails maintenance needs and provide improved citizen access to all [USFS] trails, including congressionally designated trails.’’ 

Corps also partner with USFS on critical wildfire remediation and fighting and 

see firsthand the damage that is done to the system, and communities, by an outdated budget structure for wildfire needs. We support changes to the budgeting 

process as included in the President’s budget and in the Wildfire Disaster Funding 

Act—a bipartisan proposal that would fund wildfire suppression in a similar manner to how the government currently funds the response to other natural disasters. 

As the USFS notes in its budget justification, ‘‘The cost of fire management has 

grown from 16 percent of the agency’s budget in 1995 to—for the first time in the 

agency’s 110-year history—to over 50 percent of the budget in 2015. It is subsuming 

the agency’s budget and jeopardizing our ability to successfully implement our full 

mission.’’ 

As you can see, our Corps work with DOI and USFS in numerous capacities to 

help them better manage our natural resources while providing high quality service 

and work experience outdoors to engage thousands of youths and veterans. We understand the fiscal constraints placed upon the subcommittee which is why ensuring 

more partnerships and opportunities for our cost-effective public private partnerships is more important than ever. We again respectfully urge your support for 

these programs. Thank you for your time and consideration. 

[This statement was submitted by Mary Ellen Sprenkel, President & CEO.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE COUNCIL OF ATHABASCAN TRIBAL GOVERNMENTS

The Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments (CATG) is a consortium of 10 tribal governments located along the Yukon River and its tributaries in northeastern 

Alaska. We provide a variety of services to our tribal members, including full 

healthcare services at the Yukon Flats Health Center and village-based clinics in 

four of our villages. We also have Self-Governance agreements with the Fish and 

Wildlife Service and with the Bureau of Land Management. 

We request that you implement the following measures in the fiscal year 2017 Appropriations cycle: 

—Non-BIA Interior Self-Governance Agreements. 

—Make full Contract Support Costs funding for the IHS and BIA mandatory, and 

ensure there are no provisos on indefinite CSC funding that conflict with the 

carryover funding authority provided by the Indian Self-Determination Act. 

—Support the proposed increases in mental health, suicide prevention and substance abuse spending in the IHS and BIA budgets. 
76 

—Provide funding for built-in costs. 

—Permanently Authorize the Special Diabetes Program for Indians. 

—Provide advance appropriations for the IHS. 

—Maintain funding for tribal court development in Public Law 280 States. 

Non-BIA Interior Self-Governance Agreements 

CATG is one of the first tribal consortiums in the country to develop non-BIA DOI 

Self-Governance Annual Funding Agreements. However, the AFA’s are not fully 

funded for Contract Support Costs that would otherwise cost the agencies if they 

were to manage the same programs, functions, services, and activities in our scopes 

of work. 

We are also concerned that DOI scopes of work are being limited and the intent 

of Self-Governance is not being carried out. During 2016 negotiations, for the Yukon 

Flats National Wildlife Refuge AFA, a summer intern position was inserted into our 

Scope of Work by the refuge because the agency had not been able to recruit a local 

intern in years past. However, the position was removed at the regional level. At 

first we were told that the agency wanted to test our chosen intern for the first year 

and make sure they were trained by the agency. We agreed that, while employed 

with CATG, we fully expected that the agency would provide the training and our 

employee would be integrated into their team of researchers. We were then told that 

the agency preferred to hire and train interns for their eventual hire by the agency, 

not CATG. This is counter to the intent and practice of Self-Governance, which is 

to build tribal capacity to take on increasing levels of responsibility. 

Mandatory Funding for Contract Support Costs 

We are pleased that the fiscal year 2016 funding for contract support costs (CSC) 

was for an indefinite amount, which greatly helped to ensure that CSC would be 

fully funded without having to reprogram funding for critical healthcare services 

and other programmatic funding to cover the CSC need. 

For fiscal year 2017, we support the President’s request for an appropriation of 

‘‘such sums as may be necessary,’’ with an estimated $800 million for CSC for the 

IHS in a separate account in the IHS’s discretionary budget. However, we disagree 

with the proviso that was included in the fiscal year 2016 appropriations language, 

which stated as follows: ‘‘amounts obligated but not expended by a tribe or tribal 

organization for contract support costs for such agreements for the current fiscal 

year shall be applied to contract support costs otherwise due for such agreements 

for subsequent fiscal years.’’ This proviso is concerning to us because it could be misread to effectively deny the carryover authority granted by the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. We thus ask that the proviso be removed 

for fiscal year 2017 and in future appropriations for CSC. 

We also support the administration’s proposal to fully fund CSC on a mandatory 

basis and we ask for your help in working with the Budget Committee and any others on this proposal for mandatory CSC funding as soon as possible. 

Increase Funding for Behavioral Health, Suicide Prevention, and Alcohol & Substance Abuse Treatment 

CATG’s communities in rural Alaska have a very high rate of suicide and suicide 

attempts, and a similarly high rate of alcohol and substance abuse that contributes 

to myriad other problems, including crime, domestic violence, child abuse or neglect. 

Oftentimes, tribes in Alaska have a difficult time working through the State of Alaska to provide these services, which adds layers of guidelines, regulations, and reduced funding. We strongly believe that tribes and tribal organizations should receive behavioral funds directly, because programs that implement traditional cultural values are more successful than those that do not. 

The administration’s request includes $25 million in IHS program increases for 

mental health. Of that amount, $21.4 million would be for a behavioral health integration initiative, for which tribes and tribal organizations would be eligible to seek 

funding for the expansion of their behavioral health services to areas outside of the 

traditional healthcare system; training; hiring behavioral health staff; and community-based programs. Another $3.6 million in the proposal would be for funding pilot 

projects to implement the ‘‘Zero Suicide Initiative.’’ We request your support for 

funding the $25 million program increase for these critical programs. 

We also ask for your support in expanding the Generations Indigenous (Gen-I) initiative, which provides increased resources for tribes to address youth behavioral, 

mental health and substance abuse issues. We appreciate the $10 million appropriated in the IHS budget for Gen-I in fiscal year 2016, which was critical to hiring 

staff to provide more services and prevention programs for Native youth. For the 

IHS in fiscal year 2017, the administration is requesting a $16.8 million increase 
77 

focused on youth: $15 million to expand Gen-I for additional staffing and $1.8 million for a pilot program that would provide a continuum of care for youth after discharge from a Youth Regional Treatment Center. For the BIA the proposal includes 

an increase of $21 million to expand the Tiwahe Initiative designed to address the 

inter-related problems of poverty, violence and substance abuse faced by Native 

communities, including $12.3 million for social services programs designed to provide culturally appropriate care. We ask for your support for this funding. 

Funding for Built-in Costs 

We appreciate the administration’s fiscal year 2017 request of $159 million for 

built-in costs consisting of $75.4 million for medical inflation at a 5.8 percent rate; 

$26 million for pay costs; and $43.2 million to partially fund population growth. 

Built-in costs are often sacrificed in the budget negotiation process, but lack of them 

impacts all programs. Inflation—both medical and non-medical, pay raises that 

must be afforded to employees, and population growth are real facts of life that impact our ability to provide sufficient healthcare services. We urge Congress to fund 

this request. 

SDPI/Advance Appropriations 

We again join with Alaska Native tribes and others throughout Indian Country 

in support of a permanent reauthorization of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians and for placing IHS appropriations on an advance funding basis. We understand 

that this will involve congressional committees in addition to appropriations and 

urge your support in working for these goals. 

Funding for Village Built Clinics in Alaska 

For the last several years, Alaska organizations have submitted testimony to this 

subcommittee on the need to address chronic underfunding of Village Built Clinics 

(VBCs) in Alaska. VBCs, which are clinic facilities leased by the IHS from other entities, are a vital component of the provision of basic healthcare services in rural 

Alaska, as they serve as the clinic space for the Community Health Aide Program 

(CHAP) under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. The CHAP, which IHS is 

directed by the IHCIA to carry out, uses a network of community health aides and 

practitioners to provide primary healthcare services in rural and isolated areas 

where access to those services might not otherwise exist. 

In 1989, Congress specifically authorized the operation of 170 VBCs in Alaska and 

provided approximately $3 million in funding for the program for that year. Since 

then, Congress has not provided amounts specifically for VBCs in the IHS appropriation and IHS has consistently under-funded these leases. The VBCs are IHS facilities acquired by lease in lieu of construction and should thus be eligible for maintenance and improvement funding, but the IHS does not see it that way. The IHS 

can also access other IHS discretionary funds to fully fund its VBC obligations. For 

example, the Indian Health Facilities appropriation is a lump-sum appropriation 

that can be used for construction, repair, maintenance, improvements and equipment, and includes a sub-activity for maintenance and improvement of IHS facilities. IHS nevertheless continues to assert that it provides for VBC leases all of the 

funds that Congress has appropriated for the program. The chronic underfunding 

over decades has resulted in deterioration and in some cases closure of VBC facilities, threatening the CHAP itself and access to basic healthcare services for rural 

Alaskans that hinges on the continued availability of properly maintained VBC 

space. 

Recently, a coalition made up of the regional tribal health organizations in Alaska, the Alaska Native Health Board and the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, updated a VBC needs assessment in 2015, and called ‘‘Village Built Clinics 

in Crisis 2015.’’ The report estimates that $12.5 million more per year, in addition 

to the current VBC allocation from IHS of about $4.5 million, would be needed to 

maintain and operate Alaska VBCs on a par with similar tribal health facilities 

elsewhere. This would require a total of $17 million in order to adequately fund the 

operation and maintenance of the 170 VBCs in Alaska. In addition, the report calls 

for approximately $14 million annually ‘‘to fully fund the replacement reserve and 

to remove the village clinics from the crisis state they are currently experiencing.’’ 

CATG therefore urges that Congress appropriate at least an additional $12.5 million 

to fully fund VBC leases and that IHS be directed to use it to fully fund such leases. 

We request that you direct the IHS to (1) identify the amount needed to fully fund 

all Alaska VBCs, (2) ask for that amount in a separate line in the IHS budget, and 

(3) allocate that amount to the VBC lease program. 
78 

Maintain Funding for Tribal Courts in Public Law 280 States 

In the fiscal year 2016 appropriations act $10 million was added for the BIA Office of Tribal Justice Support to work with tribes and tribal organizations to, in the 

words of the Senate Appropriations Committee report, ‘‘assess needs, consider options, and design, develop, and pilot tribal court systems for tribal communities including those communities subject to full or partial State jurisdiction under Public 

Law 83–280.’’ The administration’s fiscal year 2017 request would reduce that 

amount by $8 million. Given the need in Alaska, the tribal jurisdiction provisions 

of the Tribal Law and Order Act and the Violence Against Women Act, we ask that 

this funding be maintained at its fiscal year 2016 level. 

Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and requests. We are happy to 

respond to questions or provide any additional information you may request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE CREATION AND OPERATION OF AN

OUTDOOR RECREATION SATELLITE ACCOUNT

Dear Senators Murkowski and Udall: 

We request your action in the fiscal year 2017 budget to fund the creation and 

operation of an Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account (ORSA) to better assess the 

economic significance of programs and policies under the jurisdiction of your subcommittee, chiefly within the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture. 

The Nation’s public lands and waters play an essential role for the recreation industry. Virtually all Americans participate in some form of outdoor activity at these 

places. This activity results in an estimated $650 billion in annual expenditures on 

RVs and boats, lift tickets and entrance fees, fishing and hunting licenses and surfboards, campground fees and OHVs—and much more. Expenditures on recreation 

create manufacturing jobs, jobs in retailing and repairs, lifeguard posts at public 

beaches and guide jobs in the backcountry, jobs at insurance firms and hotels. Federal agencies host more than a billion recreation visits and now tout the direct contributions to local and national economies. The National Park Service claims 10 dollars in spending for each 1 dollar it receives in appropriated funding. The Forest 

Service notes that its lands supply an estimated 60 percent of all downhill ski and 

snowboarding activity, all at privately built and operated ski areas. 

Many of those signing this letter regularly collect and make available very useful 

data on the economic activities associated with a specific recreation industry. But 

this data is not standard in format and often fails to capture the full array of spending linked to recreation activity. A trusted, comprehensive report is needed. 

The leadership of the Federal agencies most active on recreation is represented 

on a multi-departmental body called the Federal Recreation Council (FRC). That 

Council has made the creation of a Recreation Satellite Account by the Bureau of 

Economic Analysis its highest priority. Creation of the account is, by national standards, very reasonable. The Department of Commerce, which has recently created 

similar satellite accounts for the arts, and for travel and tourism, estimates that the 

account can be in place in 3 years or less at a cost of approximately $3.5 million. 

We endorse a recent statement by the FRC: 

‘‘ORSA will directly and efficiently benefit both the private and public sectors, 

including the outdoor recreation industry and business interests, as well as the 

public policy community, by providing a ready means to assist in the evaluation 

of policies, programs, grants and other support or development tools. Creating 

the satellite account presents an opportunity for detailed and defensible data 

to inform decisionmaking, improving governance and long-term management of 

public lands and waters.’’ 

The ORSA information is vital to making good choices in allocating Federal funds 

through the budget process—for your very subcommittee to make strategic decisions. Yet currently available information is not from the best possible public 

sources. Rather it has been created on an irregular basis by the recreation industry 

itself. 

Yet the implementation of this account is in limbo. Although the funds are a very 

small portion of existing Federal recreation program funding approved every year 

by your subcommittee—and about 1 percent of existing Federal recreation fee collections—the money does compete with other popular recreation expenditures. 

We call upon the Congress to invest immediately in creating the Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account as a vital tool in assessing Federal program priorities and 

benefits. We ask that this be done in a way which does not impact highly popular 
79 

recreation services, but instead as a vital part of effective governmental program 

management activities. 

We urge that the fiscal year 2017 budget provide for complete implementation of 

the Outdoor Recreation Satellite Account on a priority basis. The path forward is 

clear. Congressional action recently created and funded an Arts and Cultural Production Satellite Account. Similarly, a Travel and Tourism Satellite Account has 

been recently created. The data is already being collected. It simply needs to be organized so it can be appropriately aggregated from traditional reporting accounts. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

Sincerely, 

DERRICK A. CRANDALL, President, American Recreation Coalition 

MICHAEL NUSSMAN, President, American Sportfishing Association 

JAY MCANINCH, President and CEO, Archery Trade Association 

PAUL BAMBEI, President, ARVC—National Association of RV Parks and Campgrounds 

BRAD GROSS, Chair, Association of Marina Industries 

MARGARET PODLICH, President, BoatU.S. 

GEOFF BAEKEY, Managing Director, CHM Government Services 

MARY ELLEN SPRENKEL, President, The Corps Network 

ED KLIM, President, International Snowmobile Manufacturers Association 

MATT GRUHN, President, Marine Retailers Association of the Americas 

TIM BUCHE, President, Motorcycle Industry Council 

JOHN JOHNSON, Executive Director, National Association of State Boating Law Administrators 

DOMENIC BRAVO, President, National Association of State Park Directors 

THOM DAMMRICH, President, National Marine Manufacturers Association 

TERRY MACRAE, Chairman, National Park Hospitality Association 

BARBARA TULIPANE, President, National Recreation and Park Association 

MICHAEL BERRY, President, National Ski Areas Association 

AMY ROBERTS, Executive Director, Outdoor Industry Association 

PHIL INGRASSIA, President, Recreation Vehicle Dealers Association 

FRANK HUGELMEYER, President, Recreation Vehicle Industry Association 

NICK SARGENT, President, SnowSports Industries America (SIA) 

RON CHRISTOFFERSON, President, States Organization for Boating Access 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE CREATIVE COALITION

[This statement is submitted by Robin Bronk, CEO, and Tim Daly, President.] 

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to submit written testimony regarding the fiscal year 

2017 funding level for the National Endowment of the Arts (NEA). We are writing 

on behalf of The Creative Coalition, the 501(c)(3), non-profit, non-partisan public advocacy organization of the arts and entertainment community to urge Congress to 

provide $155 million for NEA in the fiscal year 2017 Department of the Interior, 

environment, and related agencies appropriations bill. We very much appreciate the 

opportunity to express our views on the need for sufficient funding for the arts. 

In 1989, actors Ron Silver, Christopher Reeve, Susan Sarandon, Alec Baldwin, 

and others established The Creative Coalition to advocate for more significant public 

investment in America’s arts organizations and arts education programs like the 

NEA. The Creative Coalition’s membership includes actors, directors, producers, 

writers, entertainment industry executives, and others who make their living in theater, film, arts, letters, and television. 

The arts help us discover who we are. The leadership of The Creative Coalition 

is living proof of this. Robin grew up in a small, rural town in South Carolina where 
80 

high school plays and community theatre productions were part of the lifeblood of 

the community. One of the most influential people in her life was a high school chorus teacher who was a master at using the arts to help discover what the curriculum was really all about. Many students at D.W. Daniel High School learned 

about math and science from building sets, designing light-grids and wiring sound 

boards. Important lessons about discipline and team work came from being a member of the school band. 

Tim grew up in a family of actors and was first on stage when he was 7 years 

old in a play with his parents and two sisters at the Bucks County Playhouse in 

New Hope, Pennsylvania. Since those early days on the stage, Tim has played significant roles in three long-running TV series and appeared in more than 75 different movies and television programs as part of an industry that generates millions 

of jobs and billions of dollars in economic development each year for our country. 

We are pleased that over the last couple of years, arts funding, particularly for the NEA, has risen slightly from $146 million in fiscal year 2015; to $148 million 

in fiscal year 2016; to President Obama’s budget request of $149 million for fiscal 

year 2017. We recognize the significance of these modest funding increases when 

such an emphasis is currently placed upon fiscal constraint. We encourage you to 

continue with this trend and call on you to dedicate $155 million in fiscal year 2017 

for the NEA in its 50th Anniversary year. This level of funding would adequately 

celebrate this milestone and better leverage State, local, and private arts funding. 

Increased funding will help to restore critical Federal arts programming—which 

supports creativity and innovation, and provides measured cultural, educational, 

and economic benefits. 

We must acknowledge the compelling data supporting Federal investment in the 

arts. Statistics show that every NEA grant dollar spent will leverage 10 more dollars from private and other public funds. This far surpasses the required non-Federal match of at least one to one. Data also indicates that the non-profit arts industry supports 4.13 million jobs in the arts and related industries. The Bureau of Economic Analysis and the NEA have calculated the arts and culture sector’s contributions to the gross domestic product at $698 billion or 4.32 percent. The data is indisputable that Federal funding of the arts is a wise investment. 

However, the benefits of Federal funding for the arts are about much more than 

compelling economic data and leveraging additional dollars. One can easily make a 

connection between NEA funding and Federal efforts to support strong fathers and 

families, juvenile justice and delinquency prevention, Federal anti-bullying campaigns, preparing a 21st Century workforce, and Federal economic development programs. Just compare the goals of any of these programs with the outcomes associated with participation in the arts and you will see strong correlations. A recent 

grant from the NEA to Project STEP in Boston, Massachusetts provides advanced 

music instruction to minority students from elementary school through high school. 

These students join chamber music ensembles, perform regularly in recitals and 

community outreach concerts and attend classes and professional concerts. The program not only provides mentoring and performance opportunities, but it aims to create a network of support for the students, their families, and their communities to 

allow them to excel in a field of music that is typically underrepresented in AfricanAmerican and Latino communities. The goal of the program is to expand exposure 

to classical music so that future classical musicians better reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of our communities. 

We know that young people’s involvement in the arts has a huge impact on them 

later in life. They do better on standardized tests, are more likely to graduate from 

high school, and increase their chances of graduating from college. Data conclusively 

establishes links between the arts and achievement in science, technology, engineering, and math. Research shows that students with 4 years of arts education score 

roughly 100 points higher on their SATs. Business leaders no longer look to fill positions with candidates possessing only the strongest science education, but are increasingly seeking out individuals who have a background in the arts as well. It is 

not only those of us in the arts community who make this claim. James McNerney, 

Jr., Chairman, former President and Chief Executive Officer, of The Boeing Company. has stated: 

‘‘At Boeing, innovation is our lifeblood. The arts inspire innovation by leading 

us to open our minds and think in new ways about our lives—including the 

work we do, the way we work, and the customers we serve.’’ 

Speak to anyone of note in the areas of politics, business, media, community leadership, and the entertainment industry and you will find individuals who were 

drawn into the arts as young people. They were acting in community theater productions and school plays, playing in bands, spending their afternoons and week-
81 

ends at local dance companies. Many members of Congress are known to play musical instruments or even form singing groups like the ‘‘Singing Senators.’’ We have 

no doubt the non-profit arts ecosystem nurtured them into the thought and idea 

leaders we know today. 

Beyond supporting youth and creating dynamic thinkers, the arts are valued for 

their ability to revitalize communities. They stimulate tourism, attract business investment, foster creative climates, and offer more quality lifestyles. Communities 

that have embraced the arts entice more young professionals and make them want 

to stay and raise their families. As a testament to the importance of the arts to 

State and local communities, the National Governors Association offers guidance on 

how States can attract, harness, and utilize the arts to create places where people 

want to live and visit. 

NEA and the grants it provides to smaller community arts efforts do more than 

bring joy to children and adults. These grants enrich their lives and create foundations for more active and responsible citizens, more innovative and critical thinkers, 

and more inclusive and vibrant communities. The NEA grant to Theatre Squared 

in Fayetteville, Arkansas will help fund a project that converts an existing parking 

lot into a thriving hub for artists and audiences. When finished, the theater commons will include a performance venue, rehearsal space, classrooms, studio space 

and artist housing. This new facility will expand access to tens of thousands of additional community members, while serving as a new institutional anchor for the 

downtown district. Without the support of NEA grants for arts education and community arts organizations, fewer individuals would have the opportunity to participate in arts and develop the creative skills that often lead to future success. 

Survey any of The Creative Coalition’s members and you will find individuals who 

were inspired by the arts at an early age. Our members were motivated to succeed 

by the visions, confidence, and comradery instilled in them by their exposure to the 

arts. The essence of why access to the arts is so vital might be best captured in the 

words of one of our members: 

‘‘When I was 7 years old, I fell in love with the most beautiful thing I ever 

met . . . Acting. The art of expression has given my heart a permanent smile. 

I live my life pursuing a dream to make the unbelievable believable. This love 

has kept me faithful, honest, passionate, happy and peaceful. Growing up in the 

projects of New York City where there was trouble on every corner, I was fortunate to have the arts to keep me distracted and out of trouble. The arts are 

the greatest gift I have ever received.’’ 

—Actor Marlon Wayans 

We know that exposure to the arts is not simply about creating professional and 

amateur artists. It is not just about the economic impact of the arts and entertainment industry. Although these are important contributions, the arts are about discovering the creative inspiration that will allow an individual to reach their full potential. It is about the journey, the creative process invoked, and the inspiration to 

achieve—no matter what path life takes you. 

Adequate Federal funding for the arts is vital to maintaining our arts economy, 

ensuring American competitiveness in a global market that values creativity, and 

most importantly, continuing to provide opportunities for young people to find their 

creative inspiration and reach their full potential. The NEA is often responsible for 

bringing the arts to individuals and communities who otherwise would not have the 

opportunity to discover the richness that arts can bring to your life. Therefore, The 

Creative Coalition urges the subcommittee to increase the funding level for the National Endowment of the Arts to $155 million in fiscal year 2017. 

Thank you for your consideration and for the opportunity to submit this testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DANCE/USA 

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am grateful for 

the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of Dance/USA, its Board of Directors 

and its 500 members. We strongly urge the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, 

and Related Agencies in the Committee on Appropriations to designate a total of 

$155 million to the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2017. 

This testimony and the funding examples described below are intended to highlight 

the importance of Federal investment in the arts, so critical to sustaining a vibrant 

cultural community throughout the country. 

The NEA makes it possible for everyone to enjoy and benefit from the performing 

arts. Before the establishment of the NEA in 1965, funding for the arts was mostly 
82 

limited mostly larger cities. The NEA has helped to strengthen regional dance, 

opera, theater and other artistic disciplines that Americans enjoy. NEA funding provides access to the arts in regions with histories of inaccessibility due to economic 

or geographic limitations. The NEA envisions a ‘‘nation in which every American 

benefits from arts engagement, and every community recognizes and celebrates its 

aspirations and achievements through the arts.’’ The agency has helped the arts become accessible to more Americans, which in turn has increased public participation 

in the arts. 

The NEA is a great investment in the economic growth of every community. Despite diminished resources, including a budget that is $20 million less than it was 

in 2010, the NEA awarded 2,139 grants in 2015, totaling $103.47 million in appropriated funds. These grants nurture the growth and artistic excellence of thousands 

of arts organizations and artists in every corner of the country. NEA grants also 

preserve and enhance our Nation’s diverse cultural heritage. The modest public investment in the Nation’s cultural life results in both new and classic works of art, 

reaching the residents of all 50 States and in every congressional district. 

The return of the Federal Government’s small investment in the arts is striking. 

In 2013, the American creative sector was measured by the Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The BEA and the NEA developed an ‘‘Arts and Cultural Production Satellite Account’’ which calculated the arts and culture sector’s contributions to the gross domestic product (GDP) at 4.2 percent (or $704.2 billion) of current-dollar GDP in 2013. Additionally, the nonprofit performing arts industry generates $135.2 billion annually in economic activity, supports more than 4.13 million 

full-time equivalent jobs in the arts, and returns $9.59 billion in Federal taxes (Arts 

and Economic Prosperity IV, Americans for the Arts). 

On average each NEA grant leverages almost $10 from other State, local, and private sources. Few other Federal investments realize such economic benefits, not to 

mention the intangible benefits that only the arts make possible. Even in the face 

of cutbacks in the recent years, the NEA continues to be a beacon for arts organizations across the country. 

The return on investments is not only found in dollars. In 2012, 2.2 million people 

volunteered 210 million hours with arts and cultural organizations, totaling an estimated value of $5.2 billion—a demonstration that citizens value the arts in their 

communities. 

NEA GRANTS AT WORK

Past NEA funding has directly supported projects in which arts organizations, artists, schools and teachers collaborated to provide opportunities for adults and children to create, perform, and respond to artistic works. NEA funding has also made 

the art form more widely available in all States, including isolated rural areas and 

inner cities. 

NEA grants are awarded to dance organizations through its core programs: Art 

Works; Challenge America Fast Track Grants; and Federal/State Partnerships. In 

fiscal year 2015, the NEA awarded 163 grants to the dance field through the Art 

Works category, totaling $4,235,000. 

Nashville Ballet 

$15,000 

Nashville, Tennessee 

To support the creation of a new ballet, Frank N. Stein. Artistic Director Paul 

Vasterling led the conceptualization of this original ballet, overseeing the choreography by company dancer Chris Stuart and music score by Belmont University 

School of Music. Tailored for youth, support materials for educators—including 

study guides curriculum plans, and continued learning activities, were created to accompany the performances. The ballet was presented as a free public performance 

before becoming part of the company’s ongoing outreach and educational programming rotation for schools in central Tennessee. 

Friends of NORD/NOBA Center for Dance 

$30,000 

New Orleans, Louisiana 

To support tuition-free youth and senior citizen dance education programs. Organized by the NORDC/NOBA Center for Dance, a cultural community partnership of 

the New Orleans Recreation Development Commission and the New Orleans Ballet 

Association, the project included dance classes, workshops, intergenerational opportunities, performances, and family activities for senior citizens and students. Center 

for Dance’s (CFD) youth program was offered in underserved communities and offered a program for youth interested in dace and a pre-professional program taught 
83 

by local and guest artists. In response to the lack of community programming for 

seniors following Hurricane Katrina, CFD launched a year-round senior dance fitness. Seniors and youth received intergenerational opportunities to learn, rehears, 

and perform choreography together. CFD and seniors, along with their families, also 

had the opportunity to attend CFD main stage performances by professional dance 

companies. 

AXIS Dance Company 

$20,000 

Oakland, California 

To support Dance/Access and Dance/Access Kids! educational and outreach programs in the Bay Area and on a national tour. These activities offered a variety of 

events for youth and adults with and without disabilities, both locally and nationally. Activities included dance classes, school assemblies, a dance campy for youth, 

teacher training, a dance apprentice program, workshops for emerging 

choreographers and professional dancers, community workshops, lecture-demonstrations, and presentations. 

DanceAbility International 

$10,000 

Eugene, Oregon 

To support touring performances of ‘‘Don’t Leave Me,’’ choreographed by 

DanceAbility founder Alitto Alessi, and associated outreach activities. Performances 

took place at the National Building Museum in Washington, DC, University of Minnesota, University of Maryland, University of New Mexico, and Cal Poly San Louis 

Obispo. Accompany each performance was a post-performance discussion, 

DanceAbility classes, and Space-Movement workshops that brought together university students in dance, architecture, and design with community members along 

with full spectrum of abilities and disabilities for cross-community interaction. 

THE NON-PROFIT PROFESSIONAL DANCE COMMUNITY

America’s dance companies perform a wide range of styles and genres. These include aerial, ballet, modern, culturally specific, jazz, and tap companies. Over twothirds of America’s professional dance companies are less than 45 years old; as an 

established art form with national identity and presence, dance has burst onto the 

scene almost entirely within living memory. And yet, America can boast some of the 

greatest dance companies of the world and can take credit for birthing two indigenous dance styles—tap and modern dance. 

One key to this spectacular achievement has been the creation of a national marketplace for dance. When the National Endowment for the Arts instituted its Dance 

Touring Program in the 1970s, great dance became accessible to every community 

in America. What used to be a handful of professional companies and a scattering 

of ‘‘regional’’ dance has become a national treasure spread across cities and through 

communities, schools and theaters in all 50 States. Based on data from over 400 

nonprofit dance companies from across the United States, Dance/USA estimates 

that dance companies: 

—Employed over 15,100 individuals in a mix of full-time and part-time positions 

and supported by more than 19,900 volunteers; 

—Paid approximately $346.2 million, or 52 percent of expenses, in wages and benefits; 

—Earned $230.7 million, or 36 percent of their income, from performances; 

—Received $311.8 million, or 44.8 percent of their income in contributions (including public support, corporate sponsorship and contributions, foundation support, 

and individual donations); 

—Generated more than $600 million in economic activity across the United 

States. 

Dance/USA, the national service organization for the professional dance field, believes that dance is essential to a healthy society, demonstrating the infinite possibilities for human expression and potential, and facilitating communication within 

and across cultures. Dance/USA sustains and advances professional dance by addressing the needs, concerns, and interests of artists, administrators, and organizations. Dance/USA’s membership currently consists of nearly 500 aerial, ballet, modern, culturally specific, jazz, and tap companies, dance service and presenting organizations, individuals, and related organizations. Dance/USA’s member companies 

range in size from operating budgets of under $100,000 to over $50 million. 
84 

1The 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife Associated Recreation, USFWS, 

12/12. 2http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6025/41.summary?sid=853248fd-6760-4341-93d0- 

2aeeab9ea450. 3The Economics Associated with Outdoor Recreation, Natural Resources Conservation and 

Historic Preservation in the United States, Southwick Associates, 9/29/11. 

CONCLUSION

Despite overwhelming support by the American public for spending Federal tax 

dollars in support of the arts, the NEA has never recovered from a 40 percent budget cut in the mid-nineties, leaving its programs seriously underfunded. We urge you 

to continue toward restoration and increase the NEA funding allocation to $155 million for fiscal year 2017. 

On behalf of Dance/USA, thank you for considering this request. 

[This statement was submitted by Amy Fitterer, Executive Director.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE

Mister Chairman, ranking member and members of the subcommittee, thank you 

for the opportunity to submit testimony for the record. Founded in 1947, Defenders 

has more than 1.2 million members and supporters and is dedicated to the conservation of wild animals and plants in their natural communities. 

North America is fortunate to have some of the most abundant and diverse wildlife on Earth, more than 200,000 known species in the U.S. alone. This unique and 

irreplaceable heritage is treasured by all Americans both for its aesthetic value as 

well as for the very tangible benefits it provides as a resource. For example, a third 

of our food is pollinated by birds, bats, and insects; wildlife-associated recreation 

generated $145 billion in economic benefits in 2011; 1 bats provide at least $3.7 billion in pest control services to the agricultural industry annually; 2 and the value 

of ecosystem services from habitat in the contiguous 48 States is estimated at $1.6 

trillion annually.3 Budget cuts since fiscal year 2010 to Federal programs that conserve wildlife and habitat have severely undermined sound management. Inadequate funding will likely lead to irreparable harm to vulnerable species and habitat. Our Nation’s wildlife is a treasure and well worth the investment to properly 

care for it. 

Riders that would have undermined protections for imperiled species and the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and that would have forced construction of a road 

through the Izembek National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska were included in the fiscal 

year 2016 Senate Interior appropriations bill. Defenders strongly opposed these riders and while all should rightfully have been removed from the final omnibus, we 

appreciate that all but one were stricken. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) is our Nation’s premier wildlife conservation agency. FWS needs adequate funding if it is to recover threatened and endangered species and protect migratory birds and fish, species of global conservation 

concern and other trust species, and stop or prevent wildlife crimes. 

Cooperative Recovery.—Defenders supports the requested increases of $1.5 million in Recovery under Ecological Services, $1 million in National Wildlife Refuge System Operations and Maintenance, and $300,000 under Migratory Bird Management. 

This initiative is supporting more efficient and strategic efforts across landscapes 

to recover threatened and endangered species on National Wildlife Refuges and surrounding lands and has already supported delisting of two species. 

Renewable Energy.—Defenders supports the President’s request of $11.1 million 

to fund renewable energy related Planning and Consultation and Service Science 

programs. The Service supports approvals of renewable energy projects while ensuring they comply with relevant environmental laws, and conducts research to assess 

potential impacts of energy development on sensitive lands and wildlife in the West 

and to identify mitigation strategies. 

Ecological Services.—Defenders supports the requested increase of $18.3 million 

for Ecological Services. The requested increase is critically needed for high priority 

efforts: 

—Listing.—The FWS has made substantial progress in listing decisions in recent 

years and the requested $2.3 million increase will help to continue that progress 

for the 60 current candidate species and to meet its other listing responsibilities. 
85 

—Recovery.—Defenders strongly supported and appreciates the subcommittee’s 

decision to maintain recovery for threatened and endangered species as a separate program element in responding to the FWS request to restructure the Ecological Services budget. Recovery is the goal of the ESA and transparency in 

tracking amounts directed to this crucial end is of the highest priority. In general, the average inflation-adjusted dollars per species for recovery has decreased every year since fiscal year 2010; moreover, according to the most recent FWS Recovery Report to Congress, hundreds of listed species have no recovery plans or extremely outdated ones. We therefore strongly support, at the 

very least, the requested $7.2 million increase for Recovery. —Planning and Consultation.—The $6.6 million increase will support crucial Section 7 consultations under the ESA so that projects can move forward while 

minimizing harm to listed species. Adequate resources to increase the scientific 

and technical capacity of FWS to conduct consultations on pesticide registrations is particularly important. —Conservation and Restoration.—The $2.2 million increase will support continued 

conservation for candidate species as they await listing and also includes an increase to support additional staff to provide technical assistance and other support to landowners in implementing the unprecedented sagebrush steppe conservation plans. 

—Defenders opposes the elimination of funding for the Wolf Livestock Loss Demonstration Program that assists livestock owners co-existing with wolves, and 

we urge its restoration. 

National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS).—Our National Wildlife Refuge System 

is the largest land and water system in the world dedicated to wildlife conservation. 

Refuges provide enormous benefits to the American people, generating $2.4 billion 

each year for local economies. Defenders supports the $25.2 million increase in the 

request, which includes funding for inventory and monitoring, rebuilding lost capacity to manage wildlife and habitat, and pollinator restoration. We also support legislative language proposed by the administration that would provide authority to recover compensation from responsible parties who injure or destroy Refuge System 

or Hatchery System resources similar to that provided to the National Park Service 

and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and allows compensation 

to be applied directly to the cost of restoration without further appropriation by 

Congress. 

Science Support.—The requested $3.6 million increase will help to answer pressing questions about climate adaptation and other landscape level ecological changes 

as well as about conservation of monarch butterflies and other declining species, 

White-Nose Syndrome that is devastating bat populations, and other agency management challenges. 

Migratory Bird Management.—U.S. bird populations have experienced precipitous 

declines in recent years. Defenders supports the $2.5 million requested increase 

which includes funding for needed upgrades in aviation management and survey 

and monitoring programs, and for building resilience of bird species and their habitats through the Joint Venture partnerships. 

Office of Law Enforcement.—The request is essentially flat despite the fact that 

only one in five currents ports of entry are staffed with wildlife inspectors. Funding 

for inspectors is covered by user fees which have not been increased since 2008. Defenders is recommending the inclusion of report language directing the FWS to complete an analysis of possible additional sources of funding required to increase the 

capacity of the port inspection program. 

International Affairs.—Defenders supports the requested $1.1 million increase 

which includes funding to advance the President’s National Strategy for Combating 

Wildlife Trafficking. 

Other key grant programs.—Defenders supports the requested funding amounts 

for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, the Neotropical Migratory Bird 

Fund, the Cooperative Endangered Species Fund and State and Tribal Wildlife 

Grants. 

FOREST SERVICE AND BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

The U.S. Forest Service (FS) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) are essential to the conservation of wildlife and habitat in the U.S., yet funding is inadequate to address significant challenges to sustain these resources. A top priority 

for Defenders is ensuring that uses proceed in a sustainable way that maintains the 

ecological integrity of our public lands and waters, conserves wildlife habitat and 

populations, and contributes to agency efforts to successfully recover our most imperiled wildlife. We urge strong oversight to ensure that any energy development 
86 

is done in an environmentally sensitive fashion and in low conflict areas. Given 

their large land ownerships, it is imperative that both agencies participate fully in 

landscape level conservation and management efforts. We are encouraged by BLM’s 

innovative efforts in the Western Solar Program and consider it an example of how 

land management agencies can improve landscape level decisionmaking for energy 

development. 

FS Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management/Integrated Resource Restoration 

(IRR).—Defenders supports the decision to abandon the request for an IRR line item 

given our concern that wildlife program activities could be marginalized under IRR 

and that hard timber targets could detract from integrated restoration. The request 

for Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat Management is flat-funded, a 9.6 percent reduction in real dollars from fiscal year 2010. We support funding the program at least 

at the fiscal year 2010 level of $143 million to begin to address the loss of biologists 

at the forest level that has occurred in recent years. 

FS Land Management Planning/Inventory and Monitoring.—The request again 

proposes merging these two programs into a single line item. Defenders is concerned 

about consolidating these functions unless and until the agency can demonstrate its 

ability to meet its responsibilities under each program independently. We urge continued funding as separate programs at no less than the fiscal year 2016 level. 

FS Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program.—We support the request 

for continued funding at the current level for this cost-effective program established 

to stabilize employment, offer a reliable wood supply, restore forest and watershed 

health, improve wildlife habitat, and reduce both the costs of fire suppression in 

overgrown forests and the risk of uncharacteristic wildfires. 

FS Forest and Rangeland Research (FS R&D).—We urge a $4 million increase for 

FS R&D, a return to the fiscal year 2015 level which included $27.1 million for 

Wildlife and Fish R&D. Adequate funding for this program is crucial in providing 

relevant tools and information to support sustainable management of National Forest System lands as well as non-Federal forest lands. Generally, we are concerned 

that the Forest Service may lack adequate applied scientific capacity both in R&D 

and the National Forest System to implement critical planning and management actions, including the 2012 Planning Rule. 

BLM Wildlife and Fisheries Management.—Defenders supports the $19.4 million 

increase requested to support implementation of the 68 resource management plans 

that were amended to address conservation of the sage-grouse. FWS determined not 

to list the grouse under the ESA largely due to this effort and associated measures. 

Success in conserving sage-grouse will depend upon adequate funding for implementing the plans. 

BLM Threatened and Endangered Species Management.—According to agency reports, the BLM has funding to implement only about 10 percent of the work it is 

required to do in recovery plans for ESA listed species on BLM lands, but the administration’s request includes just a $131,000 increase for fiscal year 2016. Defenders supports an increase of $1 million over the request which simply restores the 

budget to the fiscal year 2010 level and will better help move listed species to recovery. 

BLM Renewable Energy.—Full funding of the $29.2 million request, essentially 

flat with fiscal year 2016, will help BLM continue to proceed with renewable energy 

development on public lands while avoiding areas with natural resource conflicts, 

including conflicts with sensitive wildlife species. 

BLM Resource Management Planning, Assessment and Monitoring.—The $17.1 

million increase in the request will support new high priority planning efforts, data 

collection and monitoring crucial to the sage-grouse conservation strategy and other 

key initiatives, and continued development of a new geospatial initiative to better 

monitor ecological conditions and trends on the landscape. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

The U.S. Geological Survey provides the basic science necessary for conservation 

of fish, wildlife and habitat. We urge support for the following increases: 

National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center/Climate Science Centers.— 

A $4.5 million increase in the request will support scientific needs in planning for 

climate change adaptation and building resiliency of ecosystems. 

Ecosystems.—A $13.7 million increase in the request will help to support development of crucial scientific information for sound management of our Nation’s biological resources including research into declines of native pollinators, threats to sensitive landscapes, such as the Arctic and sagebrush steppe, and impacts of drought 

and climate change across the country. 
87 

4http://www.fs.fed.us/openspace/cooplacrosslboudaries.html. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (LWCF)

Defenders supports the proposal in the request for full and permanent funding of 

LWCF that will help to save some of the 6,000 acres of open space, including wildlife habitat, that are lost each day in the U.S.4 Thank you for the opportunity to 

submit testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE DZILTH-NA-O-DITH-HLE COMMUNITY GRANT SCHOOL

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the Dzilth-NaO-Dith-Hle Community School (DCGS) on the Navajo Reservation in Bloomfield, 

New Mexico. Our school, which has been in continuous service since 1968, operates 

a K–8 educational program and a dormitory program for students in grades 1–12, 

serving around 250 students in both programs. DCGS is a tribally controlled grant 

school is located approximately 170 miles northwest of Albuquerque. DCGS is primarily funded through appropriations received from the BIE, and pass-through 

funding from the Department of Education. 

Our all-Navajo Board operates the DCGS through a Grant issued by the BIE 

under the Tribally Controlled Schools Act. The DCGS goal is to make a difference 

in the educational progress of our students and we believe that all of our students 

are capable of achieving academic success. In fact, despite the challenges I will describe, we are meeting or exceeding our peer-schools in the BIE and New Mexico 

systems, and sometimes eclipsing national scores. I have included a chart at the end 

of this statement showing the results of the new test in New Mexico. Yet, we struggle with underfunding of practically every one of our educational and related programs that impacts our ability to fully meet our school goals and our ability to successfully operate our programs under the Indian Self-Determination policy—think 

of what we could do without the worries we face. Funding increases are desperately 

needed and are having a significant impact. Thank You. 

Our recommendations can be summarized as follows: 

—Protect school funding from the proposed Federal bureaucratic expansion. 

—Increase ISEP funding to $431 million in fiscal year 2017. 

—Fund Student Transportation at $73 million, and BIA Road Maintenance at $40 

million. 

—Continue to fully fund Tribal Grant Support Costs. 

—Provide $85 million for facilities operation and $76 million for facilities maintenance (full funding). 

—Embark on a comprehensive 60-year plan for school replacement and upkeep. 

1. Protecting School Funding and Programs from Federal Expansion 

You have heard over the last year from us and other schools about our concerns 

with the BIE’s ‘‘Blueprint for Reform.’’ We do not doubt the administration’s commitment to high quality education for Indian students. The administration’s focus, 

along with the strong commitment of this subcommittee signal that we have entered 

a new era for Indian education. However, coming from the local reservation community, we have a different perspective on what will be the best strategies to use to 

reach the goals of improvement. We continue to have concerns about centralization 

of authority at the BIE headquarters, instead of leaving that power at the local level 

as Congress intended and required by enacting the Tribally Controlled Schools Act. 

We ask that this subcommittee and your colleagues continue to engage tribal 

schools with concerns over the BIE reorganization and exercise appropriate oversight as it had done this last year. 

2. Increase Funding for Indian School Equalization Programs 

The most critical stream of funding for community grant schools like ours is increased funding in the Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP). The ISEP funds 

are those that schools use for the day to day operation, whether that is paying 

teachers and staff, purchasing curriculum and supplies, or running student programs. In years past, our ISEP funds were put under pressure by unfunded needs 

elsewhere in our schools, which could be paying utilities or repairing one of our 

school buses. This year, we are grateful to see the administration has requested 

$400.2 million for ISEP funding, an increase of $6.5 million to the program. However, the need in our schools is much greater. The National Congress of American 

Indians has recommended that Congress appropriate $431 million for ISEP funding, 

which we think should be this subcommittee’s baseline for funding this budget year. 
88 

ISEP is our schools’ lifeblood, and we are still struggling to make up for losses in 

past years. 

3. Increase funding for Student Transportation 

One of our school’s largest challenges is getting our children to school and back 

home. Maintenance costs for our vehicles are higher than normal for several reasons, including the fact that they travel more miles per day than the average school 

bus, those miles are often very rough, and the cost of maintaining our buses includes long transport time to garages or parts stores. This is not to mention the cost 

of fuel to cover those extra miles! 

The administration has requested $57.2 million for Student Transportation, a $4 

million increase, but that is simply not enough given the challenges of our roads 

and equipment. We request at least $73 million for student transportation in the 

BIE system. We also request that this subcommittee fund BIA Road Maintenance 

at a sustainable level. We echo NCAI’s recommendation that the subcommittee appropriate at least $40 million for road maintenance in fiscal year 2017. Such funding will enable us to maintain our six school buses, and will protect other funds that 

would otherwise be used for this purpose. 

4. We support the administration’s proposal to continue full funding for Tribal Grant 

Support Costs. 

Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC) (formerly known as Administrative Cost 

Grants) are the BIE analogue to Contract Support Costs, and are necessary for 

schools like DCGS to operate our schools. Not only do the TGSC funds pay for the 

administration of the school, but also fund all indirect costs like payroll, accounting, 

insurance, background checks and other legal, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. TGSC also enables schools to comply with the increasingly burdensome reporting requirements imposed by BIE or to comply with grant funding. 

We are grateful to this subcommittee for fully funding TGSC in fiscal year 2016. 

This year, the administration has proposed to fully fund TGSC, including funding 

for schools transitioning from BIE-operated status to local control and grant funding. In years past schools had only received, at most, two-thirds of the TGSC needed 

to cover overhead costs. DCGS welcomes this long overdue change, and applauds 

this subcommittee’s decision to treat schools’ support costs the same as contractors 

with the BIA and the Indian Health Service. We support the administration’s proposal that TGSC and startup costs be fully funded at $75.3 million. 

5. Our schools need full funding for Facilities Operation and Maintenance. 

The condition of BIE-funded schools is a national disgrace, and has been the subject of national news attention for years. Some schools in the country are forced to 

teach their students in converted bus barns or go without hot water. We do the best 

we can with our facilities at Dzilth-Na-O-Dith-Hle, but constantly struggle with the 

fact that we do not have enough funding for maintenance of our buildings, utilities, 

and everyday repairs. The operation of our facilities is an important one, not only 

for the comfort of our students, but one that affects their health and safety. It is 

hard to learn and progress if you’re too cold, or if you’re too hot due to radiator problems. In 2010, the BIA listed our school condition as ‘‘poor’’ with a deferred maintenance backlog of over $7.7 million dollars. Our backlog has only grown since, and 

our students are the ones who suffer as a result. 

We appreciate that the administration has finally moved to complete the replacement of schools on a list dated from 2004, but we need to stress that these needs 

are ongoing. We support the BIE’s request for school construction, but request that 

funding for facilities operation and maintenance be increased to $85 million for operations and $76 million for maintenance. 

We are very grateful for the substantial increase that this subcommittee provided 

for Education Construction in fiscal year 2016, allowing the 2004 school replacement 

list to finally be completed. We are pleased to note that the completion of the 2004 

list means that a new round of replacements will begin. In 2015, we were overjoyed 

to make it on to the top 10 list and present before the school replacement panel; 

however, we are still waiting to hear whether we will be one of the five schools chosen. Providing consistent funding for this budget category each fiscal year means 

that our aging schools can be replaced in an orderly, scheduled fashion. To this end, 

we call on the subcommittee to embark on a 60-year schools replacement plan coupled with adequate funding to maintain buildings throughout their life. Recent testimony from the Government Accountability Office reported that even new construction is starting to fail because of inappropriate maintenance or poor construction 

oversight. Our schools want to protect the Federal investment in our students’ education, and we ask the subcommittee to empower local communities to do so by re-
89 

moving bureaucratic hurdles inherent in the BIE facilities system. As school boards, 

we are the best decision makers. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. 

[This statement was submitted by Ervin Chavez, School Board President & Faye 

BlueEyes, Assistant Executive Director.] 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ECOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA, THE SOCIETY OF

RANGE MANAGEMENT, THE ASSOCIATION OF FIRE ECOLOGY, AND THE FOREST

STEWARDS GUILD

The Ecological Society of America, the Society of Range Management, the Association of Fire Ecologists, and the Forest Stewards Guild appreciate the opportunity 

to provide testimony about the fiscal year 2017 budget U.S. Forest Service (USFS) 

funding for the Joint Fire Science Program. We are concerned that the administration’s 2017 USFS budget request cuts funding for the Joint Fire Science Program’s 

(JFSP) budget by $6.194 million within its Wildland Fire Management budget. Instead, the Service has designated $3 million for the Joint Fire Science Program from 

the $292 million Forest and Rangeland Research account without increasing its 

funding. We request that the U.S. Forest Service restore the Joint Fire Science Program budget of $6.194 million under the Wildland Fire Management budget and 

fully fund the Forest and Rangeland Research program. 

We applaud the subcommittee’s past leadership in funding wildland fire research 

within the U.S. Department of Interior and the U.S. Forest Service that is responsive to the needs of fire and fuel managers throughout the country. 

As you know, the frequency, severity, and size of fires have increased substantially in the continental United States since the 1980s, and this trend is projected 

to continue and intensify in the future. The risk to communities, the cost of property 

loss, and the expense to cover the damage brought by these fires will consequently 

also grow. Scientific research has been critical to understanding and properly responding to these wildfires in the most productive and cost-effective manner possible. 

The JFSP was created by Congress in 1998 as an interagency research, development, and applications partnership between the U.S. Department of the Interior 

and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The program solicits proposals from scientists who compete for funding through a rigorous peer-review process to ensure 

the highest quality projects are funded. Over 90 colleges and universities across the 

United States have collaborated or partnered with JFSP-sponsored research 

projects. The JFSP also runs a model program in science communication, with very 

effective efforts to put science in the hands of managers and policy makers. 

No other Federal program except the JFSP provides the integration of science and 

management needed to face the challenges that lie ahead—we will be living in a 

world with more fire. Research in fire science is crucial to anticipating how ecosystems and landscapes may change in the future, how fire should be managed in 

both wildlands and developed areas, and where mitigation or adaptation strategies 

are most appropriate. Reductions in support for JFSP are inconsistent with highpriority national research needs. 

For much of the past 10 years, the U.S. Forest Service has had to borrow from 

other accounts within the Service to cover expenses of mitigating the increasing 

costs of wildfires nationwide. While the Society understands the need to consolidate 

resources to improve the effectiveness of Federal fire response efforts, it seems counterproductive to cut funding towards applied research that will help agencies improve wildfire coordination and response efforts. 

We appreciate that the Senate Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies has made funding for policy-relevant wildfire science among your 

highest priorities. We hope you will continue to recognize the critical role the JFSP 

plays in these efforts. 

[This statement was submitted by Monica G. Turner, President of the Ecological 

Society of America, Dr. Val Anderson, President of the Society of Range Management, Leda N. Kobziar, President of the Association of Fire Ecologists, and Fred 

Clark, Executive Director of the Forest Stewards Guild.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE EDISON ELECTRIC INSTITUTE

The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) respectfully submits this written testimony for 

the record to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, 

and Related Agencies. We appreciate this opportunity to share our views on three 

important rule makings that are underway at the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). We also would like to briefly review three activities at the Department of 

Interior (DOI), which pose challenges for our industry and warrant continued attention by the subcommittee. 
96 

WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES

Last August, EPA issued a final rule to revise the definition of ‘‘Waters of the 

United States’’ (WOTUS) under the Clean Water Act. In October, a Federal appeals 

court stayed implementation of the rule nationwide. Many believe that the case will 

find its way to the Supreme Court and, if so, will delay any final resolution on the 

merits until sometime in 2017. 

The final rule violates recent Supreme Court decisions limiting Federal jurisdiction, and would fail to achieve the Agency’s stated goal of providing greater continuity, predictability, and clarity. Although EPA’s final rule is marginally improved 

in certain areas that are important to electric power companies, it still objectionably 

broadens the scope of waters subject to Federal jurisdiction. Implementation of the 

final rule will affect electric power companies and their customers, and is inconsistent with the administration’s stated goals of promoting power grid resiliency and 

streamlining the permitting of energy infrastructure, including renewable energy facilities. 

While legal challenges by State and industry petitioners are pending, EEI supports congressional efforts to obtain withdrawal, delay or modification of the final 

rule. 

COAL COMBUSTION RESIDUAL (CCR) REGULATION

In April 2015, EPA promulgated its final rule to regulate the disposal of CCRs, 

or coal ash, from electric power companies. The rule, which became effective in October 2015, properly regulates CCRs as non-hazardous waste under Subtitle D of the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). 

Despite EPA’s non-hazardous waste determination, serious flaws in the final rule 

remain, including its self-implementing nature, the legal authority of EPA to regulate inactive coal ash impoundments, and the way in which EPA has left the door 

open to one day regulate coal ash as a hazardous waste, creating additional uncertainty for electric power companies. 

Because the CCR rule is self-implementing, affected facilities must comply with 

the new regulations regardless of whether a State adopts the rule. Even if a State 

adopts the rule and incorporates its criteria into the State’s solid waste management program, the Federal rule remains in place as an independent set of Federal 

criteria. The rule neither requires regulated facilities to obtain permits nor requires 

States to adopt and implement the new rules, and cannot be enforced by EPA. The 

rule’s enforcement mechanism is for a State or citizen group to bring a RCRA citizen 

suit in Federal district court against any facility that is alleged to be in non-compliance with the new requirements. 

EEI is currently working closely with the States, our member companies and 

other stakeholders to achieve cost-effective implementation of the rule. However, we 

also continue to advocate for legislation that would ensure implementation of the 

rule in an effective and practical manner. 

On July 22, 2015, the House passed H.R. 1734, the ‘‘Improving Coal Combustion 

Residuals Regulation Act.’’ The bill essentially would codify the CCR rule, establish 

national standards for CCR under RCRA Subtitle D, and allow States to create and 

enforce their own CCR permit programs. Bipartisan companion legislation, S. 2446, 

has been introduced in the Senate. 

EEI, the American Public Power Association and the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association are on record in strong support of this legislation, as it would 

eliminate the practical and enforcement challenges associated with the self-implementing nature of the final CCR rule. In the absence of congressional action, EEI 

continues to support member company compliance with non-hazardous waste regulations for CCRs, and will advocate for CCR mine placement regulations that allow 

for the continued beneficial use of coal ash in mine reclamation activities. 

STEAM EFFLUENT ELECTRIC GUIDELINES

In September 2015, EPA finalized its Steam Electric Effluent Guidelines Rule. 

The final rule, which became effective in January 2016, sets strict technology-based 

effluent limitations that will force major technological and operational changes and 

upgrades, particularly at existing coal-based facilities. 

The rule has the potential to impact long-term investment decisions companies 

are making relative to compliance with other EPA regulations, including the final 

CCR regulation, and may cause marginal units to become unprofitable. EPA estimates the total annual pre-tax industry cost of the rule is $496 million, but this 

likely is a significant underestimate of the rule’s costs. 
97 

In short, the final rule presents significant operational and compliance challenges. 

EPA included important new requirements related to stringent fly ash transport 

water, bottom ash transport water, flue gas mercury control wastewaters and treatment for flue gas desulfurization wastewater. These requirements are likely to significantly complicate implementation of the rule. 

EEI is working to assist member companies in permit proceedings to achieve costeffective and flexible implementation of the final guidelines. Still, implementation 

of the rule—particularly concerns over compliance dates and the misalignment of 

compliance dates with other environmental regulations (i.e., provisions in the CCR 

rule)—remains an area that may warrant subcommittee attention. 

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT (ESA)

As the number of new species listings increase and the accompanying critical 

habitat designations expand, so, too, does the creative use of the ESA by Federal 

agencies to increase burdens on electric power sector operations. These impacts include electric power companies’ ability to site, operate and maintain generation and 

transmission facilities. 

Congress is expected to consider ESA reform legislation this year. As part of these 

reform proposals, EEI will continue to advocate for ESA implementation in a way 

that is less burdensome and more responsive to the siting and permitting of electricity generation and transmission facilities. As EEI works to address the growing 

number of ESA-related challenges facing the electric power sector, we will continue 

to advocate for improved implementation of the ESA through direct collaboration 

with your subcommittee. 

AVIAN PROTECTION AND SAGE-GROUSE HABITAT PRESERVATION

In addition to ESA, EEI is concerned with avian issues related to the Bald and 

Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). 

Federal agency implementation of these Acts in certain cases is inconsistent across 

regions, both within individual agencies and among various Federal land management agencies. 

Under the MBTA, DOI’s Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has proposed establishing programmatic incidental take permits. If properly implemented, such a permit could provide electric power companies with decreased risk from prosecution if 

companies develop and follow an avian protection plan. However, in September 

2015, a decision by a Federal circuit court ruled that the MBTA does not prohibit 

incidental ‘‘take’’ of migratory birds. Rather than appeal the circuit court decision, 

FWS is working to develop a redefinition of what constitutes intentional and unintentional take under the MBTA. As a result, the Agency’s work on developing the 

MBTA incidental take permit has slowed, and it is not likely to be finalized before 

the end of the current administration. 

With regard to the BGEPA, FWS developed a permitting program in 2009. Unfortunately, only a handful of BGEPA permits have been issued for transmission and 

distribution facilities as well as wind energy projects. Industry has met with FWS 

and the Council on Environmental Quality to explain the difficulties electric power 

companies and wind energy face in applying for BGEPA permits. FWS is expected 

to issue a notice of proposed rulemaking later this year to update the BGEPA permitting system, on which we will develop comments and keep the subcommittee updated. 

As you are aware, FWS announced last year that the greater sage-grouse does not 

require protection under the ESA due to the collaborative and ‘‘unprecedented conservation planning effort’’ undertaken by numerous Federal, State, local and private 

partners. Despite this determination, the land use plans developed by the Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM) and the Forest Service to protect greater sage-grouse 

present significant barriers to the siting and operation of transmission and distribution lines in a cost-effective and reliable manner in the western States. Nevertheless, EEI and our member companies remain committed to avoiding and minimizing 

impacts of power line construction and maintenance to sage-grouse and their habitat. 

VEGETATION MANAGEMENT ON FEDERAL LANDS

Electric power companies experience significant delays when trying to gain access 

to their rights-of-ways (ROWs) located on Federal lands to perform vegetation management activities. Consequently, EEI advocates for legislation to remove impediments to vegetative management activities on Federal lands and improve access to 

ROWs to ensure power line safety. 
98 

H.R. 2358, the ‘‘Electricity Reliability and Forest Protection Act,’’ promotes agency 

consistency, accountability, and timeliness as it relates to permitting vegetation 

management activities for electricity transmission and distribution lines on Federal 

lands. The legislation was incorporated into H.R. 8, the ‘‘North American Energy Security and Infrastructure Act of 2015,’’ which passed the House in December 2015. 

EEI is committed to passing H.R. 2358 as part of H.R. 8 or as a stand-alone measure. EEI also supports Section 5013 of H.R. 8 to facilitate voluntary partnerships 

between electric power companies and the Federal land agencies to address vegetation management needs on public lands neighboring a ROW that pose wildlife risks 

to electricity infrastructure. 

In light of Federal electricity reliability guidelines related to vegetative management and the need to reduce the threat of catastrophic forest fires, EEI is also working to ensure that the land management agencies—BLM, FWS, and the National 

Park Service—have consistent policies and timely decisionmaking when it comes to 

protecting power lines on Federal lands. Recently EEI reached agreement with the 

Federal land management agencies to update and renew a 2006 Memorandum of 

Understanding to facilitate cooperation and coordination among parties regarding 

vegetation management within, and immediately adjacent to, existing and future 

electricity transmission line ROWs and associated facilities. The formal signing of 

this agreement will take place in spring 2016. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you, Chair Murkowski, for this opportunity to discuss these significant environmental policies. EEI truly values the partnership that we share with your subcommittee, and we look forward to continuing our dialogue with you on these and 

other issues that have the potential to impact electricity generation, siting, permitting and construction efforts. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ENTOMOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA

The Entomological Society of America (ESA) respectfully submits this statement 

for the official record in support of funding for entomology-related activities at the 

U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). For fiscal year 2017, ESA requests the Forest Service be funded 

at least at the fiscal year 2016 enacted level of $5.68 billion in discretionary funds. 

Within the Forest Service, ESA requests the Forest and Rangeland Research budget 

be supported at the President’s requested level of $291.982 million to preserve critical research and development on invasive species. The Society also supports continued investment in Forest Health Management programs across the Forest Service 

in fiscal year 2017. In addition, ESA recommends $8.267 billion for EPA, including 

support for Pesticides Licensing Program Area activities within its Science & Technology and Environmental Program & Management budgets, and continued support 

for State & Tribal Assistance Grants for Pesticide Program Implementation. Finally, 

ESA strongly supports EPA’s commitment to work with other Federal agencies to 

monitor and improve pollinator health, including involvement by EPA to examine 

the potential impact of pesticides on pollinator health. 

Advances in forestry and environmental sciences, including the field of entomology, help to maintain U.S. forests and grasslands and safeguard their contributions to the Nation’s public health, economic prosperity, agricultural productivity 

and safety, social well-being and natural heritage. Through improved understanding 

of invasive insect pests and development of sustainable approaches to pest management, the science of entomology is critical to reducing or preventing disease 

epidemics and pest outbreaks that threaten the Nation’s communities and ecosystems. Entomological science is also fundamental to the design and implementation of Integrated Pest Management (IPM), which uses science-based, environmentally sustainable, and economically and sociologically compatible methods to 

take preventative action against pests. In addition, entomology is key to understanding the biology of pollinators and identifying factors affecting their health and 

viability, helping to protect pollination services for America’s agricultural enterprise 

to provide a safe, reliable food, fiber, and fuel supply for a growing world population. 

The U.S. Forest Service sustains the health, diversity, and productivity of 193 

million acres of public lands in national forests and grasslands across 44 States and 

Territories. Serving as the largest supporter of forestry research in the world, the 

agency employs approximately 35,000 scientists, administrators, and land managers. In addition to activities at the Federal level, the Forest Service provides technical expertise and financial assistance to State and private forestry agency partners. 
99 

1 Aukema, J.E.; Leung, B.; Kovacs, K.; [et al.]. 2011. Economic impacts of non-native forest 

insects in the continental United States. PLoS ONE 6(9): e24587. 2 Ibid. 

3Forest Service Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Overview: http://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/FY2017-FS%20-budget-overview.pdf. 

The Forest Service’s Forest and Rangeland Research budget supports the development and delivery of scientific data and innovative technological tools to improve 

the health, use, and management of the Nation’s forests and rangelands. Within 

Forest and Rangeland Research, the Invasive Species Strategic Program Area provides scientifically based approaches to reduce and prevent the introduction, spread, 

and impact of non-native invasive species, including destructive insects, plants, and 

diseases that can have serious economic and environmental consequences for the 

Nation. For example, Forest Service scientists are working to prevent the destruction of ash trees across North America by the emerald ash borer, an Asian beetle 

first detected in the U.S. in 2002. Since its accidental introduction, this invasive 

wood-boring insect has killed tens of millions of ash trees and threatens to eliminate 

all ash trees from North America. Estimated annual damage inflicted by the emerald ashborer exceeds $1.5 billion, yet it is just one of the exponentially growing list 

of invasive insects and pathogens that harm the Nation’s ecosystems and the 

human communities that depend upon them.1 Forest health is also affected by 

invasive weeds, the management of which often depends on deploying beneficial insect predators and parasites as biological control agents, resulting in permanent and 

often spectacular control. ESA respectfully requests that Forest and Rangeland Research be fully funded at the President’s requested level of $292 million for fiscal 

year 2017. 

Also under the purview of the Forest Service is the Forest Health Management 

program, which conducts mapping and surveys on public and private lands to monitor and assess risks from potentially harmful insects, diseases, and invasive plants. 

The program also provides assistance to State and local partners to help prevent 

and control outbreaks that threaten forest health. According to a 2011 study, 

invasive forest insects cost local governments alone an average of over $2 billion per 

year; direct costs to homeowners from property loss, tree removal, and treatment 

averages $1.5 billion per year.2 Initiatives within the Forest Health Management 

program are designed to reduce these costs. The program’s ‘‘Slow the Spread’’ activities, for example, have led to a 60 percent reduction in the rate of the spread of 

the invasive gypsy moth, resulting in an estimated benefit-to-cost ratio of 3:1. Without the program, this destructive insect would likely have infested an additional 50 

million acres of oak hardwood forests.3 To support such vital functions, ESA requests that the subcommittee oppose proposed cuts to Forest Health Management 

program in fiscal year 2017. 

EPA carries out its mission of protecting human health and the environment by 

developing and enforcing regulations, awarding grants for research and other 

projects, conducting studies on environmental issues, facilitating partnerships, and 

providing information through public outreach. Through these efforts, EPA works to 

ensure that the Nation has clean water, clean air, a safe and secure food supply, 

and protection from exposure to pollution and toxic chemicals. 

EPA’s Pesticides Licensing Program Area, supported by EPA’s Science & Technology and Environmental Program & Management budgets, serves to evaluate and 

regulate new pesticides to ensure safe and proper usage by consumers. Through the 

mandate of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA 

utilizes scientific expertise and data, including knowledge gained from entomological 

science, to set maximum tolerated residue levels and to register pesticide products 

as effective and safe. By controlling insects that act as vectors of diseases of humans 

and domesticated animals and invasive insect species that threaten virtually every 

kind of natural or managed biological community and the human activities that depend on those communities, pesticides registered by EPA help protect public health 

and the Nation’s food supply. EPA’s activities in this area also include the development of educational information and outreach to encourage the use of IPM and 

other reduced-risk methods of controlling pests. For example, EPA continues to support programs aimed at protecting children from pesticide exposure used in and 

around schools, helping to promote cost-effective strategies that reduce student exposure to pesticides and pests. IPM strategies used in schools reduce student exposure to pesticides as well as allergens from pests themselves. Therefore, ESA supports continuing the modest funding that EPA has invested in school IPM. 

Among EPA’s State & Tribal Assistance Grants, categorical grants in the area of 

Pesticides Program Implementation help to facilitate the translation of national pesticide regulatory information into real-world approaches that work for local commu-
100 

4 Calderone, NW. 2012. Insect Pollinated Crops, Insect Pollinators and US Agriculture: Trend 

Analysis of Aggregate Data for the Period 1992—2009. PLoS ONE 7(5): e37235. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0037235, http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0037235. 5 EPA. 2014. ‘‘EPA Awards Almost Half a Million in Funding to Three Universities for Projects 

to Reduce Pesticide Risk Including Risks to Bees,’’ https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/ 

6427a6b7538955c585257359003f0230/a5c495f5bc4d4ba285257c5a005aaa35!OpenDocument. 

nities. For example, these grants fund efforts to reduce health and environmental 

risks associated with pesticide use by promoting, facilitating, and evaluating IPM 

techniques and other potentially safer alternatives to conventional pest control 

methods. ESA requests that the subcommittee support the proposed modest increase 

for Pesticides Program Implementation grants. 

ESA is in favor of increased funding for scientifically based studies of pollinator 

populations and health. Pollinators play a vital role in the Nation’s agricultural enterprise. The honey bee, for example, provides pollination services for more than 90 

crops in the United States, which collectively are valued at more than $17 billion 

per year.4 To ensure a healthy honey bee population, more research is needed to 

understand the complexities of annual colony losses that regularly exceed 30 percent 

and to examine the diverse factors that endanger bee health. Challenges to the 

health of honey bees and other pollinators include, among others, parasites, pathogens, poor nutrition, and pesticides; of these, pesticides also have agricultural benefits, against which risks to pollinators must be assessed, and the balance between 

risk and benefit varies among crop types, crop-producing regions, and pest identity. 

EPA is well-positioned to guide the development of methods for protecting pollinator 

health; the agency has, for example, previously awarded agricultural IPM grants to 

three universities to aid in the development of IPM practices that reduce risks to 

bees and other pollinators while protecting crops from pests and human populations 

from insect disease vectors.5 For this reason, ESA supports EPA’s participation in 

multi-agency efforts to investigate pollinator health and implementing plans to prevent pollinator population decline. 

ESA, headquartered in Annapolis, Maryland, is the largest organization in the 

world serving the professional and scientific needs of entomologists and individuals 

in related disciplines. Founded in 1889, ESA has nearly 7,000 members affiliated 

with educational institutions, health agencies, private industry, and government. 

Members are researchers, teachers, extension service personnel, administrators, 

marketing representatives, research technicians, consultants, students, pest management professionals, and hobbyists. 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer the Entomological Society of America’s support for Forest Service and EPA programs. For more information about the Entomological Society of America, please see http://www.entsoc.org/. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF THE STATES

Dear Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the subcommittee, 

I am Martha Rudolph, Director of Environmental Programs at the Colorado Department of Health and Environment, submitting this testimony as president and 

on behalf of the members of the Environmental Council of the States (ECOS) on the 

fiscal year 2017 budget for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

We are pleased to provide this testimony in support of the President’s budget request of $3.28 billion in appropriations for the State and Tribal Assistance Grants 

(STAG). Within STAG, there is a proposed $1.158 billion for categorical grants, 

which advance, in part, core State work to carry out responsibilities under the major 

environmental laws. The administration’s STAG request also includes $2 billion for 

the important clean water and drinking water State revolving funds (SRFs), $90 

million for brownfields projects, $10 million for diesel emission reduction grants, 

and $22 million for several focused assistance programs. States welcome the President’s request for $77 million more in funding for categorical grants than the enacted fiscal year 2016 budget for these programs. We see great value in the $15.7 

million requested increase for environmental information categorical grants, which 

help support the critical E-Enterprise for the Environment collaborative State and 

Federal work to improve regulatory processes for the regulated community and increase data availability to the public. The E-Enterprise for the Environment effort 

between States and EPA continues to support the ushering in a new era of efficient, 

effective, and renewed collaborative Federalism—with benefits for all who interface 

with, or administer, our Nation’s environmental programs. 
101 

States continue to face obstacles as we work to keep pace with the cost of implementing core and new programs. When limited funding is combined with new regulatory requirements and variability in the timing and the amount of Federal funds, 

States’ ability to meet their delegated commitments becomes increasingly challenging. As States are responsible for the implementation of over 95 percent of the 

Nation’s Federal environmental laws, it is essential that States are given flexibility 

and financial support so that we can work with EPA and other partners to ensure 

effective protection of human health and the environment. 

While States seek ways to save resources through efficiency efforts, our work is 

difficult to conduct in a flat or reduced fiscal state. We urge Congress to recognize 

the States’ crucial role in delivering environmental protection and services by funding the STAG at the requested $3.28 billion level. Following, we offer and elaborate 

upon several reasons why this investment in States will deliver many times over. 

States are Primary Implementers of the Nation’s Environmental Laws 

The States are co-regulators with EPA in the implementation of the Nation’s environmental laws and corresponding programs. Congress included provisions in the 

major Federal environmental statutes—including the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act—for 

States to assume authority over the Federal programs and to provide financial assistance to States to operate these Federal programs. A State match is usually required under these statutes, and States provide on average well over half and in 

many States, three-quarters of the funds to operate federally delegated programs. 

States perform much of the work set out in the President’s budget request 

through these delegated programs, making Federal funding essential. States use a 

combination of Federal and State funding, and fees assessed on regulated entities, 

to issue permits, conduct inspections and enforcement, gather and manage data, set 

standards, remediate sites, monitor ambient conditions, and other important activities. In order to ensure the long-term strength and viability of EPA and the States’ 

joint efforts to implement these programs, it is essential that the States receive sufficient Federal funding through STAG. 

The Reality of the STAG Request 

States are encouraged that the President’s budget request increases ten categor- ical grants and that overall, categorical grants receive a $77 million requested increase. When divided nationally, this is a proposed increase of just over $1 million 

per State for the implementation of national programs, and every Federal dollar will 

matter—particularly as States do more to maintain the delegated programs. 

We acknowledge that the budget request was prepared in continued challenging 

fiscal climate, and that proposed increases may come from reductions to valued programs. In many of these areas, EPA has proposed alternative ways to support the 

sectors affected by the proposed reductions though programs on the Agency’s side 

of the ledger. For example, while a reduction is proposed for the Clean Water SRF, 

the administration’s proposal calls for a $1.6 million increase in funds for the Water 

Infrastructure and Resiliency Finance Center to help communities identify and develop water financing. ECOS still has concerns with reductions to the revolving loan 

funds below needed and historic amounts. ECOS Resolution 08–1, renewed in 2014, 

refers to estimates—continually increasing—that over $700 billion is required to address wastewater and drinking water needs over the next 20 years. While the $157 

million increase proposed for the Drinking Water SRF is without question an overdue and needed response to long acknowledged shortfalls, it appears to come at the 

expense of the Clean Water SRF—which is proposed at $414 million less than fiscal 

year 2016 enacted. Given the great needs for investment in water infrastructure 

across the Nation, we encourage Congress to fund the SRFs at the President’s increased drinking water request level without taking funds away from the clean 

water SRF. These investments are essential in order to advance critically needed 

and important work to protect the environment and public health in communities 

across the Nation. 

Modernizing the Business of Environmental Protection 

Among the categorical grant increases, we especially encourage you to appropriate the requested $15.7 million increase to the Environmental Information Categorical 

Grant to States. Streamlining processes and technological investment are essential 

to enhancing how States deliver permits, monitoring, inspections, and public information. When leveraged with State resources it is essential to bringing State environmental business models into the modern age, and often supports development of 

shared services for States. These funds will facilitate States’ continued efforts to implement electronic permitting and reporting systems proactively which will allow information to be processed, reviewed, shared between States and EPA, and acted 
102 

upon more quickly. This facilitates job creation, contributes to improved public 

health, and creates a more efficient and transparent government system that brings 

more and more regulated entities into compliance while creating incentives for all 

facilities to perform at high levels. We are committed to joint governance, to better 

decisionmaking, and to increasing transparency and efficiency through the E-Enterprise for the Environment initiative. Your support for this Categorical Grant, and 

for EPA’s request for funding its work on E-Enterprise for the Environment aligned 

projects, will make a meaningful difference to the States, private entitles, and the 

public. 

Rescissions 

We commend the administration for proposing no rescissions in prior STAG funds. 

The States need every dollar that Congress can give, and rescinding prior year 

funds is detrimental to achieving environmental progress. We are working with EPA 

to improve administrative processes to ensure that funds are dispersed in a timely 

manner so that they can be efficiently and effectively put to use by States. We urge 

you not to include any rescissions of unobligated STAG funds in the fiscal year 2017 

enacted budget. If rescissions must occur due to hard choices you must make, rescissions should be taken equitably from one or more of the Agency’s budget accounts 

and the STAG account. 

The Value of Flexibility 

State Environmental Agencies have seen budget cuts at the State level and are 

managing reductions in part by leaning our business processes and by strategically 

applying practices that improve efficiency, such as targeting inspections to priority 

areas and implementing technological advancements. 

Within each State, needs and priorities can vary in part from priorities set by 

EPA at the Federal level. State commissioners require maximum flexibility to direct 

the Federal resources in ways that suit their unique needs and circumstances. 

While the States may agree with and appreciate funding for specific efforts, States 

need flexibility to budget for and implement work activities most effectively. Directed funding undermines State flexibility and needed support for on-going every 

day implementation of the Nation’s environmental laws. The States, as co-regulators 

with EPA, wish to preserve and expand State flexibility to address State and regional priorities within EPA’s national framework. Fewer funding directions should 

help streamline State-EPA discussions about the work to be accomplished. 

Reducing spending directives within a Categorical Grant expedites State utilization of funds. States have worked closely with EPA over the last several years to 

quickly award and then efficiently utilize valuable Federal funding. Fewer instructions allow States to move more quickly to turn Federal dollars into positive results. 

ECOS and the States are very supportive of the $21 million multipurpose grant 

program that Congress created in the fiscal year 2016 omnibus budget. The President’s budget does not include a request to fund this program. In providing these 

funds for EPA to apportion to States and tribes for the implementation of priorities 

within environmental programs generally, Congress has given States and tribes the 

ability to direct the funds where they can most effectively be leveraged and deliver 

tangible results. We believe flexible funds provide States the best opportunity to 

make progress in advancing environmental goals and protecting human health, and 

we strongly encourage Congress to provide additional funding in the enacted budget 

so that this much-needed grant program can continue. 

ECOS and its members value our work with the Appropriations Committees, and 

are appreciative of the continued consideration of our views. We are confident the 

funding allocated will be well used to implement the Nation’s environmental enterprise with EPA. With this funding, States will continue their dedicated efforts to 

deliver the clean environment all Americans want and deserve in the most efficient, 

modern, and results-oriented way possible. 

We welcome the opportunity to answer any questions or provide any further information. 

We thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective, and remain willing 

to provide the subcommittee with any input in the future. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE EVERGLADES COALITION

Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall: 

On behalf of the 61 members of the Everglades Coalition committed to the protection and restoration of America’s Everglades, we want to thank you for your subcommittee’s long-time support for Everglades restoration. Your continued support, 
103 

along with the strong commitment from the last four Florida Governors, has kept 

restoration on a strong and steady path. This strong partnership between the Federal Government and the State of Florida has resulted in many successes with more 

on the horizon. 

To build on this progress, we respectfully request the amount of $62.7 million for 

fiscal year 2017 for agencies within the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), as 

recommended in the President’s budget. This amount will allow key projects under 

the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) and others, such as combatting invasive species like the Burmese python and numerous plant species, to 

move forward. 

There is little question that the restoration of America’s Everglades has been one 

of the highest priorities of this and previous administrations. The National Park 

Service (NPS), which is celebrating its centennial this year, listed the Everglades 

among their high priority parks. Everglades restoration is critical for the Interior 

bill because it is helping 17 federally protected lands—including National Parks and 

National Wildlife Refuges—that are currently in distress from the lack of clean 

water. We have a national responsibility to preserve this special and unique ecosystem for future generations, and agencies within DOI are taking a lead role to 

fulfill the goals of CERP and their commitment to manage the resources of the 

Greater Everglades Ecosystem in the Federal interest. 

We are very pleased that NPS is working closely with the Florida Department of 

Transportation (FDOT) and has funding committed to begin construction on the 2.6- 

mile bridge segment of the Tamiami Trail Next Steps project in spring 2016—making this a centennial project for the National Park Service. This bridging will enable 

long-blocked water to flow under this highway and bring badly needed water to Everglades National Park and Florida Bay. NPS intends to use funds from the Federal 

Lands Transportation Program to fulfill its commitment, in addition to $90 million 

committed from FDOT and $20 million from DOT’s Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) competitive grant program. 

Last week, the Florida Legislature overwhelmingly passed ‘‘Legacy Florida,’’ which will dedicate at least $1 billion of Amendment 1 funds over the next 10 years 

for planning, design, engineering, and construction of Everglades restoration 

projects outlined in CERP. This legislation will dedicate even more funds for restoration projects beyond CERP that will improve the health of the greater Everglades ecosystem. The passage of this legislation ensures that reliable State dollars 

will be directed each year to these vital infrastructure projects. We look forward to 

working with your subcommittee to build on this State commitment to ensure a 

more predictable path for advancing Everglades projects. 

We greatly appreciate your continued support and commitment to Everglades restoration as we move forward with this monumental restoration effort, fulfilling our 

promise to future generations. 

[This statement was submitted by Cara Capp, National Co-Chair, and Jason 

Totoiu, State Co-Chair.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FEDERATION OF STATE HUMANITIES COUNCILS

Madam Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee, I thank you for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of the State humanities councils, the State 

affiliates of the National Endowment for the Humanities, requesting $155 million 

for the National Endowment for the Humanities and $46 million for the Federal/ 

State Partnership for fiscal year 2017. 

As full partners of the NEH, the State humanities councils receive their core 

funding through the Federal/State Partnership line of the NEH budget, which they 

use to leverage additional support from foundations, corporations, private individuals, and State governments. For the past several years, councils have leveraged, 

on average, $5.00 in local contributions for every dollar of Federal funding awarded 

through their grants, and they have further extended their resources in recent years 

by forming partnerships with more than 9,000 organizations throughout their 

States. But demand continues to increase. While Federal funding for council programs has remained roughly level for the past several years, councils have continued to expand their programs to reach new populations and to meet growing needs 

in their States. 

At the heart of every humanities council discussion is a fundamental question: 

How can we make life better for the citizens of our communities? The multiple responses to this question can be seen in an array of council programs, conducted in 

nearly every congressional district in the Nation, which serve families, students, 

veterans, educators, rural Americans, medical personnel, immigrants and refugees, 
104 

adult new readers, and a host of others. The State councils in each of the 50 States, 

five Territories and Washington DC work from a deep understanding of the unique 

identity of their States and of the needs of their citizens and communities. Their 

programs reach the tiniest and most remote towns as well as densely populated 

urban neighborhoods, creating bridges between academic research and public citizens hungry for substantive conversation about issues that matter. 

Councils steward their modest Federal resources not only by forming partnerships 

and leveraging other funding, but also by carefully studying the civic, cultural, demographic, and educational profile of their States, assessing the challenges their 

citizens and communities face, and making informed decisions about where and how 

their programs will have the greatest impact. Four areas of council activity offer 

particularly striking and significant illustration of the ways lives are changed 

through council work. These include programs that (1) support and help reintegrate 

veterans, (2) contribute to the economic and civic health of communities, (3) provide 

resources to underserved rural populations and (4) increase literacy and strengthen 

K–12 education. 

Supporting veterans and their communities.—In 2014, the National Endowment 

for the Humanities, through its newly launched initiative, ‘‘Standing Together: The 

Humanities and the Experience of War,’’ invited councils to submit proposals for 

$10,000 grants to develop or continue programs to help veterans reintegrate into civilian life and deepen community understanding of the challenges faced by returning veterans. Through these grants, councils created programs and partnerships 

that have continued well beyond the conclusion of the grant period and expanded 

far beyond the original design. Councils learned early that sustaining relationships 

forged with veterans and veterans groups was critical, so they stretched their resources to continue the initial programs as long as possible, while also using the 

grants to leverage other funds based on a strong record of high quality, reliable programs. NEH offered councils several program models but also gave them a free 

hand, under the terms of the grant, to shape programs they believed would best 

serve the veterans in their States. 

Veterans’ experiences can be communicated in a variety of ways, as evidenced by 

a California Humanities program called ‘‘War Ink,’’ through which veterans shared 

their stories of war and homecoming with each other and the general public through 

an online interpretive exhibit of tattoos, a widespread form of communication among 

veterans. Initiated by a veteran and a program fellow at the Contra Costa County 

Library with a modest $10,000 grant from the humanities council, the site has received more than 50,000 visits since it was launched on Veterans Day in 2014. The 

24 stories from men and women located in every part of the State reflect the diversity of experience in California, home to more than 2 million veterans. The project 

was created through the cooperative efforts of an unusual array of partners including public and private funders, tattoo parlors, veteran-serving organizations, libraries, college campuses, and media professionals. 

The New Mexico Humanities Council is one of a dozen councils serving veterans 

through a reading and discussion program, ‘‘Talking Service,’’ a partnership between 

participating councils and the Great Books Foundation, with support from the National Endowment for the Humanities. The project enables participants to discuss 

their experiences and challenges with fellow veterans, drawing on the literature chosen specifically for its relevance to veterans. The Vermont Humanities Council also 

offers reading and discussion programs for veterans, based on a model developed by 

the Maine Humanities Council. Session facilitator Michael Heaney, retired American history professor and Vietnam veteran, said of these discussions, ‘‘The participants get to read stuff that bubbles up memories, provokes them sometimes, and 

then talk about it in a group that’s safe for them. And for some of them, it’s the 

first time they’ve ever had that opportunity.’’ 

Strengthening economic and cultural structures.—In addition to giving context and 

meaning to the lives of individuals and communities, the humanities strengthen the 

economic, cultural, and educational foundations of communities. Council-sponsored 

book festivals in Kentucky, Nebraska, Nevada, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and West Virginia bring thousands of residents and 

visitors together around the love of books and reading, while also contributing to 

local economies. Humanities Tennessee’s Southern Festival of Books has been bringing the public together with more than 200 nationally prominent authors every October since 1989. The 3-day festival, centered in Nashville, promotes reading and 

lifelong learning among the thousands of attendees each year, while also boosting 

the city’s businesses. 

Other councils bring dollars to local communities by helping to strengthen local 

tourism. The Missouri Humanities Council’s newest initiative brings the council into 

partnership with local governments and community organizations to highlight the 
105 

State’s most cherished historical and cultural treasures. In its first phase, the 

project will focus on the State’s German heritage, identifying a series of sites that 

will illuminate the story of this important group, educating Missourians about their 

own history while also drawing tourism dollars to communities along the heritage 

tour route. 

The Rhode Island Council for the Humanities is creating a model for encouraging 

community vitality and prosperity through its 3-year ‘‘Catalyzing Newport’’ project, 

which brings organizations and citizens together ‘‘to address challenges and constraints, add value, and create the basis for resilient, sustainable, and innovative 

communities.’’ The project will enlist experts to engage with citizens during 

residencies in which they will help to define and address challenges and work with 

community leaders to shape a future ‘‘rich in culture, civic life, and economic opportunities.’’ 

Serving rural communities.—Our Nation’s rural communities are a rich tapestry 

of vibrant American life, but many of these communities hunger for the kinds of cultural resources that connect them with their own histories and with the larger 

world. Humanities council programs meet this need yearly in thousands of communities in every corner of their States. From Chautauqua portrayals of historic figures to reading and discussion programs in local libraries to humanities speakers 

who traverse the State to deliver presentations on topics ranging from ‘‘Paul Revere’s Ride’’ to ‘‘Cowboys and Cowgirls: Icons of the American West,’’ humanities 

council programs offer live, intellectually substantive programs otherwise unavailable to residents of these rural communities. 

In a State of vast distances and small population centers, Humanities Montana 

has created a unique program that provides sustained support for a different community each year to become the site of intensive humanities programming including 

community conversations, writing workshops, lectures, poetry events, and reading 

and discussion series. Communities apply to be selected for this year-long project, 

which includes, in the course of the year, dozens of local events and several visits 

from humanities council staff members, who meet with community officials, cultural 

and educational leaders, and other local planners. The creation of strong local networks and partnerships within each community, along with the development of programming expertise, ensures that the impact will extend well beyond the designated 

year. 

The successful 25-year partnership between the State humanities councils and the 

Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service (SITES) has brought highquality, lightweight, portable Smithsonian exhibits to small towns in 46 States and 

Guam through a project known as Museum on Main Street (MoMS). Over its history, MoMS has stimulated partnerships among the councils, SITES, and local institutions in more than 900 communities, with an average population of 8,000. Recent 

exhibit topics have included ‘‘Hometown Teams,’’ looking at the way American 

sports have both reflected and influenced the culture; ‘‘The Way We Worked,’’ which 

traces changes in our workforce and work environments over 150 years; and ‘‘Water/ 

Ways,’’ exploring the impact that water has on our landscape, our climate, and our 

communities. In each community, the MoMS exhibit is accompanied by a local exhibit and by cultural and educational activities planned and carried out by the host 

community, with financial and professional support from the humanities council and 

SITES. 

Councils in both Mississippi and Kentucky, for example, will tour ‘‘Hometown 

Teams,’’ the newest MoMS exhibition, in 2016 and 2017, respectively. In both 

States, the exhibit will visit several communities, and the council will work with a 

local planning group to shape a local exhibit and accompanying programs. Programs 

in Mississippi, where the tour began this spring, will include a panel discussion 

among three former governors, all from small towns in Mississippi, talking about 

the impact of sports on their communities growing up. In addition, a world-renowned sports architect and Jackson native will talk about baseball stadium design 

across the country. 

Supporting education at all levels.—The State humanities councils, at their core, 

are all about contributing to the education of our citizens, from the youngest children to the most senior adults. Council programs help low-income and immigrant 

families improve their children’s school readiness and the parents’ reading skills 

through family literacy program models, such as Prime Time and Motheread. Council-supported programs for K–12 students, such as the National History Day competition, Center for the Book writing programs, Speakers in the Schools programs, 

and humanities camps and conferences for youth, improve student learning and engagement. 

The Louisiana Endowment for the Humanities, for example, 25 years ago 

launched a family literacy program, ‘‘Prime Time,’’ which was adopted by a number 
106 

of other councils throughout the country. The program has a proven track record 

of improving school performance for students from underserved families, while also 

strengthening family ties. Through a 6-week series, families listen to a storyteller 

read award-winning children’s literature and then discuss substantive humanities 

concepts and ideas together. Serving a different age group, the Alaska Humanities 

Forum offers an array of educational programs tailored to the unique circumstances 

of a State that is sharply divided between urban centers and very remote rural 

towns. One of these programs, the ‘‘Sister School Exchange,’’ provides support for 

five middle and high school students and a teacher from a rural community to 

change places with counterparts in Anchorage to promote cross-cultural understanding. ‘‘Take Wing Alaska’’ provides support for rural Native Alaska students to 

make the transition from their home communities to urban secondary schools, 

where they will gain the education needed to assume leadership positions back in 

their home villages. The program focuses not only on academic skills but also on 

the inherent Native skills that students can draw on to help them succeed in their 

new environment. 

‘‘Idea Lab,’’ a summer program created by Oregon Humanities, offers professional 

development for teachers and college preparation for ‘‘high-curiosity’’ students 

through a 3-day residential institute, looking at the pursuit happiness and its meaning in relation to such concepts as consumer culture, religion, politics, education, 

and civic engagement. The program welcomes teens from a wide variety of economic 

and social backgrounds with a particular focus on students who lack financial and 

family support for their college aspirations. 

These are only a few of the hundreds of programs through which councils help 

fulfill the mandate of the founding legislation, which eloquently reminds us that 

‘‘democracy demands wisdom and vision in its citizens... .’’ We urge you to sup- port our request for $155 million for the NEH and $46 million for the Federal/State 

Partnership, so humanities councils can continue to partner with the citizens of 

their States all across the country in pursuit of this wisdom. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FIREFIGHTERS UNITED FOR SAFETY, ETHICS, AND

ECOLOGY

Oppose ‘‘Disaster’’ Funding for Forest Service Wildfire Suppression Operations 

As you are well aware, suppression spending has been soaring in recent years— 

rising well above the rate of inflation and consuming a majority of the Forest Service’s budget. Even during years when wildfire activity has been relatively low, suppression spending has kept going up. The fire services have long passed the point 

of diminishing returns whereby increased spending on wildfire suppression yields 

any benefit in terms of increased firefighting safety or effectiveness. 

Giving Federal bureaucracies discretion to spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer 

dollars per year beyond their annual appropriations (as the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act proposed to do) is not only fiscally irresponsible, it is environmentally irresponsible and will raise safety risks for firefighters for generations to come. We 

strongly urge you to reject efforts to include the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act or 

any other similar legislative proposal, rider, or amendment. 

There is a serious problem with the Forest Service overspending its annual appropriated budgets on firefighting operations, and then transferring funds from other 

non-fire programs to pay for firefighting costs. We share the wide concern of many 

other organizations to cease these ‘‘fire transfers’’ and have the Forest Service budget become more stable, predictable, and above all accountable. We are glad that Forest Service Chief Tidwell has promised not to do that this year, especially since Congress has increased its fiscal year 2016 suppression appropriations by several hundred million. This means that there should be no self-induced crisis over fire transfers this year, giving Congress time to craft a bill that is fiscally sound and sustainable. Indeed, there are better ways to stop fire transfers than simply changing the 

budgetary source of those transfers, such as taking funds from FEMA. 

The problem with the mechanism proposed by the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act 

is that it does not target emergency funds to the large-scale ‘‘megafires’’ that are 

truly fiscal disasters because they consume 30 percent of the agency’s suppression 

budget. Instead, the agency can start accessing emergency funds after they’ve spent 

70 percent of their suppression budget. This system could set up a system of perverse incentives causing the agency to spend the 70 percent portion of their appropriated budget as soon as possible—sending crews out aggressively fighting early 

season wildfires in remote wildlands and at all costs—so they can gain disaster 

funding. This system is a ticket to promoting wildfire disasters, not preventing 

them! 
107 

Unfortunately, Congress has traditionally given a ‘‘blank check’’ to Federal agencies when they overspend their appropriated budgets on suppression, rarely asking 

them hard questions about how they spent that money, what impacts that spending 

had on fire or the land, and what taxpayers actually get in return. This has led to 

the agency fire managers often choosing high-cost suppression strategies or tactics— 

which may look good to the media—while neglecting other more cost-efficient and 

effective fire management actions. Giving Federal agencies access to billions of more 

taxpayer dollars from disaster accounts will lead to suppression spending on 

steroids! 

Worse, allowing agencies to declare wildfires as disasters simply to lift budget 

caps and access near-unlimited emergency funding for suppression operations will 

undermine efforts that have been long in the making to shift agencies toward alternative proactive strategies in fire preparedness and planning, fuels reduction and 

forest restoration. Why bother with those activities that might actually prevent disasters, but must be paid for by appropriated budgets, when the agency can simply 

continue fighting all fires and get fully funded with no questions asked? And the 

definition of a wildfire disaster ultimately has nothing to do with the effects of a 

given wildfire, only the amount of money spent fighting it! Again, this is will simply 

incentivize disastrous management choices to spend more taxpayer dollars for no 

real benefit in reducing future fire risks, restoring fire-adapted ecosystems, or improving firefighter safety. 

We regret that many, perhaps most Members of Congress fail to understand the 

nature of the ‘‘firefighter’s dilemma,’’ a term from business management that refers 

to the inability of businesses to invest in long-term cost-saving operations because 

they are so caught up in avoiding short-term losses. In the case of Federal agencies 

spending ever more taxpayer dollars on reactive wildfire suppression actions while 

neglecting proactive research, planning, and fuels management projects, the firefighter’s dilemma is a literal, not metaphorical term. Allowing the agencies to access 

disaster accounts will become a bigger dilemma to the point of fiscal disaster. 

We strongly urge you to reject any efforts to include the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act or any other similar language in the fiscal year 2017 Interior appropriations 

bill. Congress has already added hundreds of millions of extra dollars in the fiscal 

year 2016 Forest Service budget for suppression, and the Chief has pledged not to 

do any fire transfers this year, so there should be no crisis this year. 

Congress should take this time to come up with a more effective solution to suppression overspending. The real task Congress needs to do is to contain Federal suppression costs, not simply find a novel ‘‘off-budget’’ way to pay for escalating expenditures. 

[This statement was submitted by Timothy Ingalsbee, Ph.D., Executive Director.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FOND DU LAC BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA

I am Wally Dupuis, Chairman of the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa. On behalf of the Band, I would like thank this subcommittee for the opportunity to submit testimony on fiscal year 2017 appropriations for Indian programs 

funded through the Interior Department, Indian Health Service, and Environmental 

Protection Agency. The Fond du Lac Band occupies a small reservation in northeastern Minnesota. We have approximately 4,200 members and provide health, education, social services, public safety and other governmental services to more than 

6,700 Indian people who live on and near our reservation. We strive to find solutions that will break the cycle of poverty and meet the unmet needs of our community. We are proud of the steps that we have taken to do this, including partnerships with the public and private sectors. But while we are beginning to address 

these longstanding problems, much remains to be done. Federal funding is essential. 

Bureau of Indian Education. BIE funding is the primary source of funding for the 

Fond du Lac Ojibwe School. This school serves approximately 340 students in preK through grade 12. Our students come from very low-income households; more 

than 90 percent of our students qualify for free or reduced rate lunches. While we 

are making progress in improving the educational attainment of our students, we 

are handicapped by limited resources. There are still significant disparities between 

American Indians and the population statewide on education that correlate with 

poverty levels. Data compiled for Minnesota in 2015 illustrates this: 
108 

Living below 

Poverty 

3rd Grade 

Students at 

3rd Grade 

reading level 

8th Grade 

Students at 

8th Grade 

math level 

High School 

graduation 

rates 

Statewide ...................................................................................... 11.50% 58.7% 57.8% 81.9% 

Minnesota Indian .......................................................................... 32.20% 40.5% 30.8% 51.9% 

From: Minnesota Compass, http://www.mncompass.org/education/overview. Most recent data is as of 2015 except poverty rates are as of 

2014. 

We very much appreciate the Federal efforts to improve opportunities for American Indian youth, and the recognition that education is a key component to improve 

the life trajectories of Native youth. We support the President’s budget, which would 

increase overall education funding by $60 million over the fiscal year 2016 enacted 

level, including increases in funding for: Johnson O’Malley, so we can assist Indian 

children in public schools, as well as Early Childhood Development funds (FACE), 

which is critical to providing preschoolers with skills to be school-ready. As to other 

elements of the budget for education funding, we urge the following: 

—ISEP. Increase ISEP to $574 million as requested in the President’s budget. 

ISEP is the primary source of school funding. It covers salaries for teachers, 

teacher aides, and administrative personnel and is essential to our ability to recruit and retain qualified teachers and to cover shortfalls in other budget areas, 

such as transportation, facilities and maintenance. 

—Tribal Grant Support Costs (TGSC). Increase to $75 million funding for TGSC. 

This helps pay the costs of accounting, insurance, background checks, legal and 

record-keeping. 

—School Facility Operations and Maintenance. Increase School Facility Operations to $66,219,000, and School Facility Maintenance to $79,000,000. We need 

these funds to keep the building safe, pay for preventative maintenance, and 

cover insurance and utility costs. 

—Student Transportation. Increase Student Transportation to $57,245,000 as set 

out in the President’s budget as these funds allow us maintain, repair, and replace buses. 

—School Construction and Repair. Appropriate $138 million for School Construction and Repair. Students and staff are put in jeopardy if deferred maintenance 

is not addressed. 

BIA: Public Safety and Justice. We disagree with the President’s proposal to decrease funding for BIA’s Public Safety and Justice. We urge Congress to increase 

those funds above fiscal year 2016 levels. Although we are a small community, we 

are combating major crimes. Alcohol, illegal prescription drug use, methamphetamine, and gang-related activity create huge demands on our law enforcement. In 

addition, we face a significant increase in heroin use. Many in our community are 

the victims of assaults and robberies that are drug-related. Our officers must respond to increasing drug overdoses and deaths, as well as juvenile offenses involving 

drugs, alcohol, thefts, assaults and burglaries. They also respond to a wide range 

of other matters, including domestic disputes, disturbances, disorderly conduct, 

property damage, theft, medical emergencies, fire, neglected children, runaways, 

suicide threats, as well as numerous traffic-related matters. In 2015, our Law Enforcement responded to more than 8,000 incidents and calls for service. This is a 

substantial increase from past years, where incidents and calls for service from our 

Department were: 6,000 in 2014; 5,342 in 2013; 5,100 in 2012; and 4,900 in 2011. 

We use a combination of tribal and available Federal funds and cooperative agreements with local law enforcement agencies to meet law enforcement needs. To ensure effective law enforcement coverage 24/7, we need to have sufficient law enforcement staff and equipment. We are very fortunate that as a result of a COPS grant 

in 2015, we were able to employ 20 sworn officers—the number we need to effectively patrol the reservation. But our officers still need equipment. We do not yet 

have a sufficient number of patrol cars. We regularly need to acquire and replace 

other basic law enforcement equipment, like binoculars, video cameras, digital recorders and other surveillance tools. Federal funding is essential to meet those 

needs. 

Although I am pleased that we have been able to employ 20 sworn police officers, 

we have outgrown our current office space. With the lack of available building 

space, we have had to share building space with the reservation’s Housing Department. We moved into our current space in 2004 with a total of 11 sworn officers. 

The space was tight with 11 officers. Needless to say, we desperately need a new 

modern building. As of right now we work in an area that consists of 5 offices, a 

squad room barely capable of holding everyone for a department wide meeting and 
109 

an evidence room. A new building would allow us to work more efficiently and allow 

for further growth in the future. 

BIA: Trust-Natural Resources Management. We support the President’s budget proposal, to fund BIA Natural Resources Management at $215.6 million in fiscal 

year 2017, including funding for Tribal Climate Resilience. Climate change impacts 

are especially significant in Indian country, where the basic subsistence needs of Indian people often depend on natural resources. This is certainly true at Fond du 

Lac. By treaties made in 1837, 1842 and 1854, the United States acquired our aboriginal territory but, to ensure that we could sustain ourselves and our families, 

expressly promised that we retained rights to hunt, fish and gather natural resources within and outside our reservation. Our members depend on and exercise 

these treaty-protected rights to put food on the table and for ceremonial practices 

that serve as the foundation for our culture. The stewardship of those natural resources—through scientific study, resource management, and enforcement of Band 

laws that regulate tribal members who hunt, fish and gather those resources—are 

an important source of employment for many of our members. Funding increases 

for Trust-Natural Resources Management allows us to protect, enhance, and restore 

natural resources. Significant stable funding is the most effective way to provide 

ecosystem services in a climate change driven environment. Healthy ecosystems will 

be best able to tolerate the stresses of climate change if they are in the best condition possible. 

Fond du Lac forest resources are an important asset to the Fond du Lac Band. 

The Intertribal Timber Council’s third assessment of Indian forestry completed in 

2013 found that Indian forestry is woefully unfunded when compared to other Federal, State, and private industrial forests. Working towards funding parity should 

be a goal nationally. Protecting the forest from wildfire and maintaining a fire resilient forest is also a goal of the Fond du Lac Band. Fire preparedness funding is 

below the most efficient level (MEL) and now 20 percent of the fuels funding is proposed to be stripped away from Indian forestry. Fire preparedness and fuels funding 

provide a basis for workforce development in Indian forestry. Tribal communities 

are within tribal fire protection areas. Other Federal agencies have communities adjacent to their protection areas. Provide adequate funding to manage tribal forests, 

protect forests from wildfire, create fire resilient communities and forests, and provide workforce development. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is a valued 

partner of the Fond du Lac Band in wildlife and fisheries research and restoration 

programs. We request that the overall budget of the Fish and Wildlife Service be 

increased, with a particular increase to the Native American Liaison program. We 

support the President’s requested increase to the Tribal Wildlife Grant Program, but 

urge that this program be funded at 5 times its current level, since current funding 

levels allow few grants to be awarded. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The drastic funding cuts to EPA in past 

years threaten long-term damage to the Nation. We support, at a minimum, the 

$8.6 billion in funding recommended in the President’s budget, as well as the President’s recommended increase in State and Tribal Assistance Grants, but urge that 

more be appropriated for these important programs. 

—Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. The Band fully supports this initiative, and asks that it be funded at $500 million, two times what is requested in the President’s budget. This initiative has broad-reaching benefits to resources of importance for all stakeholders (State, tribal and private) in the Great Lakes region. 

It is also an example of where EPA’s modest investment in tribal capacity support has resulted in substantial outcomes, both in a more visible presence and 

active participation in Great Lakes restoration and protection—a true ‘seat at 

the table’—and in tangible outcomes from successful projects. —Water Quality. The Fond du Lac Band has a federally approved water quality 

standards program that has seen annual funding declines, while the Band’s responsibilities have increased. Given the current threats to water resources in 

our region from the expansion of iron and copper mining, we urge that tribal 

section 106 funding be doubled. Not only has the universe of tribes authorized 

for section 106 funding expanded, but tribes with mature programs like the 

Band are struggling to cover additional activities related to our multiple Clean 

Water Act authorities with shrinking funds. 

—Air. In conjunction with our water quality monitoring responsibilities, the Band 

has a long-standing air monitoring program that has also faced a steady decline 

in Federal funding. We request that air quality program funding for tribes be 

increased. 

—Wetlands. One-half of our reservation is made up of wetlands. Proper management and restoration of this valuable resource is impossible without adequate 
110 

and consistent Federal funding. We request sustained wetland monitoring and 

protection program funding. 

Indian Health Service. We fully support the President’s proposed increase in funding for IHS and appreciate the commitment that the administration and Congress 

have made to address the funding needs for healthcare in Indian Country. The 

President’s proposed increase is essential to address the high rates of medical inflation and the substantial unmet need for healthcare among Indian people. Indians 

at Fond du Lac, like Indians throughout the Nation, continue to face disproportionately higher rates of diabetes and its associated complications, than the rest of the 

population. Heart disease, cancer, obesity, chemical dependency and mental health 

problems are also prevalent among our people. All Indian tribes should receive 100 

percent of the Level of Need Formula, which is absolutely critical for tribes to address the serious and persistent health issues that confront our communities. The 

Band serves over 7,000 Indian people at our clinics, but the current funding level 

meets only 42 percent of our healthcare funding needs. 

As the epidemic of prescription drug abuse grows across the country, the IHS 

needs resources to expand its treatment and community education capacity. We are 

especially disappointed with the Pharma-driven position SAMHSA has followed for 

the past several years regarding Methadone Assisted Therapy (MAT). Many poorly 

administered MAT programs are pouring unprecedented amounts of cheap, liquid 

Methadone into Indian communities with very destructive results. In 2012, nearly 

40 percent of the babies delivered by Fond du Lac Nurse-midwives were born to 

Methadone dependent mothers. Although those numbers improved in 2013, nearly 

35 percent of all pregnant women seen by Fond du Lac primary care providers use 

illicit drugs, mainly opiates. Research shows that methadone users are cognitively 

impaired, and more recent research has shown that children born to methadone 

users are more likely to have low birth weight, neural tube defects, spina bifida, 

congenital heart defects and gastroschisis. In Minnesota, Indian moms on Medical 

Assistance are 8.7 times more likely than non-Indian moms to give birth to an infant suffering with NAS. Meanwhile, thousands of American Indians are falling victim to the chemical slavery now sponsored by SAMHSA. Additional funding for the 

Methamphetamine, Suicide Prevention Initiative should be made available to tribes 

and the IHS so that this ‘‘new sickness’’ can be addressed. Best practices in pharmacy inventory and prescription monitoring need to be modeled and replicated 

throughout Indian Country. The need is compounded by the fact that more government agencies expect local units of government, including tribes, to address these 

problems and the increasing number of individuals who become homeless as a result 

of them, through the operation of supportive housing. But Fond du Lac’s ability to 

establish new program initiatives, like supportive housing, depends on assistance 

from the Federal Government. We urge Congress to support programs that would 

fund supportive housing for tribes in every area of the country. Miigwech. Thank 

you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FOREST CLIMATE WORKING GROUP

Adelante Consulting • American Forest Foundation • American Forests 

Binational Softwood Lumber Council • Hardwood Federation 

L&C Carbon • National Alliance of Forest Owners 

National Association of University Forest Resources Programs 

Society of American Foresters • The Forest Stewards Guild 

The Trust for Public Land • Weyerhaeuser 

Rationale: Forests and forest products currently sequester and store 13 percent of 

annual U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The trend, for now, is up—U.S. EPA reports 

that land-based sequestration has increased 13.5 percent in the past decade. It is 

important to maintain this important resource by addressing rising threats to forest 

health and slowing forest conversion to non-forest uses. Through implementation of 

USDA’s Building Blocks for Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry, we can take 

steps to protect and increase this carbon benefit, and accelerate the ability of U.S. 

forests to provide a sustained level of climate mitigation service to the Nation. Many 

of these same investments are leveraged to strengthen the resiliency of the Nation’s 

forests and thus protect additional public services beyond carbon such as watersheds, wildlife habitat, recreational resources and economic prosperity for rural and 

urban communities. 
111 

FISCAL YEAR 2017 BUDGET ITEMS

The FCWG recommended funding levels below focus on program needs to implement USDA’s Building Blocks for Climate-Smart Agriculture and Forestry. The actions outlined in the forest-related building blocks are major positive steps in conserving and enhancing climate resilience and carbon sequestration and storage on 

public and private lands. Below are FCWG’s recommendations and the linkage to 

the USDA Building Blocks. 

Fix How Wildfire Fighting is funded in Federal Budget: Currently, wildfires are 

budgeted within the USFS and Department of the Interior through regular appropriations. This has created two issues for the USFS and DOI budgets. First, in this 

limited budget environment, non-fire spending has decreased, as the annual appropriated levels for wildfire fighting has increased. Secondly, when wildfire fighting 

funds run out, non-fire and fire prevention program budgets are tapped to cover fire 

suppression expenditures, creating disruptions and in some case discontinuing key 

program activities. This has led to overall decreases in restoration and management 

programs that improve climate resiliency and mitigation through forests and ultimately help reduce wildfire risks. The FCWG supports revisions in budget structure 

that allow the expenses for large, extreme fires to be paid for from emergency funds, 

to reverse both the ‘‘borrowing’’ and the gradual decline of key agency programs. 

Invest in Sound Science and Data (Foundational Support for All Building Blocks) 

—USFS Forest Inventory and Analysis Program: FIA is the foundational measure 

for our forests nationwide and is essential to monitoring our progress. The fiscal 

year 2016 enacted budget included a necessary increase in funding for this program which we believe should at least be maintained, but an investment of at 

least 83 million in fiscal year 2017 is warranted. We remain concerned about 

the low level of funding for the program relative to established needs for the 

information it provides and the negative impact of constrained budgets on data 

gathering, geographic scope, and sampling return interval and national consistency that is vital for evaluating forest carbon and resilience problems and potentials. This additional Federal investment should be accompanied with language calling for improvements in this program efficiencies to justify additional 

investment in 2017 and in future fiscal years to enable further program impact 

and ensure that FIA fully delivers on the congressional mandate set in previous 

Farm Bills and the needs for forest owners, managers, and communities. Additional support for the FIA program is needed to ensure that we have improved 

data regarding carbon sequestration rates and storage and the impact of disturbance in forests to support growing data and analysis needs for climate mitigation, forest protection, and bioenergy. 

—The McIntire-Stennis (M–S) Cooperative Forestry Research Program: This program has continued to provide fundamental support for creating and strengthening forestry research and graduate training efforts at colleges and universities across the Nation for more than 50 years. M–S funding has helped 

produce thousands of forest scientists and other research professionals. Its support has provided national capacity for both basic understanding and applied 

solutions to the emerging problems of forests and related rangelands. In the 

face of declining State and Federal budgets for forestry research, M–S program 

support plays a critical role in sustaining and advancing new knowledge and 

solutions, and producing the next generation of forestry professionals. We recommend at least $35.5 million investment into the M–S program. 

—USDA Climate Hubs and Related Investments in Applied Climate Science: The 

USDA Climate Hubs have now been running for close to 3 years and have demonstrated the capacity to provide useful science-based guidance for private landowners and other land managers. The Hubs assure that investments in science 

are returned to the taxpayer in the form of usable knowledge and tools that millions of forest landowners and managers can apply to climate adaptation and 

mitigation problems. Continued investment in these Hubs, integrated into various program funding, to assist both public and private land managers is critical 

to cross-boundary success. 

—The Renewable Resources Extension Act (RREA): This was enacted in 1978, with 

a mandate to provide for an expanded and comprehensive extension program 

for forest and rangeland renewable resources. This is the only USDA program 

focused specifically on forest and rangeland Extension programs across the full 

spectrum of landscapes and represents an important part of USDA’s commitment to forest and rangeland owners and managers. Activities under this program are a critical component to achieving long-term conservation and resource 

protection. The RREA, through its systematic, objective, and research-based ini-
112 

tiatives at colleges and universities across the Nation are helping participants 

understand and undertake appropriate management alternatives relating to 

Biomass for Energy, Climate Variability, Ecosystem Services, Fish and Wildlife 

Resources, Food Production, Safety and Security, Intergenerational Land and 

Other Land Ownership Changes, Invasive Species, Urbanization, and Water 

and Wetlands. We recommend at least $4.06 million investment into RREA program. 

Promote the Use of Forest Products—Utilization in Building Construction (USDA 

Building Block: Promotion of Wood Products and Energy Generation and Efficiency) 

USFS Forest Products Laboratory 

—Woodworks: We recommend at least $2 million investment through the USFS, 

or other funding source, into the initiative Woodworks, which promotes wood 

use in building construction through technology transfer, especially in non-residential buildings. This program has demonstrated the potential to create an 

18M metric ton carbon benefit by 2018—a good investment at $.28 per metric 

ton of carbon sequestered. 

—Life Cycle Assessment Research on Wood Products: We recommend a $1 million 

investment in LCA Research through USFS FPL to ensure the most updated 

information about the environmental impact of wood products, with a particular 

focus on climate related information and the role of wood in sustainable forest 

management systems. 

Enhance Resources for Private Forest Owners—Reforestation, Afforestation, and Restoration 

—USFS Forest Stewardship Program: The Forest Stewardship Program helps 

landowners plan sustainable management, including carbon friendly and climate-smart practices, and to implement reforestation. We recommend an appropriation of at least $29 million to advance carbon mitigation through this program, including funds to support tree-planting assistance on private lands. 

(USDA Building Block: Private Forest Growth and Retention) 

—USFS Landscape Scale Restoration: We recommend $23.5 million this program, 

to stimulate cross boundary, landscape scale work that will measurably improve 

climate mitigation and resilience in our forests. We feel that the landscape restoration approach taken by the Forest Service effectively leverages public investments and creates scale and efficiency that allows climate and carbon public 

and private benefits to be both cost-effective and sustainable. Climate-induced 

stressors like wildfires and insects and diseases, don’t stay within ownership 

boundaries and thus, a landscape approach is needed. (USDA Building Block: 

Stewardship of Federal Forests) 

—NRCS Forest Landowner Cost Share—EQIP, WHIP, CSP, CRP, WRP, HFRP: 

This suite of Farm Bill programs under NRCS are in the aggregate the largest 

source of funding for landowners to implement the stewardship and restoration 

actions needed to increase carbon sequestration. This ranges from forest stand 

improvement to restoration of carbon-rich forest types like bottomland hardwoods. We recommend maintaining funding levels currently authorized, as well 

as providing discretionary funding for HFRP. (USDA Building Block: Conservation of Sensitive Lands) 

—USFS Urban and Community Forestry Program: Urban and community forests 

are an integral part of a community’s infrastructure and they have significant 

benefits for clean water, clean air, energy conservation, and human health. 

Urban and community forests should be recognized as ‘‘green infrastructure’’ for 

the purposes of community planning and preparation for the impacts of climate 

change. We recommend an appropriation of at least $31 million to advance the 

important climate benefits associated with growing and maintaining urban and 

community forests. (USDA Building Block: Urban Forests) 

Utilize Existing Grant Programs to Retain Forests—Diverse Tools for Different Partners and Contexts 

—USFS Forest Legacy Program: We recommend $62 million for the Forest Legacy 

Program in current discretionary funding and $38 million for the Program from 

mandatory Land and Water Conservation Funds, the most flexible and widely 

applicable Federal program for permanent conservation of forestland from development. We recommend at least maintaining or strengthening funding for 

this program to capture the many opportunities for State, local, and private forest conservation in carbon-rich forest systems, including extensive working for-
113 

est conservation easements. (USDA Building Block: Private Forest Growth and 

Retention) 

—USFS Community Forest Program: The Community Forest Program is a relatively new 50/50 matching grant program that is helping local governments, 

tribes, and non-profits to acquire and manage forestland threatened with conversion. We recommend $5 million for this program, to fully tap the potential 

of these local and tribal entities to contribute carbon mitigation through forests. 

(USDA Building Block: Private Forest Growth and Retention) 

PREPARED STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE FOREST INVENTORY AND ANALYSIS

PROGRAM

Dear Chairwoman Murkowski and Ranking Tom Udall, 

The undersigned organizations are strong supporters of the Forest Inventory and 

Analysis (FIA) program funded by the USDA Forest Service (Forest Service). We 

rely on the inventory data and analysis of America’s forests provided by the program, which make up the backbone of scientific knowledge on the current state of 

the Nation’s forests. This critical information is needed to support sound policy and 

forest management decisions, both public and private, and is increasingly important 

for decisions regarding new and expanding markets. We urge the Congress to support the FIA program and request funding for the program in fiscal year 2017 of 

at least $83 million to move the program toward providing an accurate and timely 

inventory of America’s forests. We also urge the inclusion of language ensuring that 

this funding would, at minimum, maintain historic remeasurement cycles—every 7 

years in the east and every 10 years in the west—as referenced by the administration. 

The data and information collected by FIA serves as the basis for: identifying 

trends in forest ownership; measuring carbon stocks; assessing fish and wildlife 

habitat; evaluating wildfire, insect, and disease risk; predicting the spread of 

invasive species; determining capital investment in existing forest products facilities 

and selecting locations for new forest product facilities; and identifying and responding to priorities identified in State Forest Action Plans. 

The FIA program is utilized by a large set of diverse stakeholders interested in 

the state of America’s forests. These include forest resource managers at mills, land 

managers, conservation groups, university students and faculty, and State and Federal agencies, such as the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

The undersigned organizations would like to work with Congress to further explore program potential. An annual funding level of $83 million would support a 7 

year annualized program in the east, and a 10 year program in the west as recommended in the Forest Service’s 2007 FIA Strategic Plan. In 2015 the Forest Service released an updated FIA Strategic Plan, which outlines a variety of potential 

program deliverables at funding levels. While we are supportive of at least $83 million in funding for fiscal year 2017, the 2015 Strategic Plan calls for $103 million 

to implement the 5 year annualized program called for in the 1998 Farm Bill. This 

reduction in cycle length would provide more accurate data to support important 

forest resource decisions. As engaged partners, we are interested in working with 

Congress and the Forest Service to make program delivery as efficient as possible 

and to support additional Federal investment to implement many of the useful tools 

outlined in the new FIA Strategic Plan—including full urban inventory, increased 

plot density, and improved carbon and biomass estimates. 

There is a need to make FIA data more robust and more useful for emerging uses, 

such as accurate information regarding carbon stocks, forest sustainability monitoring, wildlife habitat assessments, and much more. Given the increasing pressures 

facing our forests—from wildfire, insects and disease and development—the FIA 

program is more important now than ever before. Funding the FIA program at $83 

million for fiscal year 2017 would move toward providing for our growing data 

needs. 

Sincerely, 

Alabama Forestry Association 

Allegheny Hardwood Utilization Group, 

Inc. 

American Forest & Paper Association 

American Forest Foundation 

American Forests 

American Wood Council 

Arkansas Forestry Association 

Arkansas Timber Producers Association 

Black Hills Forest Resource Association 

California Forestry Association 

Empire State Forest Products 

Association 

Environmental Defense Fund 
114 

Forest Business Network 

Forest Products Industry National Labor 

Management Committee 

Forest Landowners Association 

Forest Products Industry National Labor 

Management Committee 

Forest Resources Association 

Hardwood Federation 

Hardwood Plywood and Veneer 

Association 

Kentucky Forest Industries Association 

Louisiana Forestry Association 

Maine Forest Products Council 

Minnesota Forest Industries 

Minnesota Timber Producers Association 

Mississippi Forestry Association 

Montana Wood Products Association 

National Alliance of Forest Owners 

National Association of Conservation 

Districts 

National Association of Forest Service 

Retirees 

National Association of State 

Departments of Agriculture 

National Association of State Foresters 

National Association of University Forest 

Resources Programs 

National Wild Turkey Federation 

National Woodland Owners Association 

North Carolina Forestry Association 

Northeastern Loggers’ Association 

Northeastern Lumber Manufacturers 

Association 

Ohio Forestry Association 

Oregon Forest & Industries Council 

Oregon Women in Timber 

Pennsylvania Forest Products 

Association 

Pinchot Institute for Conservation 

Pulp and Paperworkers’ Resource 

Council 

Society for the Protection of New 

Hampshire Forests 

Society of American Foresters 

South Carolina Forestry Association 

South Carolina Timber Producers 

Association 

Sustainable Forestry Initiative 

Texas Forestry Association 

The Nature Conservancy 

Treated Wood Council 

United Steelworkers 

Virginia Forest Products Association 

Virginia Forestry Association 

Western Wood Preservers Institute 

Wisconsin Paper Council 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KATHLEEN FOWLER

Dear Senators: 

As an American citizen and taxpayer, I strongly oppose the BLM’s proposal to 

conduct dangerous sterilization experiments on wild mares at the Wild Horse Corral 

Facility in Hines. According to the Environmental Assessment (EA), the BLM is deciding whether or not to proceed with one or more of the proposed sterilization procedures. The weight of scientific evidence and public opinion clearly supports a BLM 

decision NOT to proceed with any of these sterilization procedures. 

The sterilization procedures that BLM is proposing to conduct on federally protected wild mares are dangerous, costly and impractical for use in the field, due to 

the serious health risks they pose to the horses and their unborn foals, and also 

due to the great expense of purchasing the equipment and training the number of 

veterinarians necessary to implement these procedures on the range. 

It makes no sense to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on these risky invasive 

experiments when proven, humane, and relatively inexpensive fertility control technology in the form of the PZP vaccine is readily available but vastly underutilized 

by the BLM. 

The EA is completely inadequate in analyzing the impacts of these experimental 

procedures on mares. In addition, the BLM has deliberately avoided public opposition to this controversial and grotesque research proposal by skipping the scoping 

stage of the environmental analysis process. As a result, the public has been deprived of the opportunity to provide input into the impacts of and alternatives to 

these procedures that must be analyzed under the rules of the National Environmental Policy Act. 

1. Ovariectomy via Colposcopy 

This is an outdated and archaic procedure that has been supplanted by more modern laparoscopic surgery. The EA fails to analyze the impacts of and alternatives 

to this procedure to mares and never once mentions the availability of more modern 

techniques! This proposed sterilization experiment is an intra-vaginal complex surgical procedure, which is hardly ever performed in domestic horses (never mind in 

wild ones), due to its inherently dangerous risks. 

—The blind nature of this surgery increases the risk of intra-abdominal hemorrhage, but the EA never even addresses this issue or the availability of more 

modern laparoscopic techniques that allow the surgeon to visualize the abdominal structures. 
115 

—The lack of a sterile environment subjects the mares to a high risk of infection, 

something that is ignored by the EA. 

—The procedure carries with it a significant risk of hemorrhage and evisceration 

(protrusion of the intestines through the surgical incision), which is why it requires strict follow-up care when used in domestic horses, including pain relief 

and 4-7 days of stall rest, the first 48 hours of which is spent in crossties to 

prevent the mare from lying down. It is not possible to provide this required 

post-operative care to wild mares, yet the EA minimizes the impacts of this fact, 

citing the opinion of an un-named veterinarian, instead of the published science 

and National Research Council review, which clearly indicate the risks and impacts of this outdated procedure on wild mares. 

—The procedure will cause mares in early stages of pregnancy to abort their 

fetuses and may cause loss of pregnancy for mares in the mid-stage of pregnancy as well. This is unacceptable. 

This pursuit of ovariectomy research is directly counter to the recommendations 

of the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council (NRC) in its 2013 

report, ‘‘Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way 

Forward.’’ That NRC report concluded that: ‘‘The possibility that ovariectomy may 

be followed by prolonged bleeding or peritoneal infection makes it inadvisable for 

field application.’’ 

2. Minimally Invasive Sterilization Techniques 

The other sterilization procedures that BLM proposes to research, while less 

invasive than ovariectomy, should also be abandoned due to the inability to provide 

post-operative care and the impracticality of implementing these procedures—which 

have never before been done in wild or domestic horses—on a broad scale in a field 

setting. The EA fails to analyze the impacts of precedent-setting procedures that 

have never before been performed in horses, and as well as the inability to provide 

required post-operative care. The EA also omits analysis of the economic impacts 

and practicalities of implementing these procedures on the range. 

In proceeding with these experiments, the BLM has ignored the NRC recommendation that these techniques should first be perfected in domestic mares, who 

can be easily handled and will be accessible for close monitoring and post-operative 

care, before attempting them in wild horses. 

It is unconscionable that the BLM is proceeding with these draconian experiments 

that endanger the lives of the un-consenting equine subjects and their unborn foals, 

particularly when a proven non-invasive and safe fertility control method exists in 

the readily available PZP birth control vaccine. Instead of wasting millions of tax 

dollars to fund experiments on inhumane and impractical sterilization experiments, 

the agency should instead focus resources on vaccinating sufficient numbers of 

mares with the PZP fertility control vaccine, which is documented through 30 years 

of experience and published science, to be safe, effective, cost-effective and successful in managing wild horse populations. 

Again, as a taxpayer and wild horse lover, I am outraged that the BLM is even 

considering pursuing such inhumane, barbaric and wasteful experimentation on 

wild horses and I find the BLM’s Environmental Analysis of its impacts to be woefully inadequate. As a result, I strongly urge the BLM to abandon these proposed 

experiments in favor of using proven, more cost-effective and humane fertility control methods. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FRIENDS OF PATUXENT RESEARCH REFUGE AND

PATUXENT WILDLIFE RESEARCH CENTER, INC. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: 

On behalf of the Friends of Patuxent Research Refuge and Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Inc., I would like to present testimony in support of the fiscal year 

2017 budget requests for the Patuxent Research Refuge (USFWS) and the fiscal 

year 2018 capital budget request for the Patuxent Widlife Research Center (USGS) 

in Laurel, Maryland. In broad terms, the Friends of Patuxent supports a full appropriation of $506.6 million for the National Wildlife Refuge System operation and 

maintenance; permanent reauthorization and full funding for the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund at $900 million per year; and specifically for capital budget requests for the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center of $23 million for a replacement 

general science lab and $12 million for a wildlife physiology lab. 

Many of you may have visited this unique National Wildlife Refuge and Research 

Center, the only facility of its kind, since it is so close to our Nation’s Capital. 

Founded in 1936, Patuxent is the premier wildlife research center in the world, and 
116 

the 12,000∂ acres of the research refuge, along with the National Wildlife Visitor 

Center, comprise one of the largest urban wildlife refuges in the Nation. 

While this flagship refuge and research center is justly the pride of USFWS and 

USGS for its unique mission, the refuge and center have suffered from years of cutback budgets and staff shortages. These intentional cuts and lack of ability to make 

up for losses from inflation have seriously impacted the mission of each of these facilities. 

For example, at Patuxent Research Refuge, full time staff positions have been left 

vacant for inordinate amounts of time; 2 and 3 years in some cases simply because 

there is insufficient funding to fill them. The National Wildlife Visitor Center is now 

closed 1 day per week because there is insufficient staff and operational funding to 

remain open 7 days per week. 

Many program requests such as school visits, youth groups, and training workshops turned down because of lack of staff or the closed visitor center. This is not 

the staff’s fault, but it is not acceptable for a national urban wildlife refuge of this 

caliber. 

At Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, a facility of USGS, there is comparable 

need for staff and operational funding, but in addition, there is exceptional need for 

capital funding to replace a general science lab, the Stickell Lab, that was demolished in recent years due to deterioration and unsafe conditions. In addition, a new 

wildlife physiology lab for $12 million is needed to perform vital work in genetics 

analysis, indoor holding of wildlife species under study, and other needs. 

The staff of research scientists and biologists is down 60 percent. Four scientists 

are retiring this year; they are replacing only one position. Overall the omplement 

of research scientists who are performing vital work on environmental contaminants, wildlife research, and endangered species is down from a high of 54 positions 

to the present 32. 

The Friends of Patuxent have supported the volunteer program at Patuxent in 

both the educational and programmatic functions of Patuxent Research Refuge and 

the scientific and management functions of Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. It 

is a sad state of affairs when the lack of staff causes the volunteer program to be 

diminished because there is not enough staff to coordinate and supervise the outstanding volunteers who are willing to give of their time and talent in support of 

the mission of these facilities. 

We urge you to support these reasonable budget requests for both the wildlife refuge and the wildlife research center. You will be making investments in work that 

is extremely important to the Nation. We thank you for the opportunity to present 

this testimony. 

[This statement was submitted by Jeanne Latham, President.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE FRIENDS OF RACHEL CARSON NATIONAL WILDLIFE

REFUGE

Ms. Chairman and honorable members of the subcommittee: I am Bill Durkin, 

President of The Friends of Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge in Biddeford, 

Maine. 

First off, a Happy Earth Day in a few days; it has been 46 years since the first 

Earth Day and it is truly amazing how far we have all come in protecting the environment. As you all know, after that first Earth Day, the EPA was created and Congress passed the Clean Air, Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts. At the time 

it was a gamble and we are all thankful that it worked and we continue to work 

at protecting our air, water and habitats (human and wildlife). I have been a member of the Friends of Rachel Carson NWR for the past 27 years. The group was 

founded in 1987; we are a small group supporting the refuge in southern Maine. 

I have given numerous written statements over the years and we really appreciate 

your support in the past. This year, our refuge is not requesting any appropriations 

directly for Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge; this is a request for general 

funding of the National Wildlife Refuge System of $506.6 million. This year we ask 

to appropriate $50 million in the National Wildlife Refuge Fund. I also urge the subcommittee to fund the Land, Water and Conservation Fund at full funding at $900 

million with a $137.6 million of that request for the National Wildlife Refuge Systems purchase of easements and in holdings. I thank you all for your consideration. 

The Rachel Carson National Wildlife Refuge is named in honor of one of the Nation’s foremost and forward-thinking biologists. After arriving in Maine in 1946 as 

an aquatic biologist for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Rachel Carson became 

entranced with Maine’s coastal habitat, leading her to write the international bestseller The Sea Around Us. This landmark study, in combination with her other 
117 

writings, The Edge of the Sea and Silent Spring, led Rachel Carson to become an 

advocate on behalf of this Nation’s vast coastal habitat and the wildlife that depends 

on it. With the recent 50th anniversary of the publication of Silent Spring, her legacy lives on today at the refuge that bears her name and is dedicated to the permanent protection of the salt marshes and estuaries of the southern Maine coast. The 

refuge was established in 1966 to preserve migratory bird habitat and waterfowl migration along southern Maine’s coastal estuaries. It consists of 11 refuge divisions 

in 12 municipalities protecting approximately 5,600 acres within a 14,800 acre acquisition zone. 

Consisting of meandering tidal creeks, coastal upland, sandy dunes, salt ponds, 

marsh, and productive wetlands, the Rachel Carson NWR provides critical nesting 

and feeding habitat for the threatened piping plover and a variety of migratory waterfowl, and serves as a nursery for many shellfish and finfish. Located along the 

Atlantic flyway, the refuge serves as an important stopover point for migratory 

birds. Previous years’ appropriations have allowed the USFWS to conserve several 

properties within the refuge. In fiscal year 2010 we purchased a 98 acre tract at 

Timber Point with a $3 million LWCF appropriation. This purchases provide an important buffer between the intense development pressure along the southern Maine 

coast and its fragile coastal estuaries—development pressures continue to spiral upwards and additional coastal properties are under threat. We built a National Recreational Trail (NRT) for public use and have completed an Environmental Assessment for future use of the property. Protecting Timber Point was a priority for the 

refuge for decades, and we thank you. The process does work and I support all Refuges requests for fiscal year 2017. You can make it happen. 

1. We are requesting an overall funding level of $506.6 million in fiscal year 2017 

for the Operations and Maintenance Budget of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. All of the refuges are 

in dire need of staffing and upkeep. The National Wildlife Refuge System is 

responsible for 568 million acres of lands and waters, but currently receives 

less than a $1. per acre for management costs. The refuges cannot fulfill its 

obligation to the American public, our wildlife and 47 million annual visitors 

without adequate funding. Refuges provide unparalleled opportunities to hunt, 

fish, watch wildlife and educate children about the environment. An investment in the Nation’s Refuge System is an excellent investment in the American economy, generating $2.4 billion and creating about 35,000 jobs in local 

economies. Without increased funding for refuges, wildlife conservation and 

public recreation opportunities will be jeopardized. We fully supported the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife’s request of $506.6 million for Operation and Management 

for the National Wildlife Refuge System. 2. Appropriate $50 million in the National Wildlife Refuge Fund in fiscal year 

2017 which offsets losses in local government tax revenue because lands owned 

by the Refuge System are exempt from taxation. The Refuge Fund is an annual 

appropriation that supplements the Refuge Revenue Sharing Program. The 

Revenue Sharing Program offsets lost local tax revenue by providing payments 

to local governments from net income derived from permits and wildlife refuge 

activities. 

3. We request $137.6 million in LWCF funding for Refuge land acquisitions/conservation easements and we call for full funding of LWCF at $900 million. The 

Land and Water Conservation Fund is our Nation’s premier Federal program 

to acquire and protect lands at national parks, forests, refuges, and public 

lands and at State parks, trails, and recreational facilities. These sites across 

the country provide the public with substantial social and economic benefits including promoting healthier lifestyles through active recreation, protecting 

drinking water and watersheds, improving wildfire management, and assisting 

the adaptation of wildlife and fisheries to climate change. The quality of place 

is greatly enhanced. As you know, LWCF uses no tax payer dollars. Created 

by Congress in 1964 and authorized at $900 million per year (more than $3 

billion in today’s dollars), the LWCF is our most important land and easement 

acquisition tool. In the President’s budget, he has included full funding for 

LWCF programs at the $900 million level, and I support the administration’s 

commitment to fully funding the program. This wise investment in the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund is one that will permanently pay dividends to 

the American people and to our great natural and historical heritage. The Refuge System needs $137 million in LWCF for fiscal year 2017. 

The Land, Water and Conservation Fund has provided incredible benefit to the 

State of Maine. We have six National Wildlife Refuges and our only National Park, 

Acadia, attracts a huge amount of tourist each year and offers great recreational 
118 

activities to the local citizens of the State. LWCF and the Forest Legacy program 

have conserved tens of thousands of acres in our interior forestlands and ensures 

that forestry and recreational access for all will be a huge part of our economy for 

generations to come. As a Mainer, I also wanted to highlight the importance of 

LWCF funding to other parts of the State beyond Rachel Carson NWR. We have 

a Crown Jewel of the national park system at Acadia National Park, which will celebrate its centennial this year. and has continuing LWCF acquisition needs. And we 

have incredibly valuable private forests whose permanent protection through Forest 

Legacy Program funding means that our tourist and timber industries—our two 

largest—can thrive together. I have traveled all over the huge State of Maine, visiting all of the National Wildlife Refuges, Acadia NP and State public lands where 

I enjoyed cross country skiing, hiking, mountain biking, spending nights at quaint 

lodges and dining at small restaurants: all adding to the local Maine economy. So, 

LWCF funding for conservation in Maine is critical to the rural economy and National Wildlife Refuges. And it is matched by other funding, and enjoys broad support from forest landowners, snowmobilers hikers and birdwatchers alike. I cannot 

emphasize enough how important LWCF funding is to Maine and the remaining 49 

United States. 

I again extend our appreciation to the subcommittee for its ongoing commitment 

to our National Wildlife Refuge System and respectfully request the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee allocate $506.6 million 

for the Refuge System’s fiscal year 2017 Operations & Maintenance Budget, $50 

million in the National Wildlife Refuge Fund and $137.6 million in Refuge LWCF 

monies. We need Congress to standby their commitment that was made in 1964 : 

stabilize the LWCF at $900 million. 

Thank you again, Ms. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony in 

support of protecting wildlife and it’s habitat. Enjoy your next walk out on a National Wildlife Refuge. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA

SUMMARY

The Geological Society of America (GSA) urges Congress to support the fiscal year 2017 request of $1.2 billion for the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). As one of our 

Nation’s key science agencies, the USGS plays a vital role in understanding and 

documenting mineral and energy resources that underpin economic growth; researching and monitoring potential natural hazards that threaten U.S. and international security; and determining and assessing water quality and availability. Approximately two thirds of the USGS budget is allocated for research and development. In addition to underpinning the science activities and decisions of the Department of the Interior, this research is used by communities across the Nation to 

make informed decisions in land use planning, emergency response, natural resource management, engineering, and education. Despite the critical role played by 

the USGS, funding for the agency has stagnated in real dollars for more than a decade. The requested level would permit the USGS to add to its capability in these 

important areas. Given the importance of the many activities of the Survey that protect lives and property, stimulate innovations that fuel the economy, provide national security, and enhance the quality of life, GSA believes that growth in Federal 

funding for the Survey is necessary for the future of our Nation. 

The Geological Society of America, founded in 1888, is a scientific society with 

over 26,000 members from academia, government, and industry in all 50 States and 

more than 100 countries. Through its meetings, publications, and programs, GSA 

enhances the professional growth of its members and promotes the geosciences in 

the service of humankind. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY CONTRIBUTIONS TO NATIONAL SECURITY, HEALTH, AND

WELFARE

The USGS is one of the Nation’s premier science agencies. Approximately two 

thirds of the USGS budget is allocated for research and development. In addition 

to underpinning the science activities and decisions of the Department of the Interior, this research is used by communities across the Nation to make informed decisions in land use planning, emergency response, natural resource management, engineering, and education. USGS research addresses many of society’s greatest challenges for national security, health, and welfare. Several are highlighted below. 

—Natural hazards—including earthquakes, tsunamis, volcanic eruptions, 

wildfires, and landslides—are a major cause of fatalities and economic losses. 
119 

Recent natural disasters provide unmistakable evidence that the United States 

remains vulnerable to staggering losses. Landslides, which occur in every State, 

cause more than $3 billion in damage each year. An improved scientific understanding of geologic hazards will reduce future losses through better forecasts 

of their occurrence, which allows for effective planning and mitigation. 

Decision makers in many sectors rely upon USGS data. For example, USGS 

volcano monitoring provides key data to enable decisions on airline safety and 

data from the USGS network of stream gages is used by the National Weather 

Service to issue flood and drought warnings. GSA urges Congress to support efforts for USGS to modernize and upgrade its natural hazards monitoring and 

warning systems to protect communities from the devastating personal and economic effects of natural disasters, including additional 3–D elevation mapping 

and earthquake early warning systems. 

—A 2013 report by the National Research Council, Emerging Workforce Trends 

in the Energy and Mining Industries: A Call to Action, found, ‘‘Energy and mineral resources are essential for the Nation’s fundamental functions, its economy, 

and its security.’’ Recent studies have shown that rare earth elements are essential to the production, sustainment, and operation of U.S. military equipment. Reliable access to the necessary material is a bedrock requirement for the 

Department of Defense. In addition, many emerging energy technologies—such 

as wind turbines and solar cells—depend upon rare earth elements and critical 

minerals that currently lack diversified sources of supply. We support the proposed increases in minerals science, research, information, data collection and 

analysis that will allow for more economic and environmental management and 

utilization of minerals. In addition, GSA supports increases in research to better 

understand domestic sources of energy, including conventional and unconventional oil and gas and renewables. 

—The ongoing drought in the western United States is a testament to our dependence on water. The availability and quality of surface water and groundwater 

are vital to the wellbeing of both societies and ecosystems. Greater scientific understanding of these resources through monitoring and research by the USGS 

is necessary to ensure adequate and safe water resources for the health and 

welfare of society. 

—USGS research on climate impacts is used by the Department of the Interior 

and local policymakers and resource managers to make sound decisions based 

on the best possible science. The Climate Science Centers, for example, provide 

scientific information necessary to anticipate, monitor, and adapt to climate 

change’s effects at regional and local levels, allowing communities to make 

smart, cost-effective decisions. 

—The Landsat satellites have amassed the largest archive of remotely sensed 

land data in the world, a tremendously important resource for natural resource 

exploration, land use planning, and assessing water resources, the impacts of 

natural disasters, and global agriculture production. GSA supports interagency 

efforts to plan a path forward for future support of Landsat. 

All of these activities are supported by the Core System Sciences, Facilities, and 

Science Support arenas. These programs and services, such as geologic mapping and 

data preservation, provide critical information, data, and infrastructure that underpin the research that will stimulate innovations that fuel the economy, provide security, and enhance the quality of life. Increases are particularly needed in Facilities 

to address many deferred maintenance programs. 

Knowledge of the earth sciences is essential to science literacy and to meeting the 

environmental and resource challenges of the twenty-first century. It is also fundamental to training the next generation of Earth science professionals. We are very 

concerned that cuts in Earth science funding will cause students and young professionals to leave the field, potentially leading to a lost generation of professionals in 

areas that are already facing worker shortages. Investments in these areas could 

lead to job growth, as demand for these professionals now and in the future is assessed to be high. 

A 2013 report by the National Research Council, Emerging Workforce Trends in 

the Energy and Mining Industries: A Call to Action, found, ‘‘In mining (nonfuel and 

coal) a personnel crisis for professionals and workers is pending and it already exists for faculty.’’ Another recent study, Status of the Geoscience Workforce Report 

2014, found an expected deficit of approximately 135,000 geoscientists by 2022. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony about the U.S. Geological Survey. For additional information or to learn more about the Geological Society of 

America—including GSA Position Statements on water resources, mineral and en-
120 

ergy resources, natural hazards, and public investment in Earth science research— 

please visit www.geosociety.org or contact Kasey White at kwhite@geosociety.org. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HELEN GOLDING

Dear Senators: 

As an American citizen and taxpayer, I strongly oppose the BLM’s proposal to 

conduct dangerous sterilization experiments on wild mares at the Wild Horse Corral 

Facility in Hines. According to the Environmental Assessment (EA), the BLM is deciding whether or not to proceed with one or more of the proposed sterilization procedures. The weight of scientific evidence and public opinion clearly supports a BLM 

decision NOT to proceed with any of these sterilization procedures. 

The sterilization procedures that BLM is proposing to conduct on federally protected wild mares are dangerous, costly and impractical for use in the field, due to 

the serious health risks they pose to the horses and their unborn foals, and also 

due to the great expense of purchasing the equipment and training the number of 

veterinarians necessary to implement these procedures on the range. 

It makes no sense to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on these risky invasive 

experiments when proven, humane, and relatively inexpensive fertility control technology in the form of the PZP vaccine is readily available but vastly underutilized 

by the BLM. 

The EA is completely inadequate in analyzing the impacts of these experimental 

procedures on mares. In addition, the BLM has deliberately avoided public opposition to this controversial and grotesque research proposal by skipping the scoping 

stage of the environmental analysis process. As a result, the public has been deprived of the opportunity to provide input into the impacts of and alternatives to 

these procedures that must be analyzed under the rules of the National Environmental Policy Act. 

1. Ovariectomy via Colposcopy 

This is an outdated and archaic procedure that has been supplanted by more modern laparoscopic surgery. The EA fails to analyze the impacts of and alternatives 

to this procedure to mares and never once mentions the availability of more modern 

techniques! This proposed sterilization experiment is an intra-vaginal complex surgical procedure, which is hardly ever performed in domestic horses (never mind in 

wild ones), due to its inherently dangerous risks. 

—The blind nature of this surgery increases the risk of intra-abdominal hemorrhage, but the EA never even addresses this issue or the availability of more 

modern laparoscopic techniques that allow the surgeon to visualize the abdominal structures. 

—The lack of a sterile environment subjects the mares to a high risk of infection, 

something that is ignored by the EA. 

—The procedure carries with it a significant risk of hemorrhage and evisceration 

(protrusion of the intestines through the surgical incision), which is why it requires strict follow-up care when used in domestic horses, including pain relief 

and 4–7 days of stall rest, the first 48 hours of which is spent in crossties to 

prevent the mare from lying down. It is not possible to provide this required 

post-operative care to wild mares, yet the EA minimizes the impacts of this fact, 

citing the opinion of an un-named veterinarian, instead of the published science 

and National Research Council review, which clearly indicate the risks and impacts of this outdated procedure on wild mares. 

—The procedure will cause mares in early stages of pregnancy to abort their 

fetuses and may cause loss of pregnancy for mares in the mid-stage of pregnancy as well. This is unacceptable. 

This pursuit of ovariectomy research is directly counter to the recommendations 

of the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council (NRC) in its 2013 

report, ‘‘Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way 

Forward.’’ That NRC report concluded that: ‘‘The possibility that ovariectomy may 

be followed by prolonged bleeding or peritoneal infection makes it inadvisable for 

field application.’’ 

2. Minimally Invasive Sterilization Techniques 

The other sterilization procedures that BLM proposes to research, while less 

invasive than ovariectomy, should also be abandoned due to the inability to provide 

post-operative care and the impracticality of implementing these procedures—which 

have never before been done in wild or domestic horses-on a broad scale in a field 

setting. The EA fails to analyze the impacts of precedent-setting procedures that 
121 

1Specifically, the Treaty of 1836, 7 Stat. 491, Treaty of 1837, 7 Stat. 536, Treaty of 1842, 7 

Stat. 591, and Treaty of 1854, 10 Stat. 1109. The rights guaranteed by these treaties have been 

affirmed by various court decisions, including a 1999 U.S. Supreme Court case. 

have never before been performed in horses, and as well as the inability to provide 

required post-operative care. The EA also omits analysis of the economic impacts 

and practicalities of implementing these procedures on the range. 

In proceeding with these experiments, the BLM has ignored the NRC recommendation that these techniques should first be perfected in domestic mares, who 

can be easily handled and will be accessible for close monitoring and post-operative 

care, before attempting them in wild horses. 

It is unconscionable that the BLM is proceeding with these draconian experiments 

that endanger the lives of the un-consenting equine subjects and their unborn foals, 

particularly when a proven non-invasive and safe fertility control method exists in 

the readily available PZP birth control vaccine. Instead of wasting millions of tax 

dollars to fund experiments on inhumane and impractical sterilization experiments, 

the agency should instead focus resources on vaccinating sufficient numbers of 

mares with the PZP fertility control vaccine, which is documented through 30 years 

of experience and published science, to be safe, effective, cost-effective and successful in managing wild horse populations. 

Again, as a taxpayer and wild horse lover, I am outraged that the BLM is even 

considering pursuing such inhumane, barbaric and wasteful experimentation on 

wild horses and I find the BLM’s Environmental Analysis of its impacts to be woefully inadequate. As a result, I strongly urge the BLM to abandon these proposed 

experiments in favor of using proven, more cost-effective and humane fertility control methods. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GREAT LAKES INDIAN FISH AND WILDLIFE

COMMISSION

1. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Operation of Indian Programs 

a. Trust-Natural Resources Management, Rights Protection Implementation 

(RPI).—At least the administration’s proposed $40,161,000 and a proportionate share for Great Lakes Area Resource Management (the overall need 

for which is at least $11,454,603). 

b. Trust-Natural Resources Management, Tribal Management/Development Program (TM/DP): At least the administration’s proposed $14,266,000 and the 

TM/DP requests of GLIFWC’s member tribes. 

c. Trust-Natural Resources Management, Tribal Climate Resilience: At least the 

administration’s proposed $13,056,000. 

d. Trust-Natural Resources Management, Invasive Species: At least the administration’s proposed $6,770,000. 

e. Tribal Government, Contract Support: At least the administration’s proposed 

$278,000,000. 

Funding Authorizations: Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. s. 13; Indian Self-Determination 

and Education Assistance Act, (Public Law 93–638), 25 U.S.C. ss. 450f and 450h; 

and the treaties between the United States and GLIFWC’s member Ojibwe Tribes.1

2. Environmental Protection Agency 

a. Environmental Programs and Management, Geographic Programs, Great 

Lakes Restoration: The historical allocation of $300,000,000 out of which there 

is an overall tribal need of at least $25,000,000. GLIFWC’s Need: $1,200,000. 

b. State and Tribal Assistance Grants, Categorical Grants, Tribal General Assistance Program: At least the Administration’s proposed $96,375,000. 

Funding Authorizations: Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. s. 1268(c); and treaties cited 

above. 

GLIFWC’S FISCAL YEAR 2016 FUNDING REQUEST HIGHLIGHTS

1. GLIFWC would be pleased to accept an allocation of appropriated RPI funding 

that is in the same proportion as it has currently been receiving, while rejecting the notion that the RPI line item is open for a competitive process. 

2. A total tribal set-aside of $25,000,000 and GLIFWC’s request of $1,200,000 

under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. 

3. Full funding for contract support costs, as required by the ISDEA Act. 
122 

2GLIFWC’s programs do not duplicate those of the Chippewa-Ottawa Resource Authority or 

the 1854 Treaty Authority. GLIFWC also coordinates with its member tribes with respect to 

tribal treaty fishing that extends beyond reservation boundaries by virtue of the Treaty of 1854 

and the reservations’ locations on Lake Superior. 

4. Sufficient funding in the Tribal Management and Development line item for 

GLIFWC’s member tribes to fulfill their needs for reservation-based natural resource programs. 

GLIFWC’S GOAL—A SECURE FUNDING BASE TO FULFILL TREATY PURPOSES

For more than 30 years, Congress has funded GLIFWC to implement comprehensive conservation, natural resource protection, and law enforcement programs that: 

(1) ensure member tribes are able to implement their treaty reserved rights to hunt, 

fish, and gather throughout the ceded territories; (2) ensure a healthy and sustainable natural resource base to support those rights; and (3) promote healthy, safe 

communities. These programs also provide a wide range of public benefits, and facilitate participation in management partnerships in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota. 

GLIFWC’S PROGRAMS—PROMOTING HEALTHY COMMUNITIES AND EDUCATING TRIBAL

MEMBERS THROUGH TREATY RIGHTS EXERCISE

Established in 1984, GLIFWC is a natural resources management agency of 11 

member Ojibwe Tribes with resource management responsibilities over their ceded 

territory (off-reservation) hunting, fishing and gathering treaty rights. These ceded 

territories extend over a 60,000 square mile area in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 

Michigan.2 GLIFWC employs 83 full-time staff, including natural resource scientists, technicians, conservation enforcement officers, policy specialists, and public 

information specialists. 

GLIFWC strives to implement its programs in a holistic, integrated manner that 

is consistent with the culture and values of its member tribes, especially in light 

of tribal lifeways that the exercise of treaty rights supports. This means not only 

ensuring that tribal members can legally exercise their rights, but supporting community efforts to educate them about the benefits (physical, spiritual, and cultural) 

of harvesting and consuming a more traditional diet, as well as promoting 

intergenerational learning and the transmission of traditional cultural and management practices. These programs, in turn, promote healthy communities by encouraging healthy lifestyles, intergenerational connections, and cultural education. 

GLIFWC and its member tribes thank Congress, and particularly this subcommittee, for its continuing support of these treaty obligations and its recognition 

of the ongoing success of these programs. There are two main elements of this fiscal 

year 2016 funding request: 

1. BIA Great Lakes Area Management (Within the RPI Line Item): A proportionate share of the $40,161,000 proposed by the administration for the RPI line 

item, including the proposed $2,500,000 increase. The administration’s proposed increase for climate change in RPI for fiscal year 2017 is greatly appreciated, but competition for funding has no place in this line item. RPI provides funding for tribes 

and tribal commissions to meet Federal court litigated responsibilities. Fulfilling 

these obligations cannot be the focus of a competitive process. GLIFWC has always 
123 

saupported allocating increases to the RPI line item in the historically proportionate 

amounts. 

GLIFWC has testified about the fact that the need is consistently greater than 

RPI funding, and the impacts that underfunding has on treaty rights programs. RPI 

climate change funding has allowed GLIFWC to undertake a new climate change 

program to better understand the physical, chemical and biological changes occurring in ceded territory ecosystems, develop and implement adaptive management 

strategies to address those changes, and provide technical assistance to GLIFWC 

member tribes. This program is in its infancy, and continued support would allow 

it to further develop and integrate into GLIFWC overall programs. 

Tribes can only protect the resources that support their rights if they undertake 

relevant scientific and technical analyses that inform the design and implementation of adaptive natural resource management activities. To this end, maximum 

flexibility should be provided to GLIFWC and its tribes to define for themselves the 

science and research activities best suited to the needs of their member tribes and 

the particular issues within their region. GLIFWC would gladly accept funds in proportion to overall RPI funding, as provided in fiscal year 2016. 

2. EPA Environmental Programs and Management: $300,000,000. GLIFWC: 

$1,200,000. GLIFWC supports continued funding for the Great Lakes Restoration 

Initiative (GLRI) as an important non-regulatory program that enhances and ensures coordinated governance in the Great Lakes, as well as substantive natural resource protection and restoration projects. GLIFWC supports funding the GLRI at 

$300 million, the level that has been provided since 2011. Effective Great Lakes programs throughout the basin require a consistent funding level of $300 million. GLIFWC also recommends that at least $25 million be provided through a distinct 

tribal program to fulfill treaty obligations, meet trust responsibilities, and achieve 

tribal self-determination and self-governance in protecting and restoring the Great 

Lakes. A separate tribal component should allow for greater flexibility to allow 

tribes to develop the programs that are of the highest priorities to their communities, rather than having priority projects designed for them by Federal agencies. Sustained funding for GLIFWC at approximately $1.2 million will enable 

GLIFWC to augment its current natural resource protection and enhancement activities. It will also allow GLIFWC to maintain its participation in interjurisdictional governance structures, including the implementation of the revised Great 

Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). With GLRI funding, GLIFWC has been 

able to provide active support on numerous implementing Annexes, including the 

Lakewide Action and Management Plan, Aquatic Invasive Species, Chemicals of 

Mutual Concern, and Science Annexes. 

GLRI funding has also allowed GLIFWC to continue to provide culturally relevant 

and targeted mercury-based consumption advice for fish. Tribal members are disproportionately impacted by the presence of mercury in fish due to their higher rate 

of consumption. Contaminated fish threaten the tribes’ ability to exercise their treaty guaranteed right to harvest fish off reservation throughout the ceded territory. 

RESULTS AND BENEFITS OF GLIFWC’S PROGRAMS

1. Maintain the Requisite Capability To Meet Legal Obligations, To Conserve Natural Resources and To Regulate Treaty Harvests: While more funding would increase 

program comprehensiveness, sustained funding at the fiscal year 2017 level supports tribal compliance with various court decrees and intergovernmental agreements that govern the tribes’ treaty-reserved hunting, fishing and gathering rights. 

Funding for science and research enhances GLIFWC’s capability to undertake work 

and participate in relevant partnerships to address ecosystem threats that harm 

treaty natural resources, including those related to climate change. 

2. Remain a Trusted Management and Law Enforcement Partner, and Scientific 

Contributor in the Great Lakes Region: GLIFWC has become a respected and integral part of management and law enforcement partnerships that conserve natural 

resources and protect public safety. It brings a tribal perspective to interjurisdictional Great Lakes management fora and would use its scientific expertise to study 

issues and geographic areas that are important to its member tribes but that others 

may not be examining. 

3. Maintain the Overall Public Benefits That Derive From Its Programs: Over the 

years, GLIFWC has become a recognized and valued partner in natural resource 

management. Because of its institutional experience and staff expertise, GLIFWC 

has built and maintained numerous partnerships that: (i) provide accurate information and data to counter social misconceptions about tribal treaty harvests and the 

status of ceded territory natural resources; (ii) maximize each partner’s financial resources and avoid duplication of effort and costs; (iii) engender cooperation rather 
124 

than competition; and (iv) undertake projects that achieve public benefits that no 

one partner could accomplish alone. 

4. Encourage and Contribute to Healthy Tribal Communities. GLIFWC works with 

its member tribes’ communities to promote the benefits of treaty rights exercise. 

These include the health benefits associated with a more traditional diet and the 

intergenerational learning that takes place when elders teach youth. In addition, 

GLIFWC sponsors a camp each summer where tribal youth build leadership skills, 

strengthen connections to the outdoors, and learn about treaty rights and careers 

in natural resource fields. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE GREAT LAKES RESOURCES COMMITTEE

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: 

My name is Levi D. Carrick, Sr., Chairman of the Great Lakes Resources Committee (GLRC) of the Chippewa Ottawa Resource Authority (CORA). CORA is an 

inter-tribal resource management organization established by five (5) federally recognized Indian tribes in the State of Michigan. They are: the Bay Mills Indian Community; the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians; the Little River 

Band of Ottawa Indians; the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians; and the 

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians. GLRC addresses issues of management, preservation and enhancement of all species and habitats which are within 

the Great Lakes resources. I also am proud to serve as the President of the Bay 

Mills Indian Community. 

On behalf of CORA, I personally express CORA’s appreciation for the Rights Protection Implementation Program (RPI) funding request for CORA, contained in the 

Presidents’ Fiscal Year 2017 Budget for the Department of the Interior. RPI Program funds enable CORA’s tribes to provide for the exercise by their members of 

the reserved right to hunt, fish, trap and gather on the lands and waters ceded to 

the United States by our ancestors in Article 13 of the Treaty of March 28, 1836. 

That cession covers the eastern Upper Peninsula of Michigan and the northern 2⁄3

of the Lower Peninsula, as well as large portions of the upper three Great Lakes— 

Lakes Huron, Michigan and Superior. 

I am sure that the importance of treaty reserved rights to Indian tribes and their 

members has been expressed in testimony before this subcommittee many times, 

but that importance can never be overstated. Treaty hunting, fishing and gathering 

rights were essential to the existence of our ancestors and continue to be essential 

to our existence as Indian people; they preserve our access to culturally significant 

resources which are intimately connected to traditional ways of life. This importance 

is not symbolic; tribal members continue to rely on the ability to harvest natural 

resources for both commercial and subsistence purposes. It is our life way. 

The tribes have always believed that these treaty reserved rights continue to 

exist, and were not extinguished or diminished by any act of the Federal Government. Unfortunately, that was not a belief shared by the State of Michigan, which 

prosecuted tribal members for hunting, fishing and gathering at times or with methods which State law prohibited. This situation continued until the United States 

filed suit against the State of Michigan in 1973. It resulted in a decision in United 

States v. Michigan in 1979 upholding the right to fish in the ceded waters of the 

Great Lakes. This right was implemented by court-facilitated negotiations among 

the Federal, State and tribal parties, that produced two Consent Decrees which provided for the allocation and management of the Great Lakes fisheries in the treaty 

area; the first one was entered in 1985 for a period of 15 years, and a successor 

agreement was entered in 2000 for a period of 20 years, ending in August, 2020. 

It is that Decree which is listed as ‘‘Chippewa/Ottawa Treaty Fisheries’’ under 

CORA in the Fiscal Year 2017 Green Book RPI Programs. 

The CORA tribes receive base funding through the ‘‘Treaty Fisheries’’ line item 

for the following activities: to establish conservation-based fishing regulations; conduct biological monitoring of the fishery; carry out resource protection and enhancement programs and activities; staff conservation enforcement departments and adjudicatory bodies to resolve violations of the regulations; and provide an intertribal 

voice to coordinate and cooperate with the Federal, State and international organizations which address Great Lakes resource matters. 

The Great Lakes ‘‘model’’ provided a template for the parties in United States v. 

Michigan, who voluntarily entered into negotiations to resolve the scope of rights 

reserved by Article 13 in the inland 14 million acres of land and water of the cession. In 2007, their efforts produced a permanent Consent Decree, which encompasses the nature and extent of the right to hunt, fish, trap and gather by tribal 

members as regulated by their respective tribes; establishes protocols by which the 
125 

resources are allocated between tribal and State-licensed harvesters; and provides 

collaborative resource management procedures for the CORA tribes and the State 

of Michigan. 

The terms of the Inland Consent Decree envision the following responsibilities for 

the tribes: significant expansion of the tribes’ conservation enforcement programs; 

creation and maintenance of inland biological monitoring, assessment, restoration 

and enhancement programs; growth in tribal adjudicatory systems’ staffing, administration and financial support; and expansion of intertribal management mechanisms and procedures. It is the trust responsibility of the United States to provide 

stable, recurrent funding by which the Court Decree can be implemented by the 

tribes. 

This element of the trust responsibility was finally recognized by the administration and included in the Interior Green Book as an RPI Program for Fiscal Year 

2013. In response, the Congress appropriated $461,000 for CORA in RPI funds, an 

amount which allowed each tribe to initiate permanent programs, albeit very small 

ones. This amount was increased by this subcommittee to $1,605,714.00 in fiscal 

year 2016, and is the amount requested by the administration for these purposes 

in the Fiscal Year 2017 Green Book for RPI Programs, listed as ‘‘Chippewa/Ottawa 

Inland Consent Decree’’. 

One final item is included in the RPI fiscal year 2017 budget for all intertribal 

resource management organizations, which is entitled ‘‘Evaluation & Research Activities—Climate Change’’. CORA supports the administration’s proposed $2.5 million increase for climate change activities, but does not support the administration’s 

proposed competitive process for distributing this increase, in the event that it is 

approved by this Congress. CORA’s position is that requiring the tribes to compete 

with each other for funding derogates the trust responsibility embodied by the RPI 

line item. The recipient tribes and tribal commissions receive RPI funds to carry out 

responsibilities established and ordered by Federal courts as the culmination of 

years of litigation. Establishing a mandatory competitive process for any portion of 

the resource management activities undertaken by tribes to fulfill their court-ordered obligations is a breach of the trust responsibility masquerading as fiscal accountability. CORA instead supports an allocation of those funds among the organizations based on the percentage that each listed inter-tribal organization will receive in RPI funds, as compared to the total amount requested for all RPI purposes 

for fiscal year 2017. This is the same method used in previous fiscal years, and it 

has worked well. For CORA, that proportionate amount is $681,355. 

CORA tribes have participated in intertribal management and regulation of natural resources since 1982. For decades, we have been at the forefront of efforts to 

protect, enhance and restore the natural environment so that all human beings can 

enjoy the fish, wildlife and plants of our region for generations to come. Already, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is asking to consult on what type of resource 

management regime should replace the Great Lakes Consent Decree in 2020. The 

CORA tribes have proven to be an effective partner with agencies of the United 

States, the States, and the province of Ontario to manage our natural resources to 

the seventh generation and beyond. 

For these reasons, the CORA tribes respectfully request your support for fiscal 

year 2017 RPI funding at the level of $4,746,355.00 in recurring base funding, which 

is the amount outlined for CORA in the RPI portion of the Department of Interior’s 

Green Book for Fiscal Year 2017, plus CORA’s proportionate share of the ‘‘Climate 

Change’’ line item. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES (HSUS), 

HUMANE SOCIETY LEGISLATIVE FUND (HSLF), AND DORIS DAY ANIMAL LEAGUE

Thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony to the Interior, Environment, 

and Related Agencies Subcommittee on items of importance to our organizations. 

We urge the subcommittee to address these priority issues in the fiscal year 2017 

Department of Interior appropriation. We have requests to a number of programs 

detailed below: Environmental Protection Agency’s CompTox program ($25.7 million), Bureau of Land Management’s Wild Horse and Burro Program (budget increase contingent on implementing the National Academy of Science’s recommendations on fertility control; language to ensure continued protection of wild horses and 

burros from slaughter), and the Multinational Species Conservation Fund (continued funding but with no funds from conservation programs to promote trophy hunting, trade in animal parts, and other consumptive uses). We also ask that language 
126 

is not included that would halt the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) efforts 

to combat wildlife trafficking or in any way undermine the Endangered Species Act. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S COMPTOX PROGRAM

Thousands of chemicals are currently used and hundreds of new ones are introduced each year for which toxicity assessments need to be conducted. To answer this 

need, EPA established the National Center for Computational Toxicity to predict 

hazard and prioritize chemicals for further screening and testing, developing and 

using high-throughput assays and predictive tools which are less expensive and time 

consuming and more predictive of relevant biological pathways. 

Through EPA’s CompTox program, EPA has screened more than 2,000 chemicals 

(industrial, food additives, and consumer products) and evaluated them in more 

than 700 high-throughput assays. Additionally, EPA is using ToxCast data to 

prioritize chemicals for evaluation in the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. 

Tox21, a collaboration between EPA, NIEHS, NCATS and the FDA is currently 

screening 10,000 chemicals to improve the effectiveness of drug development. 

However, even as the need increases for this data, the program’s budget has stag- nated at $21.4 million in fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016. We support an increase to $25.7 million to the CompTox program in fiscal year 2017. This will encourage the likelihood of realizing the goals presented in the CompTox program and 

assure a more predictable and relevant chemicals safety assessment. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT—WILD HORSE AND BURRO PROGRAM

The Humane Society of the United States (The HSUS) is one of the leading advocates for the protection and welfare of wild horses and burros in the U.S. with a 

long history of working collaboratively with the Bureau of Land Management 

(BLM)—the agency mandated to protect America’s wild horses and burros—on the 

development of effective and humane management techniques. 

The HSUS strongly supports a significant reduction in the number of wild horses 

and burros gathered and removed from our rangelands annually. We believe removing horses from the range without implementing any active program for suppressing 

the population growth rate has proven itself to be an unsustainable method of management of our Nation’s wild horses, and simply leads to a continual cycle of roundups and removals when more long-term, cost-efficient and humane management 

strategies, such as fertility control, are readily available. 

For years, the BLM has removed far more wild horses and burros from the range 

than it could possibly expect to adopt annually, and as a consequence, the costs associated with caring for these animals off the range have continued to skyrocket. 

The costs associated with caring for one wild horse in a long term holding facility 

over the course of its life is approximately 46,000 dollars according to the BLM. 

Today, there are almost 50,000 wild horses and burros in these pens, and the agency spends more than 65 percent of its annual Wild Horse and Burro budget on holding costs. While recent years have shown a decline in the number of animals removed from the range, the BLM must continue to balance the number of animals 

removed from the range annually with the number of animals it can expect to adopt 

in a given year if it hopes to effectively reduce off-the-range management costs. 

Further, the BLM’s current program of management of wild horses has negative 

effects that go beyond a simple cost-benefit analysis. For instance, the recommendations in the National Academy of Sciences 2013 report ‘‘Using Science to Improve 

the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way Forward,’’ commissioned by the 

BLM itself, stated that it is BLM’s own practices of managing wild horses ‘‘below 

food-limited carrying capacity’’ by rounding up and removing a significant proportion of the herd’s population every 3 to 4 years that is facilitating high horse population growth rates on the range. 

As such, it is incumbent that the BLM move away from current management 

practices to create a long-term, humane and financially sustainable path. It is our 

belief that the most cost-effective and humane approach is for the BLM to move aggressively forward with a fertility control program which prioritizes on-the-range 

management of wild horses and burros. This path forward is supported by the National Academy of Sciences report, which called for an increased usage of on-therange management tools, including the usage of the fertility control vaccine PZP. 

Further, a 2008 paper determined that contraception on-the-range could reduce 

total wild horse and burro management costs by 14 percent, saving $6.1 million per 

year. Finally, the results of a paper describing an economic model commissioned by 

The HSUS indicates that by treating wild horses on one hypothetical Herd Management Area (HMA) with the fertility control vaccine Porcine Zona Pellucida (PZP), 

the BLM could save approximately $5 million dollars over 12 years while achieving 
127 

and maintaining Appropriate Management Levels (AML) of 874 horses. Since the 

BLM estimates that more than 58,000 wild horses roam in the U.S., the use of PZP 

could result in a cost-savings of tens of millions of dollars if applied broadly across 

all HMAs. 

For these reasons, we support an increase to the BLM Wild Horse and Burro 

budget, contingent on the agency’s usage of the funding to immediately begin usage 

of the NAS-recommended fertility control methods that are currently available, and 

to fund additional research on contraception and population growth suppression 

methods. 

We also request inclusion of the same language barring wild horses and burros 

from being sent to slaughter that was included in the fiscal year 2016 omnibus: ‘‘Appropriations herein made shall not be available for the destruction of healthy, 

unadopted, wild horses and burros that results in their destruction for processing 

into commercial products.’’ (Division G, p. 714, line 23). 

The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget requested language that inadvertently 

creates a loophole that could allow iconic wild horses and burros to be sent to 

slaughter. If Congress chooses to include Section 110 from the President’s fiscal year 

2017 budget, we request the following language be added at the end of the section 

to ensure that wild horses and burros are not sent to slaughter: 

Provided further, That any Federal State, or local government agency receiving 

excess wild horses or burros shall not destroy, sell, or otherwise transfer the 

horses or burros in a way that results in their destruction for processing into 

commercial products. 

MULTINATIONAL SPECIES CONSERVATION FUND

The administration’s fiscal year 2017 budget requests $11.1 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund (MSCF) program which funds African and 

Asian elephants, rhinos, tigers, great apes like chimps and gorillas, and sea turtles. 

The HSUS joins a broad coalition of organizations in support of the administration’s 

request while ensuring that the sales from the semi-postal stamps benefiting this 

program remain supplementary to annually appropriated levels. We also support 

the fiscal year 2017 budget justification request from the USFWS Office of International Affairs (IA) of approximately $15.8 million. The USFWS IA program supports efforts to conserve our planet’s rich wildlife diversity by protecting habitat and 

species, combating illegal wildlife trade, and building capacity for landscape-level 

wildlife conservation. Within IA are the Wildlife Without Borders programs that 

tackle grassroots wildlife conservation problems and we support these programs 

that conserve several of the world’s most iconic species in their native habitats. 

While we wholeheartedly support continued funding for the MSCF, we are concerned about past incidents and oppose any future use of funds from these conservation programs to promote trophy hunting, trade in animal parts, and other consumptive uses—including live capture for trade, captive breeding, and entertainment for public display industry—under the guise of conservation for these animals. 

Grants made to projects under the MSCF must be consistent with the spirit of the 

law. 

WILDLIFE TRAFFICKING

The illegal wildlife trafficking trade has reached a level of global emergency, with 

impacts on national security, international human rights, and the survival of protected wildlife species. African elephants are especially facing an unprecedented crisis, with one elephant killed every 15 minutes in Africa. The U.S. is the world’s second largest market for ivory product sales, behind China. In response to this crisis, 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) issued a proposed rule that will curtail 

the commercial ivory trade in the U.S. by cracking down on the domestic trade in 

ivory. In addition, the rule proposes to increase scrutiny of the import of African 

elephant trophies and to extend Endangered Species Act (ESA) protection to live African elephants in captive facilities in the United States. Soon after the release of 

the rule, President Obama and President Xi Jinping of China announced a detailed 

and shared commitment to ending the global trade in ivory. 

In the midst of the current poaching crisis African elephants are facing, it is imperative that the FWS is able to finalize a rule that will curtail the commercial 

ivory trade in the United States. We ask that the fiscal year 2017 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill not include language that would 

block further action on this proposed rule. 
128 

ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is fundamental to the protection of our globe’s 

most imperiled animals. This law, which is supported by 90 percent of American 

voters, has prevented the extinction of 99 percent of the species under its care, including the bald eagle. Under the ESA, the responsibility to list and delist species 

lies with Federal agencies, which must make these listing decisions based upon the 

best available science. The authority to make these science-based management decisions should remain with Federal agencies. 

We ask that the fiscal year 2017 Interior Appropriations bill exclude any language 

that prevents Federal agencies from making listing or delisting decisions based on 

sound science, or otherwise undermines the ESA. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INDEPENDENT REVIEW TEAM

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and to address the serious funding 

needs that have limited and continue to hinder the operations of tribal judicial systems in Indian Country. We are representing the Independent Tribal Court Review 

Team. We thank this subcommittee for the additional $10.0 million funding in fiscal 

year 2010, the last significant increase. These funds were a blessing to tribes. Even 

minimal increases are always put to good use. It is the strong recommendation of 

the Independent Tribal Courts Review Team that the Federal Tribal Courts budget 

be substantially increased in fiscal year 2017 to support the needs of tribal judicial 

systems. 

BUDGET PRIORITIES, REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

1. ∂$2.6 Million—Support fiscal year 2017 Proposed Increased for Tribal Courts 

2. ∂$58.4 Million authorized under the Indian Tribal Justice Act of 1993, Public 

Law 103–176, 25 USC 3601 and re-authorized in year 2000 Public Law 106– 

559 (no funds have been appropriated to date) 

3. Support the requests and recommendations of the National Congress of American Indians 

The increase will support: 

1. Hiring and Training of Court Personnel 

2. Compliance with the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 

3. Compliance with and implement the VAWA Act of 2013 

4. Salary Increases for Existing Judges and Court Personnel 

5. State-of-the-Art Technology for Tribal Courts 

6. Security and Security Systems to Protect Court Records and Privacy of Case 

Information 

7. Tribal Court Code Development 

8. Financial Code Development 

The Independent Tribal Courts Review Team supports the proposed $2.6 million 

increase for tribal courts in the fiscal year 2017 President’s budget. Tribal courts 

need an immediate, sustained and increased level of funding. The lack of funding 

has delayed implementation of the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) and the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) to a critical level and the resources that have 

been appropriated are required to provide Attorneys to represent Non-Indian defendants which further strain the capacity of the Tribal Judicial System. Tribal systems remain underfunded, understaffed and ill-equipped to function effectively and 

in a manner comparable to non-Indian government judicial systems. Tribal courts 

are at a critical stage in terms of need. The Tiwahe Initiative, as a means to be 

responsive to tribal concerns, demonstrates that the administration and Congress 

are listening to the tribes, but there needs to be a greater effort to fund the authority that was enacted in 1993. 

Section 402 of TLOA reauthorized the Tribal Justice Act, and Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2001. These acts authorize funding for 

tribal court judges, court personnel, public defenders, court facilities, and the development of records management systems and other needs of tribal court systems. The 

Tribal Justice Act, originally enacted December 1993, authorized the appropriation 

of $58.4 million in tribal court base funding. Yet, not a single dollar under the Tribal Justice Act has been appropriated in the 22 years since it was enacted. Of particular note is the provision of the Tribal Justice Act that states that Federal funds 

may be used specifically for ‘‘training programs and continuing education for tribal 

judicial personnel.’’ Appropriations should finally be made to fulfill the promise of 
129 

1Defining the Indian Civil Rights Act’s ‘‘Sufficiently Trained’’ Tribal Court Judge, Jill Elizabeth Tompkins, American Indian Law Journal [Vol, 4:53]. 

these acts.1 We recommend that the Interdepartmental Tribal Justice, Safety and 

Wellness Session, of which the Department of the Interior (DOI) is a member, resume outreach to support the efforts of TLOA, VAWA and the Tiwahe Initiative. 

The Tiwahe Initiative was launched in 2015 to address several lagging family welfare and poverty issues in Indian Country including a strategy to reduce incarceration in Indian Country. The alternative to incarceration is intended to address underlying causes of repeat offenses, such as substance abuse and the lack of adequate 

social service support, by utilizing alternative courts to increase treatment opportunities, probation programs, and interagency and intergovernmental partnerships 

with tribal, State and Federal stakeholders. In response to the unusual high rates 

of alcohol and/drug related repeat offenders that are dominating the resources of the 

justice system, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) created the Diversion and ReEntry Division (DRD) within the Tribal Justice Support Directorate. In fiscal year 

2016 tribal courts received a 4.9 percent increase, and the budget request for 2017 

is $2.6 million over the enacted 2016 level. There is an even greater need to ensure 

that court personnel are trained, equipped and prepared to address these new challenges. We support the fiscal year 2017 proposed $21.0 million increase for Tiwahe 

to expand social services, Indian Child Welfare, housing, tribal courts and job placement and training. 

Background: 

The Bureau of Indian Affairs provides funding to tribal governments to supplement their justice systems including courts. Tribal courts play a ‘‘vital role’’ in Tribal Self-Determination and Self-Governance as cited in long-standing Federal policy 

and Acts of Congress. Funding levels from BIA to support tribal justice systems 

have not met the Federal obligations. 

There is a great deal of variation in the types of tribal courts and how they apply 

laws. Some tribal courts resemble Western-style courts in that written laws and 

court procedures are applied. Others use traditional Native means of resolving disputes, such as peacemaking, elders’ councils, and sentencing circles. Some tribes 

have both types of courts. The BIA also manages a small number of CFR (Code of 

Federal Regulations) courts. 

Since 1999, Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) in the Department of Justice 

(DOJ) has administered the Tribal Courts Assistance Program, designed to provide 

funds for tribes to plan, operate, and enhance tribal judicial systems. They have 

made attempts to evaluate tribal courts but discovered their means of doing so was 

insensitive to American Indian and Alaska Native (AI/AN) people and unrealistic in 

the absence of elements that were key to Indian Country, such as: (1) the importance of tribal culture and traditions; (2) the inability to apply State and local criminal justice initiatives to tribal settings; (3) the lack of cooperation from non-tribal 

entities; and, (4) the lack of available data on tribal justice. 

The Independent Tribal Court Review Team has had more hands on success in 

reviewing tribal court systems. For 7 years, we traveled throughout Indian Country 

assessing how tribal courts are operating. During this time, we have completed 84 

Court Reviews. We also completed 28 Corrective Actions. There is no one with more 

hands-on experience and knowledge regarding the current status of tribal courts 

than our review team. 

Justification for Request: 

1. Hiring and Training of Court Personnel.—Tribal courts make do with underpaid staff, under-experienced staff and minimal training. (We have determined 

that hiring tribal members limits the inclination of staff to move away; a poor 

excuse to underpay staff.) 

2. Compliance with the Tribal Law & Order Act of 2010.—To provide judges, 

prosecutors, public defenders, who are attorneys, who are bared to do ‘‘enhanced sentencing’’ in tribal courts. 

3. Compliance with the 2013 VAWA Act.—To provide tribal courts with the ability 

to provide non-Indians with all the rights under the U.S. Constitution in domestic violence actions in tribal courts (12 person juries, provide licenses attorneys for non-Indians, provide licensed attorneys in court personnel in domestic 

violence cases as in TLOA, etc.). 

4. Salary Increases for Existing Judges and Court Personnel.—Salaries should be 

comparable to local and State court personnel to keep pace with the non-tribal 

judicial systems and be competitive to maintain existing personnel. 
130 

5. Tribal Courts Need State-of-the-Art Technology (Software, Computers, Phone 

Systems, Tape Recording Machines).—Many tribes cannot afford to purchase or 

upgrade existing court equipment unless they get a grant. This is accompanied 

by training expenses and licensing fees which do not last after the grant ends. 

6. Security and Security Systems to Protect Court Records and Privacy of Case Information.—Most tribal courts do not even have a full time Bailiff, much less 

a State-of-the-Art security system that uses locked doors and camera surveillance. This is a tragedy waiting to happen. 

7. Tribal Court Code Development.—Tribes cannot afford legal consultation. A 

small number of tribes hire on-site staff attorneys. These staff attorneys generally become enmeshed in economic development so code development does 

not take priority. Tribes make do with under-developed codes. The Adam 

Walsh Act created a hardship for tribes who were forced to develop codes, without funding, or have the State assume jurisdiction. (States have never properly 

overseen law enforcement in a tribal jurisdiction.) 

8. Financial Code Development.—We have rarely seen tribes with developed financial policies. The process of paying a bond, for example, varies greatly from 

tribe to tribe. The usual process of who collects it, where it is collected and how 

much it is, is never consistent among tribes. 

There are many positive aspects about tribal courts. It is clear that tribal courts 

and justice systems are vital and important to the communities where they are located. Tribes value and want to be proud of their court systems. Tribes with even 

modest resources tend to allocate funding to courts before other costs. After decades 

of existence, many tribal courts, despite minimal funding, have achieved a level of 

experience and sophistication approaching, and in some cases surpassing, local nonIndian courts. 

Tribal courts, through the Indian Child Welfare Act, have mostly stopped the 

wholesale removal of Indian children from their families. Indian and non-Indian 

courts have developed formal and informal agreements regarding jurisdiction. Tribal 

governments have recognized the benefit of having law-trained Judges, without 

doing away with judges who have cultural/traditional experience. Tribal court systems have appellate courts, jury trials, well-cared-for courthouses (even the poorer 

tribes), and Tribal Bar listings and fees. Perhaps most importantly, tribes recognize 

the benefit of an independent judiciary and have taken steps to insulate courts and 

judges from political pressure. No longer in Indian Country are judges automatically 

fired for decisions against the legislature. 

Tribal courts have other serious needs. Tribal appellate court judges are mostly 

attorneys who dedicate their services for modest fees that barely cover costs for 

copying and transcription fees. Tribal courts do offer jury trials. In many courts, one 

sustained jury trial will deplete the available budget. The only place to minimize 

expenses is to fire staff. Many tribal courts have defense advocates. These advocates 

are generally not law trained and do a good job protecting an individual’s rights (including assuring speedy trial limitations are not violated.) However, this is a large 

item in court budgets and if the defense advocate, or prosecutor, should leave, the 

replacement process is slow. 

On behalf of the Independent Tribal Court Review Team, Elbridge Coochise, 

Ralph Gonzales, Charles Robertson, Philip Lujan and Myrna Rivera, thank you for 

this opportunity to appear before you today. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INSTITUTE OF MAKERS OF EXPLOSIVES

Interest of the IME 

The Institute of Makers of Explosives (IME) was founded in 1913 to provide accurate information and comprehensive recommendations concerning the safety and security of the commercial explosives industry. Our mission is to promote safety, and 

the protection of users, the public and environment, and to encourage the adoption 

of uniform rules and regulations in the manufacture, transportation, storage, handling, use and disposal of explosive materials used in blasting and other essential 

operations. 

IME represents the U.S. manufacturers and distributors of commercial explosive 

materials and oxidizers as well as other companies that that provide related services. Millions of metric tons of high explosives, blasting agents, and oxidizers are 

consumed annually in the United States. Of this, IME member companies produce 

over 98 percent of the high explosives and a great majority of the blasting agents 

and oxidizers. These products are used in every State and are distributed worldwide. 
131 

1Fiscal Year 2017 EPA Budget Estimate, page 50. 

The industry’s commitment to being good stewards of the environment is well documented. Managers responsible for operating explosives manufacturing and distribution sites are faced with a surprising number of environmental issues that require knowledgeable and diligent attention. To assist the commercial explosives industry in this area, IME developed a manual of best practices for managers to reference called Safety Library Publication (SLP) 29, Recommendations for the Environmental Management of Commercial Explosives (2011). While limited in its scope, 

IME believes SLP 29 is of assistance to facility managers in crafting and implementing a comprehensive environmental compliance programs for their unique circumstances. IME is in the final steps of updating SLP 29 and expects the new 

version to be published later this year. This update will serve to provide the latest 

in best practices and updates on current regulations so that all of our members can 

be proper stewards of the environment. 

With this perspective, IME appreciates the opportunity to comment on the following subjects: 

Ammonium Nitrate (AN) 

Regarding EPA’s implementation of Executive Order (EO) 13650, IME would like 

to note that the Agency has abided by the directions in the House committee report 

to the fiscal year 2016 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies appropriations 

bill. Specifically, the committee report language instructed the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to defer further consideration of including AN under the Risk 

Management Program (RMP) until the agency considers whether that approach is 

necessary. As was reflected in the language, it was entirely appropriate that EPA 

should defer its decisionmaking until the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)—the agency currently regulating workplace and thus public safety 

of this material—first determines what action it will take with regard to AN safety. 

Going forward, OSHA has announced that it will initiate a Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (SBREFA) review on Risk Management Program 

Modernization, including how to address safety of AN, and expects to conclude the 

process in 2016. The SBREFA process will afford OSHA greater understanding of 

how different courses of action, including those for regulating AN, could impact 

small businesses and the potential safety improvements associated with those actions. IME is participating in this process. 

EPA’s Local Emergency Planning Committees (LEPC) 

IME requests that the subcommittee support the $23.7 million budget request for 

EPA’s State and Local Prevention and Preparedness program, which represents an 

$8.4 million increase over the agency’s fiscal year 2016 appropriation.1

The Emergency Preparedness and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 was created to help communities plan for emergencies involving hazardous chemicals. It envisioned a seamless safety net of LEPCs established by States and Indian tribes 

that would ensure community engagement and chemical industry participation. 

Since that time, EPA has conducted two assessments of the program, in 1999 and 

2008, and both have shown the implementation of the program to uneven at best. 

More recently, the tragic 2013 industrial incident at West, Texas revealed again 

EPA’s lack of attention and leadership in using this program to better safeguard 

communities. As a result, EO 13650 has called for the agency to revitalize the LEPC 

program. 

The funding request is more important this year than in the past. Historically, 

significant funding for this program has come from registration fees assessed by the 

U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) on shippers and carriers of hazardous 

materials. The 2015 Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) made 

important changes to how registration fees may be used by States. Since 1990, DOT 

has allocated registration funds to States for hazmat training and planning. Planning funds were provided to State Emergency Response Commissions (SERC) with 

a 75 percent pass-through requirement to LEPCs. The FAST Act removes DOT discretion to allocate these funds and it removed the 75 percent pass-through. In short, 

DOT’s annual $8.15 million set-aside to fund SERCs and LEPCs will still be provided to States, but States will have unfettered discretion about whether to use 

those funds for emergency responder training or for planning. Many believe that 

States will choose to direct the majority of these funds to training purposes. These 

FAST Act changes underscore the need for EPA to take responsibility to fully-fund 

its LEPC program. The additional $8.4 million request for this program is warranted. 
132 

2 2017 USGS Budget Justification, page H–22. 

3 2017 USGS Budget Justification, page H–24. 

4 2017 USGS Budget Justification, page H–25. 

USGS Minerals Resource Program, Minerals Information Program (MIP) 

IME requests the subcommittee support the USGS budget request for the MIP of 

$15.4 million.2

The Minerals Information dataset one of the longest running data sets in the Federal Government. It provides critical information to a number of important public 

sector entities as well as the private sector. No other entity has the capability, integrity, or objectiveness to produce the broad data sets that are now produced by 

the MIP. According to the USGS, in 2016, and on a continuing basis, MIP mineral 

economists and minerals information specialists will provide minerals information 

to other Federal agencies, including the U.S. Census Bureau, the Department of Defense, the Federal Reserve Board, and the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.3

IME works with the MIP to produce the Explosives Commodity Report. IME collects information for the report from the commercial explosives industry as a public 

service because the USGS has proven to be a trusted partner in ensuring that commercially sensitive data is not disclosed. The completed report provides business intelligence unavailable elsewhere, to stakeholders inside and outside of government. 

As stated by USGS, 

‘‘In 2017, the National Mineral Information Center (NMIC) will continue to provide hundreds of reports such as the Minerals Commodity Summaries, the Minerals Yearbook, the Mineral Industry Surveys, Metal Industry Indicators, and 

the Nonmetallic Mineral Products Industry Indexes. These and other MRP information products, along with sound analysis from minerals and materials 

analysis specialists and program scientists, allow for decision makers and stakeholders to better understand the changes and importance of mineral resource 

production, consumption, and use. The NMIC will continue to provide high 

quality information and analysis that informs Federal critical minerals policy 

and is of paramount importance to U.S. national security and trade interests.’’ 4

Clearly, it is in the interest of the Nation and other stakeholders for the U.S. Congress to fund the Minerals Information Program at the requested level. 

Thank you for your consideration of our requests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTER TRIBAL BUFFALO COUNCIL

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

My name is Ervin Carlson and I am a member of the Blackfeet Nation in Montana and serve as the President of the Inter Tribal Buffalo Council (ITBC). Please 

accept my sincere appreciation for this opportunity to submit written testimony to 

the honorable members of the Senate Subcommittee on Interior, Environment and 

Related Agencies. ITBC was granted a Federal charter in 2009 pursuant to Section 

17 of the Indian Reorganization Act and is comprised of 60 federally recognized Indian tribes in 19 States with headquarter offices in Rapid City, South Dakota. The 

Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, the Shakopee Tribe of Minnesota, and the Ruby 

Tribe of Alaska are the three newest members of ITBC. 

American Indians have a long-standing connection with the buffalo. Historically, 

buffalo provided the tribes with food, shelter, clothing and essential tools for survival. Indians have maintained a strong spiritual and cultural connection with the 

buffalo that has not diminished with the passage of time. ITBC member tribes 

strive to restore buffalo to tribal lands for cultural, health and economic benefits for 

tribal populations. 

On behalf of the member tribes of ITBC, I am requesting an increase of 

$5,600,000 to our current $1,400,000 fiscal year 2015 funding level for a total funding award for fiscal year 2016 of $7,000,000 to allow the organization to: (1) increase 

funds for the tribal herd development grant program, (2) to fund ITBC efforts to 

serve as a meaningful management partner to the National Park Service, and (3) 

to fund scientific research on the benefits of buffalo meat for Native populations for 

the prevention and treatment of diet related diseases. ITBC requests funding from 

the Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs Fish and Wildlife Program and 

also from the National Park Service. 
133 

FUNDING HISTORY

ITBC has been funded through various methods including the President’s budget, 

congressional earmarks or administrative action since 1992. ITBC’s approximate annual funding is listed below: 

Fiscal year 1992–1993 ...... $ 400,000.00 Congressional Earmark 

Fiscal year 1994–1999 ...... $ 650,000.00 President’s Budget 

Fiscal year 2000–2001 ...... $1,100,000.00 President’s Budget; Congressional Earmark 

Fiscal year 2002–2003 ...... $1,560,000.00 President’s Budget; Congressional Earmark 

Fiscal year 2004–2005 ...... $2,200,000.00 President’s Budget; Congressional Earmark 

Fiscal year 2006 ................ $4,100,000.00 President’s Budget; Congressional Earmark 

Fiscal year 2007 ................ $1,000,000.00 Administrative Action BIA 

Fiscal year 2008 ................ $1,000,000.00 Congressional Earmark 

Fiscal year 2009–2010 ...... $1,400,000.00 Congressional Earmark; Administrative Action BIA 

Fiscal year 2011 ................ $1,750,000.00 President’s Budget; Administrative Action BIA 

Fiscal year 2012 ................ $1,400,000.00 President’s Budget 

Fiscal year 2013 ................ $1,600,000.00 President’s Budget; Administrative Action BIA 

Fiscal year 2014 ................ $1,400,000.00 President’s Budget; Administrative Action BIA 

Fiscal year 2015 ................ $1,450,000.00 President’s Budget; Administrative Action BIA 

Fiscal year 2016 ................ $1,400,000.00 President’s Budget 

The above funding history illustrates congressional and administrative support for 

ITBC and tribal buffalo herds. Annual funding of ITBC provides evidence that buffalo restoration and management is not a limited or one-time ‘‘project’’ but a ‘‘recurring program’’ most recently funded from the Department of Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs Fish and Wildlife line item. 

FUNDING INCREASE JUSTIFICATION

Increase in Herd Development Grant Funds 

ITBC expends 100 percent of the appropriated funds on the development and 

management of tribal buffalo herds. A significant portion of ITBC funding is distributed directly to ITBC member tribes via a Herd Development Grant program administered by ITBC. The herd development grant program commenced in 1992 with 

$400,000 to assist the twelve member tribes in the organization. In 2002, ITBC was 

awarded $1,000,000 for tribal herd development grants to support 25 tribal herds. 

Since 2002, the herd development grant funding has been stagnant at $1,000,000 

despite the growth of the organization to the current 60 member tribes and 54 buffalo herds. In total, ITBC collectively manages over 20,000 buffalo which is more 

than all the buffalo currently managed by NPS in the National Parks. A $2,500,000 

increase for tribal herd development grants will provide critically needed funding to 

protect and manage existing tribal herds. This increase will provide a total of 

$3,500,000 for distribution to tribes in an average amount of $65,000 per tribal herd 

depending on specific needs. These funds will create jobs in Indian Country, create 

sustainable tribal buffalo herds and allow tribes to utilize buffalo for economic development. 

Funding for National Park Service and United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

Partnership 

Since its inception, ITBC has partnered with the National Park Service (NPS) on 

buffalo management efforts including population management through roundups 

and distribution of buffalo to tribes from the parks national refuges. ITBC has not 

been funded for these activities but has utilized minimal administrative funding to 

partner with the Federal agencies. For example, ITBC has agreed to manage buffalo 

removed from Yellowstone Park for population control, transport the animals to 

processing facilities and distribute processed meat to tribes despite very limited 

funding for these efforts. Additionally, ITBC is a member of the Interagency Bison 

Management Plan workgroup and has incurred significant costs to participate in all 

related activities to insure that tribes are represented in buffalo management decisions. ITBC can continue these efforts and develop and manage a quarantine program that will allow the transfer of live buffalo from the Yellowstone Park to tribes 

through an increase of $500,000 in annual funding. 

Health Related Research 

ITBC has a long-term objective to prevent and treat diet related diseases in Native populations through the reintroduction of buffalo into daily diets. However, 

these efforts to coordinate with healthcare providers have been limited by the lack 

of scientific evidence of the health benefits of natural grass fed buffalo diets. ITBC 
134 

believes research to develop concrete evidence of these health benefits will facilitate 

ITBC partnerships with health programs to prevent and treat diet related diseases 

in Native populations. 

Additionally, sound research results will allow ITBC to develop a health education 

curriculum for healthy living with a component specifically focused on Native youth. 

Further, this critical research will support ITBC’s efforts to provide buffalo meat to 

school lunch programs as a healthy alternative to other meat products. 

Funding in the amount of $3,000,000 will allow ITBC to pursue professional research objectives. 

CURRENT ITBC INITIATIVES

ITBC’s primary objectives are to restore buffalo to tribal lands, and to conserve 

and manage existing tribal herds through the promotion of traditional buffalo handling practices and beliefs. ITBC strives to offer assistance and opportunities to 

tribes to meet the needs and desires of individual tribal programs. ITBC attempts 

to balance the varying interests of member tribes from maintaining herds for spiritual purposes to utilizing buffalo as viable economic development endeavors. ITBC 

accomplishes these objectives as follows: 

1. Technical Assistance to Tribes 

ITBC assesses current and potential tribal buffalo programs to determine technical service needs and infrastructure needs and provides technical assistance in the 

areas of wildlife management, ecological management, range management, buffalo 

health, cultural practices and economic development. Further ITBC assists with 

fencing, corrals, facility design, water development and equipment research. ITBC 

provides annual training sessions (national and regional) designed to enhance tribal 

buffalo management. 

2. Education and Outreach 

ITBC staff provides educational presentations to various audiences including 

school-age youth on buffalo restoration, conservation efforts, and the historical, cultural relationship between buffalo and American Indians. 

3. Partnership and Collaboration 

ITBC is a member of various Federal and State working groups organized to address buffalo issues. ITBC collaborates with the National Park Service and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service on surplus Federal buffalo and to address the Yellowstone 

brucellosis concerns. However, ITBC participates on a limited basis due to a lack 

of funding for these collaborative efforts. 

4. ITBC Marketing Program 

ITBC strives to develop markets for buffalo meat and products for interested 

member tribes at the local and national level. ITBC procures buffalo, as limited 

funds allow, from tribes and sells the meat products under a joint tribal and ITBC 

label. An increase in funding will enhance these marketing efforts. 

5. School Lunch Program 

ITBC has eight member tribes serving tribal raised buffalo into their school lunch 

programs to address health concerns of school-age children. ITBC anticipates expanding this program to 20 tribes in the next 3 years with increased funding. 

CONCLUSION

ITBC has existed for over two decades to assist tribes with restoration of buffalo 

to tribal lands for cultural purposes. No other program exists to assist tribes with 

buffalo restoration and protection. 

ITBC and its member tribes have created a new Indian reservation industry that 

includes job creation and new revenue for the tribal economies. ITBC ultimately 

hopes to restore tribal herds large enough to support local tribal health needs and 

generate sufficient revenue to achieve economically self sufficient herds. 

ITBC and it member tribes are appreciative of past and current support from the 

Congress and the administration. However, I urge the subcommittee to increase 

ITBC funding to a total of $7,000,000 which is a level commensurate with the 

growth of the tribal buffalo programs. This increase will demonstrate congressional 

respect for this national icon and allow ITBC to fulfill its responsibilities to restore, 

protect and manage buffalo. 

I would like to thank this subcommittee for the opportunity to present testimony 

and I invite you to visit ITBC tribal buffalo projects and experience first hand their 

successes. 
135 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE INTERTRIBAL TIMBER COUNCIL

SUMMARY

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I am Phil Rigdon, President of the 

Intertribal Timber Council (ITC) and Deputy Director of Natural Resources for the 

Yakama Nation. The ITC offers the following recommendations for fiscal year 2017 

Indian forestry-related activities in the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), the Department of Interior (DOI) Office of Wildland Fire Management (OWFM), and the 

U.S.D.A. Forest Service (USFS): 

BIA 

1. Increase BIA Forestry by $25 million, to $77.2 million, as a first step toward 

the additional $100 million needed for funding parity with other Federal forestry programs, as recommended by the 2013 IFMAT III report. 

2. Separately, increase BIA Forestry Projects by $12.7 million to initiate a BIA 

Forestry Workforce Development program. 

3. Increase BIA’s Endangered Species funding to $10 million. 

4. Increase BIA’s Tribal Climate Resilience program to $30.4 million. 

OWFM 

5. Provide $12.6 million in OWFM BAR for rehabilitation of Indian trust forests 

burned in 2015. 

6. Direct a reassessment of wildfire suppression priorities to include Indian trust 

forests as ‘‘property,’’ to be a second priority behind only protection of life as 

a suppression priority. 

7. Increase Fuels Management funding to $206 million; allow RTRL funds on 

tribal lands. 

USFS 

8. Encourage expanded support for the ITC Anchor Forest initiative. 

9. Continue encouraging the USFS to improve implementation of the TFPA. 

APPRECIATION

I would like to begin by expressing our appreciation for the subcommittee’s adopting BIA’s fiscal year 2016 requested increase of $2 million for thinning on Indian 

trust forests and for adding $2 million to BIA Forestry Projects for post-fire rehabilitation. These funds are critically needed to address the historic and catastrophic 

2015 fire season. 

IFMAT III

Many of our requests reflect the findings and recommendations of the 2013 

IFMAT III report, the statutorily required (Public Law 101–630, Sec. 312) decadal 

independent review on tribal forests and forestry. A copy of that report has been 

provided to the subcommittee. 

IFMAT III found that chronically insufficient funding and understaffing threaten 

tribal forests and communities. Unless these problems are rectified, Indian forests 

will continue to suffer unnecessary damage from wildland fire, insects, disease, and 

climate change. 

BIA

1. Increase BIA Forestry by $25 million, to $77.2 million, as a first step toward the 

additional $100 million needed for funding parity with other Federal forestry programs, as recommended by the 2013 IFMAT III report. 

Indian forestlands cover one third of the total 56 million acres held in Federal 

trust for Indians. These trust forestlands provide enumerable essential and renewable functions to tribal and surrounding communities, including clean air and water, 

stable soils, spiritual and cultural support, habitat for fish, wildlife and plants, forest products for medicine, art, and individual entrepreneurship, and through commercial forestry, local jobs and revenues for tribal governments. Indian people live 

with the forests and deeply rely upon them, and the United States, especially the 

Interior Department, has a binding and compensable fiduciary responsibility to protect, maintain and enhance these forests, but is failing to do so. Interior’s chronic 

underfunding of the BIA Forestry program also incurs significant economic losses 

for the tribes. Insufficient personnel constrain BIA Forestry’s ability to process the 

annual timber harvest levels set by tribes, such that in fiscal year 2014, timber har-
136 

vest benefits were 60 percent below what should have been realized, costing tribes 

$41 million in lost revenue and a loss of over 15,000 jobs. 

The fiscal year 2017 BIA Budget Justification continues to reflect disregard for 

Federal trust responsibilities for Indian forests. Enhanced climate resilience is a 

principal theme for Trust and Natural Resources Management programs, but funding increases are not proposed for Forestry, despite the fact that trust forests (A) 

cover one third of all BIA trust land, (B) are subject to statutory trust protection, 

(C) are integral to supporting a wide and critical array of environmental, cultural 

and economic functions, (D) are vital to approaches for addressing climate change, 

carbon sequestration, water management, and adaptation, and (E) are the only trust 

natural resource with professional and independent assessments and reports documenting the impacts of climate change. 

We find fiscal year 2017’s exclusion of BIA Forestry from any programmatic in- crease to be bewildering and dismaying. IFMAT III reports a $100 million increase 

is needed to correct this disparity. As in past years, ITC requests that the subcommittee incrementally correct chronic underfunding by providing a $25 million increase to the fiscal year 2017 BIA Forestry program. 

2. Separately, increase BIA Forestry Projects by $12.7 million to initiate a BIA Forestry Workforce Development program, as recommended by IFMAT III. 

BIA and tribal Forestry are facing a staffing crisis. The IFMAT III report states 

800 additional BIA Forestry positions are needed, and essential existing positions 

are going unfilled and knowledge and expertise are being lost due to retirements 

and funding shortfalls. Last year I cited an example on my reservation—the 

Yakama Nation—where 33 of the 55 BIA Forestry positions had not been filled for 

a long time. Today, 1 year later, it is basically unchanged, despite repeated tribal 

pleas. Harvest targets are not being met, forest health is suffering, and economic 

opportunities are being lost. A concerted effort is needed to fill vacancies and provide the skills required for responsible stewardship of our forest resources. ITC requests that $12.7 million be added to BIA Forestry Programs to undertake a program to attract, train and retain well qualified professional forestry staff. 

3. Increase BIA Endangered Species funding to $10 million. 

ITC requests BIA ESA be funded at $10 million to address impacts of listed species on management of trust resources. BIA’s $3.7 million request represents an increase over recent years, but is still less per acre than BLM ESA and below BIA 

ESA’s $3 million appropriated for fiscal year 2002 after inflationary costs are considered. 

4. Increase BIA’s Tribal Climate Resilience program to $30.4 million. 

ITC requests $30.4 million for the BIA Tribal Climate Resilience program, the 

amount requested by the administration for fiscal year 2016. Indian tribes rely upon 

the land, which is our history, our culture, our livelihoods, and our future. While 

the administration’s fiscal year 2017 request is $3.1 million over fiscal year 2016’s 

final appropriation, last year’s $30.4 million requested amount better represents the 

BIA and tribes’ true needs for evaluating climate change on our homelands and 

planning and conducting actual on-the-ground projects to begin addressing its consequences. 

DOI OFFICE OF WILDLAND FIRE MANAGEMENT

5. Provide $12.6 million in OWFM BAR for rehabilitation of Indian trust forests 

burned in 2015. 

The 2015 wildfire season was catastrophic for Indian tribes, particularly in the 

Northwest, where some fires were the most destructive in recorded history. Nearly 

500,000 acres of Indian trust forest burned. Approximately 1.5 billion board feet of 

timber was killed, worth more than $200 million in tribal revenue. Nearly 100,000 

acres need reforestation. Tribal losses of their forest resource, revenue and jobs are 

severe and will extend decades into the future. BIA has estimated recovery costs 

of $9 million for fiscal year 2016, $12.6 million for fiscal year 2017, and a total of 

$55 million over 5 years. 

The Interior Department’s Office Wildland Fire Management (OWFM) provided 

BIA and the tribes only $3.5 million in Burned Area Recovery (BAR) funds for fiscal 

year 2016. OWFM has not provided any increase to address the devastating impacts 

of the 2015 fires on tribal resources. The fiscal year 2016 amount allocated is less 

than the $4 million in BAR funds allocated for BIA and tribes in fiscal year 2015. 

The only fund increase in response to last summer’s devastation of tribal trust forests has been Congress’s fiscal year 2016 increase of $2 million. At Interior, it is 
137 

as if our Federal trustee is simply turning a blind eye to the problem, which, by 

further delaying or denying the recovery, only exacerbates the economic and environmental losses inflicted on the tribes. 

ITC asks Congress to specifically designate $12.6 million for fiscal year 2017 within OWFM BAR for recovery of tribal forests burned in 2015. Please note this is just 

for the 2015 fires, and should not impinge on separate funding for fires that may 

occur in 2016 and future years. 

6. Direct a reassessment of wildfire suppression priorities to include Indian trust 

forests as ‘‘property,’’ to be a second priority behind only protection of life as a 

suppression priority. 

Last summer, lightning storms ignited a wave of wildfires in the Northwest, including on Indian reservations. When fire crews attacking reservation fires were diverted to fight off-reservation fires threatening private property, the fires on our 

trust forests exploded. The United States evidently abandons its fiduciary obligations to protect Indian trust assets when Federal fire suppression policy prioritizes 

protection of life first and property second, leaving our trust forests to burn, as they 

did last summer. Timber tribes depend on our forests for jobs and revenue; the destruction suffered by those forests will have severe and long-lasting consequences. 

Fire suppression policy must prioritize protection of trust resources and economies, 

not subjugate those obligations to the protection of (often insured) private property. 

We ask the subcommittee to direct the reevaluation of Federal fire suppression priorities to consider the protection of Indian trust resources as second only to protection of life. 

7. Increase Fuels Management funding to $206 million; allow RTRL funds on tribal 

lands. 

For fiscal year 2017, ITC urges that Fuels Management funding be restored to 

its fiscal year 2010 $206 million level to reduce the Department’s fuels backlog. This 

will be a sound investment that will reduce future costs of suppression. Within the 

fiscal year 2017 Fuels Management budget, ITC strongly supports the designation 

of $10 million for Reserved Treaty Rights Lands (RTRL) landscape restoration, to 

allow tribes to engage in proactive fuels and forest health projects to protect tribal 

trust assets on treaty lands. However, we ask that these funds be allowed to be used 

on both tribal lands and off-reservation. 

USFS

8. Encourage expanded support for the ITC Anchor Forest initiative. 

We ask that you encourage and expand continued Forest Service support of the 

ITC’s Anchor Forest initiative, in which tribes and other forest stakeholders are 

pursuing long-term collaboration to maintain ecological functions and sustain economically viable infrastructure for management, harvesting, transportation, and 

processing of forest products. The Final Report of the ITC’s Anchor Forest pilot 

study in Washington State, published March 2016, reflects the participation of tribal, Federal and State governments, the conservation community, and local 

forestland owners and businesses. Tribes in the Lakes States, the Plains States, 

Alaska, and the Southwest are expressing interest in the Anchor Forest concept, 

and we urge the subcommittee to express support for expanding the application of 

the Anchor Forest concept. 

9. Continue encouraging the USFS to improve implementation of the TFPA. 

Finally, we thank the subcommittee for its fiscal year 2015 support of the Tribal 

Forest Protection Act (TFPA, Public Law 108–278) that authorizes tribes to conduct 

fuels and health projects on U.S.F.S. and B.L.M. lands to protect trust and cultural 

resources. The subcommittee’s support helped prompt a series of successful regional 

TFPA workshops and the initiating of numerous TFPA agreements. There is keen 

interest in additional workshops and follow-on activities, and the ITC urges the subcommittee to express continued support for the TFPA program. 

INTERTRIBAL TIMBER COUNCIL BACKGROUND

The ITC is a 40-year-old association of forest owning tribes and Alaska Native organizations dedicated to improving the sustainable ecological and economic management of our 18.6 million acres of timberland and woodland held in BIA trust. We 

invite you to come visit. 

That concludes my statement. Thank you. 
138 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE JAMESTOWN S’KLALLAM TRIBE

On behalf of the Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe, I am pleased to submit this written 

testimony on our funding priorities and requests for the fiscal year 2017 Bureau of 

Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS) budgets. A fundamental goal 

for our tribe is achieving economic self-sufficiency/self-reliance through opportunities 

that enable us to generate our own unrestricted revenues to address the unmet 

needs of our community. In order to achieve this goal, we need to be treated on par 

with State and local governments with respect to revenue raising authority. The 

continued proliferation of State and local taxes on sales, personal property and 

transactions (including resource extraction) within Indian reservations has a direct 

negative impact on the self-sufficiency of Indian tribes and tribal governments, and 

an indirect and equally negative impact on Federal programs and appropriations. 

When tribes are allowed to conduct activities on their own land subject only to their 

own taxes and regulations, tribal governments are able to fund their own programs 

and Indian reservation economies can flourish. 

Tribal Specific Appropriation Priorities 

1. Waste Water System $8.3 million 

2. Tribal Courts TPA $20,000 

3. BIA Road Maintenance $1.5 million 

$8.3 million—Waste Water System.—In order to engage in economic development 

and expand our tribal business portfolio, the tribe needs to invest in a waste water 

system. Our tribal government cannot operate without adequate infrastructure and 

clean water. After years of careful planning and research, we have entered into a 

partnership with the City of Sequim to connect tribal businesses and governmental 

facilities in Blyn to the City of Sequim Wastewater Treatment Plant. The installation of the project pipeline is approximately $8.3 million with environmental and 

economic benefits to all. 

$20,000—Tribal Courts TPA.—Tribes cannot operate police departments and 

court systems on grant funding. Stable funding for tribal courts is a prerequisite to 

ensure a safe, healthy and thriving tribal community. Although Congress and the 

administration have taken steps in recent years to try and address some of these 

concerns through the passage of the Tribal Law and Order Act (TLOA) of 2010 and 

the Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 2013, significant 

funding is needed in order to implement these new authorities to address the crisis 

level need in Indian Country and elevate the safety and wellness of our tribal citizens and communities. 

$1.5 million—BIA Road Maintenance.—Federal appropriations for the BIA Road Maintenance Program has averaged only $24.3 million annually for a number of 

years. However, a recent analysis completed by the BIA and tribal representatives 

determined that the documented deferred road maintenance backlog is at $203 million above fiscal year 2015 enacted funding levels. Substantial investment in tribal 

transportation is primarily needed to ensure the safety of all persons who traverse 

these roads, Native and non-Native alike. Deteriorated roads are not only a health 

risk, they hinder governmental services, impede economic development and make 

getting to health clinics, schools, stores and employment centers more difficult. The 

tribe plans to use transportation/road maintenance funding to complete a road safety project that is desperately needed on a very busy and well-traveled area of State 

highway that runs through our tribal reservation campus. In summer months, traffic on the highway substantially increases due to a surge in tourism, which supports 

both tribal and county economies. 

National Requests and Recommendations: The Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe continues to support the requests and recommendations of the National Congress of 

American Indians and the National Indian Health Board. 

National Requests and Recommendations 

BIA and IHS: 

1. Contract Support Costs Mandatory Funding $800 million for IHS & $278 million for BIA 

2. Hold Indian Country Programs Harmless from Budgetary Reductions, Rescissions and Sequestration 

Contract Support Costs Mandatory Funding.—The tribe appreciates the bipartisan support of the Interior appropriations subcommittees for full funding of Contract Support Costs (CSC). Funding of CSC in fiscal year 2016 at an indefinite 

amount, helped to ensure that critical programmatic services were not abrogated in 

order to cover the CSC need. The tribe maintains that the indefinite appropriation 
139 

of CSC funding must be made mandatory and permanent. We thus support the administration’s proposal to move CSC funding to a mandatory funding basis, although, we would like it to begin in fiscal year 2017 rather than in fiscal year 2018. 

Should CSC funding not be made mandatory in fiscal year 2017, we otherwise are 

supportive of the President’s request for an appropriation of ‘‘such sums as may be 

necessary,’’ with an estimated $800 million for CSC for IHS, and an estimated $278 

million for the BIA, in separate accounts in both the IHS and BIA discretionary 

budgets. However, we do not agree with the continued insertion of a proviso that 

could effectively deny the carryover authority granted by the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. For fiscal year 2017 and thereafter, we thus request the removal of the following proviso: ‘‘amounts obligated but not expended by 

a tribe or tribal organization for contract support costs for such agreements for the 

current fiscal year shall be applied to contract support costs otherwise due for such 

agreements for subsequent fiscal years.’’ 

Hold Indian Country Programs Harmless from Budgetary Reductions, Rescissions 

and Sequestration.—Decades of unfulfilled Federal obligations has devastated tribal 

communities who continue to face persistent shortfalls and overwhelming unmet 

needs. Until tribes attain exclusive taxing jurisdiction within their tribal lands, Federal support remains critical to ensure the delivery of essential governmental services to our tribal citizens. The Federal trust obligation must be honored and vital 

programs and services for tribes must be sustained and held harmless in any budgetary deal enacted to reduce the national deficit. 

BIA Requests: 

1. Self-Governance Compacts $171,468 

2. Economic Development TPA $200,000 

3. Natural Resources TPA $611,319 

4. Indian Guaranteed Loan Program $12.6 million 

$171,468—Self–Governance Compacts.—Tribal Self-Governance is the most successful policy in the history of tribal-Federal relations because it stimulates efficient 

and effective government spending. Increases to Self-Governance tribal base budgets 

will allow tribes to fund core tribal government programs such as community development, economic development, healthcare, and community safety. Funding SelfGovernance not only fulfills the Federal treaty and trust obligation, it positively impacts the surrounding regional economies. $200,000—Economic Development (TPA).—Tribal governmental revenues depend 

entirely on effective economic development to support nearly every aspect of reservation life and tribal governance. Chronic underfunding and the severe lack of private 

investment have left the economic potential of Indian Country unrealized. Tribes 

are forced to rely on their own economic ventures to generate revenue to support 

programs and services for tribal citizens. Yet, tribes are expected to meet these economic challenges with fewer resources and greater restrictions placed on vital economic financing tools and incentives that are easily accessible and lucrative to other 

governments. Increased funding for Economic Development will allow us to continue 

to diversify our successful business portfolio and expand our revenue generating opportunities. $611,319—Natural Resources (TPA).—In the Northwest, degradation of the environment is occurring faster than ever before. Climate change is having profound impacts on tribal people and tribal treaty rights are at risk. The Jamestown Natural 

Resource Department is charged with the responsibility to manage, protect, conserve, and nurture the Point-No-Point Treaty rights in our usual and accustomed 

areas for tribal citizens and future tribal descendants. The Federal investment in 

Tribal Natural Resources will foster tribal self-sufficiency and support tribal economies through the creation of jobs, the promotion of cultural vitality, religious practices, community cohesiveness, improve the environmental conditions on our tribal 

homelands and in surrounding communities, and foster cross-jurisdictional partnerships between our tribe and the local and State governments. $12.6 million—Indian Guaranteed Loan Program.—The Federal Government is in 

a unique position to help advance tribal projects and provide sustainable economic 

opportunities for Indian businesses and tribal governments through the Indian Loan 

Guarantee Program. The program provides attractive incentives for financial institutions to expand their services by underwriting loans in Indian country, provides 

tribes and their citizens’ access to capital, and promotes tribal economies by encouraging lending to Indian-owned businesses. Loan guarantees are an attractive financial tool because tribes are able to leverage limited Federal funding in and promote 

economic growth by investing in projects that are capable of generating their own 

revenue streams. The program, however, has been consistently targeted for cuts despite its positive return on the Federal investment. If not for the Loan Guarantee 
140 

Program, many tribes would be unable to secure loans from standard sources that 

are available to other entities and businesses. Federal credit programs should facilitate tribal access to private capital markets where tribes frequently encounter market resistance to conventional lending. 

IHS Requests: 

1. Support Advanced Appropriations for IHS 

2. Fully Fund the Indian Healthcare Improvement Act Provisions in the ACA 

3. Increase Funding for Purchased and Referred Care $562.2 million 

Support Advanced Appropriations for IHS.—The Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, which includes funding for IHS, has not been enacted in a timely manner for the past 20 years, creating significant challenges to 

tribes’ ability to provide critical healthcare services to their tribal citizens. When it 

comes to IHS funding, delays could mean the loss of life. Late funding not only affects quality of care, it constrains tribal healthcare providers’ ability to plan, budget, 

recruit and retain staff, and construct and maintain facilities. Tribal healthcare programs should be funded similarly to every other government health program in this 

country either through mandatory funding or advanced appropriations. Providing 

predictable, timely and sufficient funding will ensure the Federal Government is upholding its trust responsibility to American Indians and Alaska Natives. 

Fully Fund the IHCIA Provisions in the ACA.—Although the IHCIA provides the 

authority and, with it, the opportunity to provide essential healthcare to tribal citizens, it did not provide the necessary funds to the IHS to carry out these new statutory obligations. There are 23 unfunded provisions in the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA). Many of the provisions that remain unfunded would 

strengthen the tribal healthcare workforce, provide greater access to behavioral 

health and support innovative initiatives for healthcare delivery to tribal citizens. 

Funding these provisions is a necessary precursor to increase tribal capacity, infrastructure and most importantly access to healthcare services. Significant Federal investment is needed to achieve a fully funded Indian Health Service and now is the 

time to act on opportunities made possible in the newly expanded authorities granted under the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. $562.2 million—Purchased and Referred Care.—Most IHS and tribal operated direct care facilities do not provide the required emergency and specialty care services 

so tribes are forced to turn to the private sector to fulfill this need. CHS funds are 

used to purchase essential healthcare services, including inpatient and outpatient 

care, routine emergency ambulatory care, transportation and medical support services, such as diagnostic imaging, physical therapy, laboratory, nutrition and pharmacy services. 

Local/Regional Requests and Recommendations.—The Jamestown S’Klallam Tribe 

support the requests and recommendations of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board, and the Northwest Indian 

Fisheries Commission. 

I would like to extend my thanks to the subcommittee for an opportunity to submit testimony on the fiscal year 2017 appropriations. 

[This statement was submitted by honorable W. Ron Allen, Tribal Chairman/ 

CEO.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROSE KULJERICH

Dear Senators: 

As an American citizen and taxpayer, I strongly oppose the BLM’s proposal to 

conduct dangerous sterilization experiments on wild mares at the Wild Horse Corral 

Facility in Hines. According to the Environmental Assessment (EA), the BLM is deciding whether or not to proceed with one or more of the proposed sterilization procedures. The weight of scientific evidence and public opinion clearly supports a BLM 

decision NOT to proceed with any of these sterilization procedures. 

The sterilization procedures that BLM is proposing to conduct on federally protected wild mares are dangerous, costly and impractical for use in the field, due to 

the serious health risks they pose to the horses and their unborn foals, and also 

due to the great expense of purchasing the equipment and training the number of 

veterinarians necessary to implement these procedures on the range. 

It makes no sense to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on these risky invasive 

experiments when proven, humane, and relatively inexpensive fertility control technology in the form of the PZP vaccine is readily available but vastly underutilized 

by the BLM. 
141 

The EA is completely inadequate in analyzing the impacts of these experimental 

procedures on mares. In addition, the BLM has deliberately avoided public opposition to this controversial and grotesque research proposal by skipping the scoping 

stage of the environmental analysis process. As a result, the public has been deprived of the opportunity to provide input into the impacts of and alternatives to 

these procedures that must be analyzed under the rules of the National Environmental Policy Act. 

1. Ovariectomy via Colposcopy 

This is an outdated and archaic procedure that has been supplanted by more modern laparoscopic surgery. The EA fails to analyze the impacts of and alternatives 

to this procedure to mares and never once mentions the availability of more modern 

techniques! This proposed sterilization experiment is an intra-vaginal complex surgical procedure, which is hardly ever performed in domestic horses (never mind in 

wild ones), due to its inherently dangerous risks. 

—The blind nature of this surgery increases the risk of intra-abdominal hemorrhage, but the EA never even addresses this issue or the availability of more 

modern laparoscopic techniques that allow the surgeon to visualize the abdominal structures. 

—The lack of a sterile environment subjects the mares to a high risk of infection, 

something that is ignored by the EA. 

—The procedure carries with it a significant risk of hemorrhage and evisceration 

(protrusion of the intestines through the surgical incision), which is why it requires strict follow-up care when used in domestic horses, including pain relief 

and 4–7 days of stall rest, the first 48 hours of which is spent in crossties to 

prevent the mare from lying down. It is not possible to provide this required 

post-operative care to wild mares, yet the EA minimizes the impacts of this fact, 

citing the opinion of an un-named veterinarian, instead of the published science 

and National Research Council review, which clearly indicate the risks and impacts of this outdated procedure on wild mares. 

—The procedure will cause mares in early stages of pregnancy to abort their 

fetuses and may cause loss of pregnancy for mares in the mid-stage of pregnancy as well. This is unacceptable. 

This pursuit of ovariectomy research is directly counter to the recommendations 

of the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council (NRC) in its 2013 

report, ‘‘Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way 

Forward.’’ That NRC report concluded that: ‘‘The possibility that ovariectomy may 

be followed by prolonged bleeding or peritoneal infection makes it inadvisable for 

field application.’’ 

2. Minimally Invasive Sterilization Techniques 

The other sterilization procedures that BLM proposes to research, while less 

invasive than ovariectomy, should also be abandoned due to the inability to provide 

post-operative care and the impracticality of implementing these procedures—which 

have never before been done in wild or domestic horses—on a broad scale in a field 

setting. The EA fails to analyze the impacts of precedent-setting procedures that 

have never before been performed in horses, and as well as the inability to provide 

required post-operative care. The EA also omits analysis of the economic impacts 

and practicalities of implementing these procedures on the range. 

In proceeding with these experiments, the BLM has ignored the NRC recommendation that these techniques should first be perfected in domestic mares, who 

can be easily handled and will be accessible for close monitoring and post-operative 

care, before attempting them in wild horses. 

It is unconscionable that the BLM is proceeding with these draconian experiments 

that endanger the lives of the un-consenting equine subjects and their unborn foals, 

particularly when a proven non-invasive and safe fertility control method exists in 

the readily available PZP birth control vaccine. Instead of wasting millions of tax 

dollars to fund experiments on inhumane and impractical sterilization experiments, 

the agency should instead focus resources on vaccinating sufficient numbers of 

mares with the PZP fertility control vaccine, which is documented through 30 years 

of experience and published science, to be safe, effective, cost-effective and successful in managing wild horse populations. 

Again, as a taxpayer and wild horse lover, I am outraged that the BLM is even 

considering pursuing such inhumane, barbaric and wasteful experimentation on 

wild horses and I find the BLM’s Environmental Analysis of its impacts to be woefully inadequate. As a result, I strongly urge the BLM to abandon these proposed 

experiments in favor of using proven, more cost-effective and humane fertility control methods. 
142 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA

INDIANS

My name is Larry Wawronowicz, I am the Natural Resource Director for the Lac 

du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians, located in Wisconsin. I am 

not a tribal member, but I have worked for the Lac du Flambeau Band for 33 years, 

raised a family in the Lac du Flambeau community and have many friends and coworkers in Indian Country, so I am deeply honored that the tribe has allowed me 

the privilege to present written testimony which reflects the needs and concerns of 

the tribal membership. 

The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget has some important and positive initiatives for tribes. For example, it includes fully funding contract support costs and requesting that Congress reclassify this funding as mandatory. And in doing so would 

implement what two Supreme Court cases have already stated is the law. This 

funding must be paid; it is time that Congress make the necessary changes in the 

statute to implement the Court’s decisions. 

I. GENERATION INDIGENOUS INITIATIVE

I call on the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee to fully support the administration’s emphasis on our youth. The Generation Indigenous Initiative is the first time 

this Nation has taken a comprehensive approach to improving the lives of Indian 

children. The administration called on all agencies, including those outside of the 

Department of the Interior and the Indian Health Service, to do their part to fulfill 

the trust responsibility to Indian children. Based the Federal trust responsibility, 

the Federal Government should be committed to providing fundamental fairness to 

tribes, not just in selected areas but across the board—and appropriations for all 

programs affecting Indians should provide funding levels based on this fundamental 

principle. 

BIA Tiwahe (Family) Initiative. The tribe strongly supports the continuation of 

the administration’s Tiwahe initiative, a broad-based, interdisciplinary, and culturally appropriate program for addressing the needs of Indian families and communities—including child welfare and family services, housing and job training. This 

program fills an immediate and critical need. At Lac du Flambeau, over the last few 

years we have faced a crisis in our community arising from a growing epidemic of 

drug abuse. The problem has been far-reaching—as we find widespread abuse of 

prescription drugs, synthetic marijuana, and heroin on our reservation. The impact 

on our community has been devastating in terms of the health and well-being of 

our families. The rise in drug abuse often leaves our children caught in unsafe situations at home. This has led to an increase in the need for foster care and other 

temporary placements for our children. The administration’s $57 million request (a 

$12.3 million increase) for tribal social service programs and the $18.9 million request (a $3.4 million increase) for Indian Child Welfare programs will help meet 

this need. In addition the $30 million requested for tribal courts ($2.5 million increase) will also ensure that our children are safer as these institutions will have 

additional resources to supervise and monitor the children in their care. This is also 

why the tribe supports the administration’s request for $29 million to increase the 

number of mental health providers throughout the Indian Health Care System and 

the $15 million increase to hire behavioral health professionals and peer specialists 

focused on Indian youth and their families. 

II. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

A. Natural Resource Programs. As we address our communities’ social services 

needs, we are mindful that one of the cornerstones of a healthy community is a 

healthy environment. Clean air, water and land are vital for the physical and emotional health of our people, and provide both a foundation for our tribal culture and 

the basis for economic opportunity on our reservation. That is our obligation to future generations—to ensure that our lands, air and waters are adequately protected. 

B. Bureau of Indian Affairs Climate Resiliency. The tribe endorses the requested 

$13 million to address the impact of the changing climate on our natural resources. 

Our community is reliant on our natural resources to survive. If people cannot fish 

the lakes we have been fishing since the beginning of time or hunt wild game because these resources are not there, who we are as a people will be forever changed. 

C. Tribal Natural Resource Management and Development; Tribal Fish Hatchery 

Operations and Maintenance. Tribes are leaders in natural resource protection and 

BIA natural resource funding is essential to maintain our programs. Lac du Flambeau has a comprehensive Natural Resources Department and dedicated staff with 

considerable expertise in natural resource and land management. Among our many 
143 

programs, the tribe operates a fish hatchery that stocks many of our lakes. Along 

with our other natural resource programs, our fish production activities are essential to protect our natural resources and to foster economic activity on our Reservation. We support full funding fish hatchery operations and maintenance. 

D. Circle of Flight: Wetlands Waterfowl Program. We urge the subcommittee to 

continue to provide support for the BIA Circle of Flight Program. This program supports tribal efforts throughout the Great Lakes Region to restore and preserve wetlands and waterfowl habitat within tribal territories. 

E. Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission. The tribe strongly supports 

the work of the Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission (‘‘GLIFWC’’). 

GLIFWC assists in protecting and implementing its treaty-guaranteed hunting, fishing and gathering rights. We urge the subcommittee to fully support the programmatic funding for GLIFWC from both BIA and EPA. GLIFWC has played an 

invaluable role in providing science and sound management practices for our off-reservation resources. This role could not be filled by any other agency. 

F. Education Programs. Education remains a critical investment in the future of 

the tribes. The Johnson-O’Malley Program provides vital support for Indian students in public schools. We support the $18.5 million requested for this Program. 

We must do more for our students in public schools. Likewise, we are proud to see 

an increasing number of our students attending and graduating from colleges and 

other post-secondary institutions. Thus, we support the increased funding for scholarships and adult education within the BIE. The Tribe also supports the administration’s proposed increase in BIA funding for fellowship and training opportunities 

for post graduate study. 

G. Tribal Courts. We are concerned that the administration has proposed an $8 

million cut in funding for tribal courts in Public Law 280 States like Wisconsin. Because of a BIA policy that chose not to fund tribal courts in Public Law 280 States 

for decades, our courts have lagged behind our sister tribes in the ability to meet 

the justice needs of our communities. Congress recognized this deficiency last year 

and provided $10 million to address it. BIA essentially wants to halt this initiative 

before it even starts. With regard to the $10 million provided in fiscal year 2016, 

the BIA has not held any consultation on how this funding would be allocated and 

we understand may not do so and instead use this funding to build its own bureaucracy. We would urge the subcommittee to clarify with the BIA that the fiscal year 

2016 funding was intended to assist tribal courts in Public Law 280 States and not 

to build their own bureaucracy which hopefully will carry over to fiscal year 2017 

funding as well. 

H. Transportation. Proper road maintenance on the reservation is essential for the 

safety and health of our community, and for promoting economic opportunities. BIA 

Road Maintenance, nationally, is responsible for 29,700 miles of BIA owned road 

and 931 BIA owned bridges. The administration request of $27 million only funds 

16 percent of the level of need for BIA road maintenance. For bridges it would fund 

62 percent of the level of need. Thus, 84 percent of the roads in the BIA systems 

will continue to be at poor or and failing condition and almost 300 of the bridges 

in the BIA system will be at poor or failing condition. These are roads used by 

school buses and first responders. In any other community this would be unacceptable. We urge the subcommittee to increase BIA road maintenance funding by at 

least $9 million. This level of funding would allow a greater percentage of roads to 

be maintained in fair or better condition. 

I. Tribal Historic Preservation Offices. The tribe supports the administration’s 

$11.9 request (a $2 million increase) for Tribal Historic Offices. This increase is a 

start to adequately fund tribal Historic Preservation Act compliance. While more 

tribes have assumed the responsibility under the Historic Preservation Act, Federal 

appropriations have not kept pace and this threatens tribe’s ability to do this important work. 

III. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

A. EPA Tribal General Assistance Program. The tribe strongly supports the proposed $96.4 request in the EPA Tribal General Assistance Program, known as ‘‘Tribal GAP.’’ This program provides base environmental funding to assist tribes in 

building their environmental capacity to assess environmental conditions, utilize 

available data and build their environmental programs to meet their local needs. 

This is a foundational program for tribes to address the broad range of challenging 

circumstances we face regarding our reservation environment. Importantly, the increase in funding this program is to implement tribal environmental plans and to 

recruit and retain qualified environmental professionals in Indian Country. 
144 

B. Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. The tribe strongly supports funding for the 

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. For the indigenous people of Wisconsin, the 

Great Lakes represent the lifeblood of our culture and the foundation of our economies. The protection and preservation of the Great Lakes are necessary to preserve 

the tribal communities that have made the Great Lakes area their home since time 

immemorial. 

C. Leaking Underground Storage Tank. The tribe urges the subcommittee to increase funding for Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) clean-up in Indian 

Country. This funding was decreased to $1.69 million from almost $2.5 million a few 

years ago. As the EPA notes in its budget justification this funding is the primary 

source of funding for these clean-up activities in Indian Country. Since its inception 

in the 1980s, the LUST program has cleaned up 78 percent of the 1,375 identified 

releases in Indian Country. There are 298 of these identified sites that still need 

to be cleaned up. Unfortunately, the number of sites the EPA is able to cleanup has 

decreased by 50 percent in the last 6 years. While some of this is attributed to the 

fact the sites are much more complex and require more time and resources, there 

can be no doubt that this drastic reduction in the number of sites addressed is attributed to the decrease in funding. 

This issue is particularly important to Lac du Flambeau because we fear that the 

1,375 identified sites grossly underestimate the number of sites actually in Indian 

Country. In Lac du Flambeau we have 25 sites that may be impacting reservation 

resources which are not included in the 1,375 sites. One site in particular, the Haskell Lake/Tower Standard Site has the Tribe very concerned because of contaminated ground and possibly lake surface water with lead, benzene and a host of other 

contaminates. We identified this site in 2010 and we are still working on getting 

the funding necessary for cleanup. So we urge Congress to increase funding for the 

LUST program in Indian Country by $5 million, recognizing that this will only 

clean-up approximately 33 out of the 298 identified sites per year. 

IV. INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE PROGRAMS

We fully support the administration’s request of $ 5.1 billion for the Indian Health 

Service. According to the IHS, this level of funding would fully fund pay costs, inflation, and partially fund population growth. This increase will allow for a significant 

investment in Purchased and Referred Care with a $48.1 million increase. 

Research has clearly demonstrated that our overall health is tied to our oral 

health. The Lac du Flambeau Tribe recognized this and that is why in 2013 we 

opened a state of the art dental clinic to serve the needs of our people. No longer 

are dental visits done by an occasional dental visit at our schools. We are now seeing our members in our facility early and often and are preventing dental disease 

before it can happen. We fully support the requested $8.5 million increase for the 

dental health services program. This increase will address the not only medical inflation, but also the population increase our community has experienced. 

Thank you for affording the Lac du Flambeau Tribe the opportunity to submit 

written testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LEAGUE OF AMERICAN ORCHESTRAS

The League of American Orchestras urges the Senate Interior, Environment, and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee to support fiscal year 2017 funding 

for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at a level of $155 million. We are 

pleased that Congress showed strong bi-partisan support for the agency by approving a $2 million increase for its fiscal year 2016 appropriation, and we ask for further support so the agency can help more communities fulfill the NEA’s mission to 

provide all Americans with diverse opportunities for arts participation. 

The League of American Orchestras leads, supports, and champions America’s orchestras and the vitality of the music they perform. Its diverse membership of more 

than 2,000 organizations and individuals across North America runs the gamut 

from world-renowned symphonies to community groups, from summer festivals to 

student and youth ensembles, from conservatories to libraries, from businesses serving orchestras to individuals who love symphonic music. Orchestras unite people 

through creativity and artistry, contribute to civic vitality, and educate young people 

and adults. The League is committed to helping orchestras engage with their communities, and the NEA plays an invaluable role through its direct grants, Federal/ 

State partnerships, and research on trends in public participation and workforce development. 

An NEA grant affirms an organization’s contributions to our Nation’s artistic vitality. The capacity of orchestras to present nationally recognized programs is highly 
145 

valued by communities of all sizes, in part because NEA grants awarded through 

the competitive process leverage additional funding from State, local, and private 

sources. In fiscal year 2015, the NEA’s Grants to Organizations included 102 direct 

grants to orchestras in the Art Works and Challenge America categories, and from 

the current fiscal year, the following 10 awards, totaling $267,000 in support, offer 

a sampling of the high quality, unique opportunities communities are able to enjoy 

with NEA support. 

NEA Funding Broadens Access for Underserved Communities 

In partnership with the organizations it supports, the NEA is dedicated to improving public access to the arts. The Challenge America grant category offers support primarily to small and mid-sized organizations for projects that extend the 

reach of the arts to underserved populations—those whose opportunities to experience the arts have been limited by geography, economics, or disability. Challenge 

America grantee Northwest Symphony Orchestra will present a concert and related 

educational programming with a focus on Northwestern classical composers and musicians. Koichiro Yamamoto, principal trombonist of the Seattle Symphony Orchestra, will perform for the public, as well as participate in Symphony for Students, 

the orchestra’s program serving low-income students in South King County. 

Yamamoto will lead master classes for underserved youth, and orchestra musicians 

will visit 10 schools to provide clinics and master classes to more than 200 students 

in the Highline School District. Youth participants will also receive free tickets to 

attend the public performance at the Highline Performing Arts Center, which will 

include music by Northwest composers Samuel Jones and Sumi Tonooka. 

The Great Falls Symphony will use its Challenge America grant to produce performances, a public post-concert question-and-answer session, and various activities 

featuring pianist Sean Chen and one of the symphony’s resident string ensembles, 

the Cascade Quartet. In addition to the main performance, Chen and the Cascade 

Quartet will participate in concerts and lead master classes for rural high school 

students. Further broadening their reach, they will perform in a concert preview 

that will be aired on Montana’s public radio station as well as perform during an 

open rehearsal for local piano students and piano teachers. With just two full-time 

and two part-time staff, and three conductors, the orchestra and its musicians 

present a wealth of services to their community each year, from coaching sessions 

to education concerts in schools across Montana, as well as mainstage concerts. 

Great Falls Symphony also includes a youth orchestra and the Chinook Winds quintet, which performs throughout the country. 

The NEA is Committed to Artistically Rich Youth Development Opportunities 

Many of the NEA’s grants directly support programs involving the development 

of young artists and musicians, such as an Art Works grant to support the Boston 

Youth Symphony Orchestras’ Intensive Community Program (ICP). This rigorous 

string instrument training program began in 1998 to serve inner-city youth by offering weekly music lessons, ensemble classes, instrument rentals, and performance 

opportunities to students who are exceptionally interested in music but are faced 

with financial and/or cultural barriers to participation. After a few years of intensive 

study, ICP students are prepared to pass the audition into the youth symphony’s 

entry-level orchestra. Historically, 98 percent of ICP students successfully audition 

into the highly competitive BYSO orchestras; once admitted, ICP students receive 

a tuition subsidy, weekly lessons, use of an instrument, and ongoing mentorship 

until they graduate high school. The BYSO, with a staff of 12 full-time and 24 parttime employees, prides itself on the ICP having provided this deep and focused experience to more than 150 students, with 100 percent of its graduates going on to college. 

On the opposite coast, similarly rich and intensive youth development is offered 

by the Youth Orchestra of Los Angeles at Heart of Los Angeles (YOLA at HOLA). 

This after-school music program, in partnership with the Los Angeles Philharmonic, 

is inspired by the Venezuelan El Sistema movement and, with NEA support, provides free instruments, ensemble-based classical music instruction, and performance 

opportunities to underserved and at-risk youth, ages 6–18, in central Los Angeles. 

YOLA at HOLA students participate in up to 15 hours each week of sectional, ensemble, and orchestra rehearsals, specialized music classes, community performances, academic tutoring and intervention, and wrap-around support. YOLA at 

HOLA is led by a knowledgeable and passionate corps of 19 music educators who 

teach and mentor HOLA’s students and contribute to an international conversation 

about high-intensity music education. Through HOLA’s and the LA Philharmonic’s 

partnership with the Longy School of Music of Bard College’s Master of Arts in 
146 

Teaching program, the next generation of music educators also hone their skills in 

YOLA at HOLA’s classrooms. 

The NEA Supports Celebrating the Arts and Our Natural Resources 

The St. Louis Symphony Orchestra (SLSO), employer of 93 musicians and 61 fulltime staff, won an ‘‘Imagine Your Parks’’ grant in this year’s joint celebration of the 

NEA’s 50th anniversary and the centennial of the National Park Service. SLSO 

paired French composer Olivier Messiaen’s ‘‘Des canyons aux etoiles . . . (From the 

canyons to the stars . . .)’’ with visual imagery by photographer Deborah O’Grady. 

Programming explored the relationship between art and nature, incorporating images of the National Parks that inspired the composer for the original 1971 commission to celebrate the bicentennial of the United States. O’Grady literally followed 

in Messiaen’s footsteps to capture the breathtaking images from Cedar Breaks, Zion, 

and Bryce Canyon, among other locations. The cross-disciplinary concerts were presented in St. Louis, and then in Berkeley and Los Angeles as part of the SLSO’s 

four-city California tour. 

The Boulder Philharmonic, which employs 73 musicians and a staff of eight people, is using its ‘‘Imagine Your Parks’’ grant to commission and premiere a new orchestral work by composer Stephen Lias, which will accompany projected images 

that showcase Rocky Mountain National Park. Concerts will take place in Boulder, 

Colorado, as well as at the Kennedy Center in Washington, DC next spring as part 

of the SHIFT Festival of American Orchestras. Ancillary events in both Colorado 

and DC will include interpretive musical hikes and public talks featuring the composer that examine the national parks legacy through a musical lens. For the inaugural SHIFT Festival, the Boulder Philharmonic is one of four orchestras, with each 

participant presenting education events, symposia, and community events in venues 

around Washington, DC, along with full-orchestra performances in the Kennedy 

Center Concert Hall. 

NEA Funding Supports Bringing World-Class Artistry to Communities 

With the help of an Art Works grant, The Saint Paul Chamber Orchestra—comprising 38 full-time and 6 part-time staff members, and 26 full-time musicians—will 

present contemporary works by an international array of composers such as George 

Crumb, Bryce Dessner and Nico Muhly (U.S.), Georges Enesco (Romania), Sir Michael Tippett (U.K.), Erkki-sven Tuur (Estonia), and Alberto Ginastera, Mauricio 

Sotelo and Manuel De Falla (Spain). The orchestra’s 3-week performance project 

will feature guest artists Finnish violinist Pekka Kuusisto, Moldovan violinist Patricia Kopatchinskaja, Spanish mezzo-soprano Nerea Berraondo, and Spanish Flamenco dancer Rube ́n Olmo, and the project will be highlighted by the world premiere of Mauricio Sotelo’s Red Inner Light Sculpture, a new work for solo violin, 

strings, and Flamenco dancer. Several pre-concert educational lectures will be offered as well, to provide audiences with additional context for and deeper engagement with the programming. 

The Louisville Orchestra, with a staff of approximately 21 employees and 55 fulltime musicians, will use its Art Works support to bring exceptional guest artists for 

a 3-week Festival of American Music created, curated, and conducted by music director, Teddy Abrams. The Festival will feature the orchestra alongside artists from 

across the country, encompassing a variety of musical genres including jazz, contemporary, popular music, and local music of the Kentuckiana region. The Festival will 

include concert previews before each show addressing the role of American orchestras and composers in the 21st century, as well as several community engagement 

events with schools and local businesses. The final week of the festival will include 

a world premiere of a piano concerto by Chase Morrin, featuring the composer as 

soloist. 

Showcasing the world-class musicianship of their home State, the Eugene Symphony will utilize its Art Works grant to present a series of new composition, performance, and mentorship opportunities for Oregon composers. In celebration of its 

50th anniversary, the Eugene Symphony—which employs seven full-time and four 

part-time staff, and 83 part-time musicians—will present the world premiere of a 

new piano concerto by Oregon composer Robert Kyr featuring Eugene-based pianist 

Alexandre Dossin. Kyr is also planning an integrated composition project for high 

school and graduate students, which will culminate in the creation of an orchestral 

theme and variations based on ‘‘Ode to Joy’’ from Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony. The 

premiere of the jointly composed work will take place on a regular subscription program and for students at a youth concert in November 2016. 

Celebrating both local and international talent, the Dallas Symphony Orchestra 

received Art Works support for world premieres of works by two celebrated American composers, Jeremy Gill and Christopher Rouse. Gill’s composition is written for 
147 

the Dallas Symphony Orchestra’s principal oboe Erin Hannigan, while Rouse’s composition is a co-commission led by the Dallas Symphony Orchestra and shared with 

the Aspen Music Festival and the Nashville Symphony. Educational activities include participation by the composers in workshops, master classes, and school programs. Both works will be conducted by Jaap van Zweden, music director of the orchestra, which employs 65 full-time and 20 part-time staff, and 91 musicians. 

Thank you for this opportunity to convey the tremendous value of NEA support 

for the communities served by orchestras throughout our country. Orchestras provide countless innovative collaborations, thoughtful programming for underserved 

communities, and lifelong learning opportunities in service to adults and children 

from all walks of life. As orchestras continually strive to bring the power and benefits of music to more people, we applaud the NEA’s national leadership in promoting 

excellence and engagement with high quality artistry. Advancing the highest expectations for accessibility and artistry are among the strongest arguments for a Federal role in support of the arts, therefore we urge you to increase creativity and access to the arts by approving $155 million in funding for the National Endowment 

for the Arts in fiscal year 2017. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LITTLE RIVER BAND OF OTTAWA INDIANS

Chairman Murkowski, respected members of the subcommittee: 

The Little River Band of Ottawa Indians (LRBOI) is honored to present this testimony on behalf of our Nation and people, regarding our views and priorities for the 

fiscal year 2017 President’s annual budget request. 

LRBOI is pleased with the ongoing commitment of the administration to Indian 

Country. President Obama’s commitment to establishing a legacy respecting the sacred relationship forged by our treaties is evident in the appropriations requests for 

the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) at $2.9 billion, and the Indian Health Services 

(IHS) of $5.2 billion; fully $138 million and $377 million above the fiscal year 2016 

enacted levels. The increases demonstrate a long-standing commitment to promoting 

tribal sovereignty, and for LRBOI, it aligns with our mission to secure and promote 

the prosperity of future generations. LRBOI would like to thank the subcommittee 

for hearing the concerns of tribal leadership and our views regarding the impact of 

the administration’s budget requests on our Nation’s efforts to reach the outcomes 

we are all wishing to achieve—successful, safer and prospering ‘Native First Nations’. 

LRBOI would like to acknowledge the importance of the recently signed MOU between the Census Bureau and the BIA. We believe tribal communities have long 

been undercounted and inaccurately represented in Census data. We support the 

$12 million increase to the BIA to address these gaps in Indian Country and believe 

this measure is a key component to formulating a realistic budget. 

Since Reaffirmation in 1994, LRBOI has prioritized its economic development efforts, programs, and service delivery to enhance the standard of living of its members. Assisting LRBOI members to achieve a middle class economic standard has 

been an overarching goal since reaffirmation, and while gains are being made, persistent issues remain as reported in the previous fiscal year: 

—over half (56 percent) of tribal member households earn less than $30,000 annually, compared to a mean household income of just over $64,500 for Michigan 

residents; 

—less than 40 percent of LRBOI tribal members adults have achieved education 

beyond a high school diploma, compared to nearly 60 percent of Michigan adults 

reporting some degree of higher education; 

—1⁄3 of tribal members access one or more tribal assistance programs annually— 

current enrollment stands at just over 4200 persons. 

LRBOI understands the challenges we face to assist our population out of poverty 

and into true individual self-determination. LRBOI is pleased with the ongoing commitment to make affordable housing available through the Native American Housing Assistance and Self-Determination Act (NAHASDA); we have built 55 high quality housing opportunities as a result of this Act to address the needs of our Elders, 

lower income and working families. LRBOI requests that the subcommittee continue 

to make these funds available to us, as our needs are increasing year to year with 

the return of our people to our homelands; we presently have an unmet need of 35 

homes for our returning families. 

LRBOI was also pleased with the increases to healthcare, specifically the commitment to fully fund contract support costs, which reduces the need to redirect other 

program funds to meet our costs of providing services. LRBOI appreciates the ad-
148 

ministration’s move of Contract Support Costs from discretionary to a mandatory 

appropriation. This change presents an opportunity for the Federal Government to 

comply at long last with the decisions in the Cherokee, Arctic Slope and Ramah Supreme Court cases. LRBOI cautions that the proposed proviso limiting carry-over is 

not consistent with the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act and 

should be eliminated. In addition, the increases to patient services will allow us to 

continue to implement direct services; we are on schedule to implement pharmacy 

service to our members in 2016—a direct result of services and contract support cost 

increases. 

LRBOI also notes that funds dedicated to Generation Indigenous, ‘‘Gen-I’’ will assist us to build stronger programs to address our at-risk youth populations and 

strengthen our family support systems. You heard us when we asked that these 

types of funds become a formula-based tribal priority allocation putting all tribes 

within reach of this needed assistance. Creating government-wide collaboration 

placing priority on ‘‘all of the Federal Government’’ to assist in the preservation of 

our most precious resource, Native American Youth, is achievable and commendable. 

There are some areas that are near and dear to us; and we wish to bring them 

to the attention of the Committee. 

Language and culture are the cornerstone of the unique identity of Indian peoples; the protection of our way of life is critical to our individual identities, our Community prosperity and most importantly, our children’s future. These are the guides 

of our governance as nations. The preservation of our sacred lands and objects, including the repatriation of our ancestors to our homelands is our highest responsibility. LRBOI would like to see future appropriations for the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer (THPO) increase to allow tribes to appropriately staff and more importantly, continue to provide opportunities for our people to engage in languageimmersion instruction and culturally based community events that reinforce our 

identity as Little River Band Ottawa; the Anishinabek peoples. The beauty of our 

culture is found in our language; it guides our daily life, preserves our identity and 

provides a foundation for our youth in the development of who they are as individual Anishinabek persons. Our language and culture keeps us strong, drug and 

alcohol free and family oriented. The present budget request of $15 million towards 

language and culture preservation is not enough for 566 federally recognized Tribes. 

LRBOI must write a successful grant proposal to even access funds to assist our 

efforts. A better approach to ensuring the preservation of the unique language, culture, sacred lands and objects that make us who we are, would be to implement a 

government wide initiative similar to Gen-I. It’s time to rewrite the priorities and 

place emphasis on the United States’ ‘First Nations.’ It’s time to restore the very 

things that were taken from us by assimilation. It’s time to repatriate our language 

and ceremonies back to us by increasing the appropriation to $30 million. We also 

need a set aside to allow our THPO officer to meet our requirements and respond 

to inquiries regarding the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 

matters. We are pleased to inform the subcommittee that our THPO Officer has 

been recognized by the Governor of Michigan for our government to government collaboration. LRBOI responds to nearly 300 inquiries annually with one THPO Officer 

and two staff. Section 106 requirements are a full-time obligation that could easily 

employ the skills of an engineer and archaeologist. I’m proud to say our staff fill 

those roles, and manage to provide cultural education, ceremonial and language opportunities for our people in addition to Section 106 compliance. 

Our LRBOI Anishinabek culture’s foundation is in the ‘‘KchiiGaamii’’ or Great 

Lakes that surround our lands. LRBOI is part of the Three Fires Nations; we live 

in the area on our ‘Turtle Island’ as directed to us long ago—‘settle in the place 

where food grows on water.’ This food is critical to our people; it is known as wild 

rice. Our current efforts to preserve wild rice beds, restore wild rice habitat and enhance growing opportunities for LRBOI member harvests is also impacted by three 

factors; the quality of the fresh water it grows in, the overall climate of the region 

and the invasion of non-native plant species such as purple loose-strife and 

phragmytes. Presently, LRBOI receives an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

multi-year grant under the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (GLRI) that assists 

our wild rice re-introduction, restoration and existing source management efforts. 

Combined with Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) funds, LRBOI is making an effort 

to protect existing wild rice beds within our Ceded Territory watersheds, establish 

harvesting education programs and reduce the incidence of invasive species and 

their impact on the habitat. LRBOI recommends increasing the existing EPA GLRI 

appropriation to $10 million from the $3 million requested in the fiscal year 2017 

budget as there are 36 tribes in our region with similar cultural preservation aspirations. LRBOI also recommends increasing the BIA Invasive Species Program from 
149 

$10 million to $15 million. The biologists working on our wild rice and habitat restoration efforts have indicated the biggest threats to our region for all Natural Resources are climate change, land management, farming and the siphoning of fresh 

water for activities such as fracking for gas and oil exploration. LRBOI asks the 

subcommittee to consider the protection of water quality to be a long-term priority. 

We are very aware of the crisis this year in Flint, Michigan and the threat to clean, 

safe drinking water—LRBOI donated $10,000.00 to the Flint Children’s Fund to assist with ongoing lead testing for Flint’s children as they continue to discover the 

far reaching impact of the contaminated water the people of Flint were consuming. 

We are very proud of our effort to assist the children of Flint and ask the subcommittee to take measures in this budget request to protect the fresh water resource that is the Great Lakes Basin. 

Finally, by its own admission, the administration’s funding request for the Road 

Maintenance Program for fiscal year 2017 will permit tribes to maintain only 16 

percent of BIA-owned roads and 62 percent of BIA-owned bridges in ‘‘acceptable’’ 

condition. In Michigan, the condition of our roads and bridge infrastructures impacts our economy, the quality of life in or territory and the communities surrounding it. The current appropriation requests would leave 8 out of 10 BIA-owned 

roads and nearly 4 out of 10 BIA-owned bridges with funds to maintain them in 

their current poor or failing condition. This is a life-safety issue. Most of these 

routes are gravel and earthen school bus routes that require more frequent maintenance than paved roads. We urge the subcommittee to add an additional $9 million 

to the Road Maintenance Program out of planned increases for the Interior Department for fiscal year 2017. Doing so will increase the percentage of BIA-owned roads 

and bridges maintained to an ‘‘acceptable’’ condition. In our territory, encompassing 

over 70,000 ‘reservation set-aside’ acres, and just over 13 million acres of ‘Ceded 

Territory’ over which we have Natural Resources enforcement jurisdiction, failing 

roads impact our watersheds and habitats. The additional funds if appropriated 

would do much to protect those resources and habitats. 

LRBOI appreciates many of the proposed increases in the President’s fiscal year 

2017 budget. We see the positive impact of ongoing meaningful consultation that is 

occurring through the Tribal Interior Budget Council and National Budget Formulation Workgroup. We urge the subcommittee to continue to support the efforts of 

these tribally driven bodies to inform the work of the administration and, ultimately, Congress. We also believe in the partnership that continues to evolve out 

of the Federal Indian trust relationship. The United States and its ‘Native First Nations’ truly do share a ‘‘sacred bond’’ borne from treaties—a mutual exchange for 

the benefit of both, our respective lands and nations. 

Little River Band appreciates the opportunity to present this testimony to the 

subcommittee on these important matters. 

KchiMiigwech (Many Thanks) 

Gdagaanaagaanik (All Our Relations) 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE

Chairman Calvert, members of the subcommittee and the distinguished gentleman from Washington State, Congressman Kilmer. I am Frances Charles, Chairwoman of the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe, an elected position that I have been honored to hold for the past 11 years. Thank you for providing me this opportunity to 

testify on the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service (IHS) budgets for fiscal year 2017. My testimony identifies our most urgent tribal-specific funding needs at the Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe. We are also supporting some regional 

and national budget requests which will also benefit the Lower Elwha citizens and 

community. 

TRIBAL-SPECIFIC REQUESTS FOR LOWER ELWHA KLALLAM TRIBE

Bureau of Indian Affairs $5.43 Million 

1. $4.972 Million Dam Removal and Fisheries Restoration—Public Law 102–495, 

Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act 

a. $702,000—Salmon Hatchery O&M 

b. $270,000—Flood Control Levee O&M 

c. $4 million—Land Acquisition 

2. $267,000—Tribal Court Enhancement and Implementation of TLOA and 

VAWA. 
150 

3. $191,000—Tiwahe Initiative—Tribe seeks to assert jurisdiction in its own court 

system over all cases arising under the ICWA and to become a licensing agency 

for foster homes. 

Indian Health Service $500,000—Mental Health and Chemical Dependency programs 

FISCAL YEAR 2017 REGIONAL REQUESTS

The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe supports the fiscal year 2017 budget priorities 

of the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians and the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board. 

FISCAL YEAR 2017 NATIONAL REQUESTS

The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe supports the fiscal year 2017 budget priorities 

of the National Congress of American Indians and National Indian Health Board. 

Contract Support Costs—Past, Present and Future 

As a Self-Governance Tribe, Lower Elwha has been impacted by the Federal Government’s refusal to pay full contract support costs (CSC) to tribes for contracted 

and compacted programs for the past two decades. In 2014 and 2015, the Supreme 

Court determined that tribes were entitled to CSC. The IHS and BIA began to settle 

past claims with tribes. In addition Congress directed the agencies to find a longterm solution to CSC as well as directed them to pay full CSC for 2014 and 2015. 

The game-changer going forward was the ground breaking decision by Congress in 

Public Law 114–113, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 to support the administration’s proposal to create a new account in the appropriations bill specifically for 

CSC in 2016 and 2017. While we are truly grateful for the progress to date in paying past, present and future CSC to tribes, there is a proviso in the fiscal year 2017 

budget proposal which counters current law. The proviso states that ‘‘CSC amounts 

that are not expended by a tribe or tribal organization in the current fiscal year 

be applied to contract support costs otherwise due in subsequent fiscal years.’’ This 

language should be removed because the Indian Self-Determination Education and 

Assistance Act (ISDEAA) already address use and disposition of unexpended contract and compact funds. Therefore, Lower Elwha requests that the subcommittee 

deem this provision unnecessary and discontinue it. 

We also support the administration’s proposal to fully fund CSC on a mandatory 

basis in fiscal year 2018–2020, though we would prefer that it begin in fiscal year 

2017 and, of course, that it be a permanent, indefinite appropriation. 

The Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe 

The Lower Elwha Indian Reservation is located at the mouth of the Elwha River 

where it empties into the Strait of Juan de Fuca on the North Coast of the Olympic 

Peninsula, about 8 miles west of the City of Port Angeles, Washington. We are a 

small tribe, with roughly 1,000 members, and a total land base—reservation and adjacent trust lands—of about 1,000 acres. To date, our economic development opportunities have been limited and we believe our long-term prospects are tied to natural resources restoration and preservation in an ecologically rich region where an 

extraction-based economy is well past its prime. 

$5.43 Million—Bureau of Indian Affairs Elwha 

1. $4.972 Million—Dam Removal and Fisheries Restoration—Lower Elwha is a 

salmon people with fishing rights reserved in the 1855 Treaty of Point No Point. 

We fish in marine waters and in the rivers and streams throughout our usual and 

accustomed treaty fishing area, including the Elwha River. We are strongly committed to the restoration of fisheries, fish habitat, streams and rivers, and the Port 

Angeles Harbor. We are the leading advocate for the removal of the two hydro-electric dams on the Elwha River—which is now nearly complete—and in accordance 

with Congress’s direction in the Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration 

Act of 1992 (Elwha Act), Public Law 102–495, we are working closely with the National Park Service and other agencies to remove the dams, and restore the once 

famously abundant Elwha River runs of salmon and steelhead. Unfortunately, removal of the dams caused a short term threat to the salmon runs (due to sediment 

released from behind the former dam sites) and has adversely impacted our small 

tribal land base and our tribal budgets. We urgently need increased Self-Governance 

funds to support the operation of dam removal mitigation and restoration features 

and to revive our other Self-Governance activities from which we have been forced 

to transfer funds to support dam removal mitigation. 
151 

a. $702,000—Salmon Hatchery O&M Costs—Fish Hatchery Operations Budget for 

the ongoing operation and maintenance (O&M) of our state-of-the-art hatchery, 

which went online in 2011. This is a significant increase of $601,929 annually, but 

one that is amply justified by the crucial role that our hatchery serves in dam removal and fishery restoration. Our hatchery is a genetic preserve for native Elwha 

salmonids, which have been on the verge of extirpation from the impacts of the 

dams and which have been further threatened by the enormous sediment load unleashed by the removal of the dams. The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 

would not have approved dam removal under the Endangered Species Act without 

the hatchery’s native salmonid programs. The tribe should not have to bear the 

O&M cost of this important restoration facility that in fact benefits the entire region. 

b. $270,000—Flood Control Levee O&M Costs—The levee on our lands had to be 

expanded prior to dam removal in order to protect tribal lands from the newly unleashed Elwha River and to conform to post-Hurricane Katrina standards—clearly 

it is a mitigation feature of the dam removal project. In passing the Elwha Act in 

1992, Congress intended that courts should not be asked to address problems where 

legislative solutions would be far superior in covering all the bases. Factoring in the 

inflation rate since 1992 compared to 2016, it is not fathomable that we currently 

receive only $10,400 annually to operate this levee. c. $4 million for Land Acquisition—The Elwha people have struggled for a century 

from the harm to their culture and economies caused by the Elwha River dams. We 

had to endure the delays in starting the dam removal process, we watched the destruction of not only the fisheries but the treaty fishers themselves with the loss 

of our traditional and cultural livelihood, and we have lost an opportunity—which 

will only return after another generation—to teach our children the ways of their 

ancestors and the Elwha life as designed by the Creator. We struggle every day to 

maintain a lifestyle that has been altered forever because of the impact this has had 

on our community. Section 7(b) of the Elwha Act authorized the appropriation of 

$4 million so that the Secretary could acquire trust lands for the tribe in reservation 

status in Clallam County, Washington, for economic development and housing. 

These funds have not yet been appropriated and the lands they could provide are 

desperately needed to revive the lives of the Elwha people. 

In 1934, an Interior Department report concluded that the reservation should be 

4,000 acres (for far fewer tribal members than we have today), but currently we 

have only 1,000 acres, several hundred of which (on the river’s side of the levee) 

have to be maintained in undeveloped state as floodplain habitat. In addition, we 

need legislative direction to ensure that former hydro-project lands are transferred 

to the tribe as contemplated in Section 3(c)(3) of the Elwha Act. 

2. $267,000—Funding for Tribal Court Enhancement and to implement TLOA and 

VAWA. Although the Interior Department and the tribe have identified tribal court 

enhancement as a high priority, Lower Elwha has been unable to adopt the enhanced sentencing provisions authorized by the 2010 Tribal Law and Order Act of 

2010 or to exercise expanded Domestic Violence Criminal Jurisdiction under the 

2013 Violence Against Women Act because of the lack of adequate base funding for 

its tribal court development. Requested funding will enable our tribe to do so by providing for: (a) mandatory criminal defense representation (including basic legal assistance for domestic violence victims and representation for parents); (b) detention 

services; (c) probation services that focus on solutions and restorative justice by 

sharing coordinated case management and re-entry referrals; and (d) basic court security. Fully funding of TLOA mandated provisions and increased base funding for 

our tribal court will enable Elwha to benefit from: BIA regional assessments using 

the Trial Court Program Standards; specific technical assistance and training identified through assessments; targeted training initiatives for specific tribal court personnel (judges; prosecutors; public defenders); development of tribal court bench 

books; identification of funding sources for pilot court programs; captured data covering criminal pre-trial matters to post-conviction issues, and including, any collateral civil legal issues. 

3. $191,000—Funding for ICW-related services from BIA’s Tiwahe (Family) Initiative. Lower Elwha is facing a community crisis with the increasing number of child 

abuse/neglect cases, which stem from inordinately high rates of drug/substance 

abuse by parents or caregivers. Services in all facets of tribal government are severely impacted by this reality. A coordinated community response must be based 

on multi-disciplinary, culturally informed case planning and service delivery, coupled with a strong commitment to restorative justice ideals and solutions-based sentencing (in criminal cases). A major obstacle to implementing this approach is our 

lack of infrastructure to assume jurisdiction over all local cases clearly arising under 

the Indian Child Welfare Act; in addition, because we are dependent on an inad-
152 

equate State system for licensing foster care providers, we are often unable to make 

proper placements to assist our families. The tribe currently receives only $45,000 

in Self-Governance for Indian Child Welfare matters. We seek $191,000 additional 

annual funding from the BIA’s Tiwahe (Family) Initiative, which would enable the 

tribe to assert jurisdiction in its own court system over all cases arising under the 

ICWA and to become a licensing agency for foster homes. 

Indian Health Service Elwha Tribal-Specific Funding Requests—$500,000 for Elwha 

Health Department Programs. 

Lower Elwha faces a drug abuse and mental health crisis of epidemic proportions 

that threatens to destroy the potential and the cultural connections of many tribal 

members. In fiscal year 2015, the Tribe’s Mental Health and Chemical Dependency 

programs served 272 American Indian or Alaskan Native patients and have the potential to reach approximately 1,500 AI/AN beneficiaries within Clallam and Jefferson County. The tribe currently subsidizes its chemical dependency program with 

third-party revenue and gaming revenue to fund prevention health initiatives and 

chemical dependency programs, leaving these critical health epidemics severely underfunded. To remedy this, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services formula 

must be expanded to inpatient chemical dependency treatment programs at the current encounter rate of $350 per day, with annual increases. 

CONCLUSION

The Lower Elwha Tribe has unique needs arising from our leading role in fisheries restoration, which will provide long-term economic benefit to the entire North 

Olympic Coast region. We have been a strong partner with numerous Federal agencies but the agencies have not fully addressed the unique impacts on our tribe of 

the dams and their removal. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LAURAIN MAGILACUTTY

Dear Senators: 

As an American citizen and taxpayer, I strongly oppose the BLM’s proposal to 

conduct dangerous sterilization experiments on wild mares at the Wild Horse Corral 

Facility in Hines. According to the Environmental Assessment (EA), the BLM is deciding whether or not to proceed with one or more of the proposed sterilization procedures. The weight of scientific evidence and public opinion clearly supports a BLM 

decision NOT to proceed with any of these sterilization procedures. 

The sterilization procedures that BLM is proposing to conduct on federally protected wild mares are dangerous, costly and impractical for use in the field, due to 

the serious health risks they pose to the horses and their unborn foals, and also 

due to the great expense of purchasing the equipment and training the number of 

veterinarians necessary to implement these procedures on the range. 

It makes no sense to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on these risky invasive 

experiments when proven, humane, and relatively inexpensive fertility control technology in the form of the PZP vaccine is readily available but vastly underutilized 

by the BLM. 

The EA is completely inadequate in analyzing the impacts of these experimental 

procedures on mares. In addition, the BLM has deliberately avoided public opposition to this controversial and grotesque research proposal by skipping the scoping 

stage of the environmental analysis process. As a result, the public has been deprived of the opportunity to provide input into the impacts of and alternatives to 

these procedures that must be analyzed under the rules of the National Environmental Policy Act. 

1. Ovariectomy via Colposcopy 

This is an outdated and archaic procedure that has been supplanted by more modern laparoscopic surgery. The EA fails to analyze the impacts of and alternatives 

to this procedure to mares and never once mentions the availability of more modern 

techniques! This proposed sterilization experiment is an intra-vaginal complex surgical procedure, which is hardly ever performed in domestic horses (never mind in 

wild ones), due to its inherently dangerous risks. 

—The blind nature of this surgery increases the risk of intra-abdominal hemorrhage, but the EA never even addresses this issue or the availability of more 

modern laparoscopic techniques that allow the surgeon to visualize the abdominal structures. 
153 

—The lack of a sterile environment subjects the mares to a high risk of infection, 

something that is ignored by the EA. 

—The procedure carries with it a significant risk of hemorrhage and evisceration 

(protrusion of the intestines through the surgical incision), which is why it requires strict follow-up care when used in domestic horses, including pain relief 

and 4–7 days of stall rest, the first 48 hours of which is spent in crossties to 

prevent the mare from lying down. It is not possible to provide this required 

post-operative care to wild mares, yet the EA minimizes the impacts of this fact, 

citing the opinion of an un-named veterinarian, instead of the published science 

and National Research Council review, which clearly indicate the risks and impacts of this outdated procedure on wild mares. 

—The procedure will cause mares in early stages of pregnancy to abort their 

fetuses and may cause loss of pregnancy for mares in the mid-stage of pregnancy as well. This is unacceptable. 

This pursuit of ovariectomy research is directly counter to the recommendations 

of the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council (NRC) in its 2013 

report, ‘‘Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way 

Forward.’’ That NRC report concluded that: ‘‘The possibility that ovariectomy may 

be followed by prolonged bleeding or peritoneal infection makes it inadvisable for 

field application.’’ 

2. Minimally Invasive Sterilization Techniques 

The other sterilization procedures that BLM proposes to research, while less 

invasive than ovariectomy, should also be abandoned due to the inability to provide 

post-operative care and the impracticality of implementing these procedures—which 

have never before been done in wild or domestic horses—on a broad scale in a field 

setting. The EA fails to analyze the impacts of precedent-setting procedures that 

have never before been performed in horses, and as well as the inability to provide 

required post-operative care. The EA also omits analysis of the economic impacts 

and practicalities of implementing these procedures on the range. 

In proceeding with these experiments, the BLM has ignored the NRC recommendation that these techniques should first be perfected in domestic mares, who 

can be easily handled and will be accessible for close monitoring and post-operative 

care, before attempting them in wild horses. 

It is unconscionable that the BLM is proceeding with these draconian experiments 

that endanger the lives of the un-consenting equine subjects and their unborn foals, 

particularly when a proven non-invasive and safe fertility control method exists in 

the readily available PZP birth control vaccine. Instead of wasting millions of tax 

dollars to fund experiments on inhumane and impractical sterilization experiments, 

the agency should instead focus resources on vaccinating sufficient numbers of 

mares with the PZP fertility control vaccine, which is documented through 30 years 

of experience and published science, to be safe, effective, cost-effective and successful in managing wild horse populations. 

Again, as a taxpayer and wild horse lover, I am outraged that the BLM is even 

considering pursuing such inhumane, barbaric and wasteful experimentation on 

wild horses and I find the BLM’s Environmental Analysis of its impacts to be woefully inadequate. As a result, I strongly urge the BLM to abandon these proposed 

experiments in favor of using proven, more cost-effective and humane fertility control methods. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MANIILAQ ASSOCIATION

Summary. The Maniilaq Association is an Alaska Native tribal organization representing 12 tribes in Northwest Alaska. We provide health services through a selfgovernance agreement with the Indian Health Service (IHS) and social services 

through a self-governance agreement with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA). We 

make the following recommendations regarding fiscal year 2017 IHS and BIA funding: 

—Increase funding for the Village Built Clinic leases in Alaska by at least $12.5 

million and make it a line item in the IHS budget. 

—Make full Contract Support Costs funding for the IHS and BIA mandatory, and 

ensure there are no provisos on indefinite CSC funding that conflict with the 

carryover funding authority provided by the Indian Self-Determination and 

Education Assistance Act. 

—Fund the IHS budget on an advanced appropriations basis. 

—Support the proposed increases in mental health, suicide prevention and substance abuse spending in the IHS and BIA budgets. 
154 

Village Built Clinics 

For many years now, Maniilaq has submitted testimony to the subcommittees regarding the need to address the chronic underfunding of our Village Built Clinic 

(VBC) facilities. We appreciate the inclusion of language in the fiscal year 2016 Consolidated Appropriations Act, providing that ‘‘. . . $2,000,000 shall be used to supplement funds available for operational costs at tribal clinics operated under an Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act compact or contract where 

healthcare is delivered in space acquired through a full service lease, which is not 

eligible for maintenance and improvement and equipment funds from the Indian 

Health Service[.]’’ While the language is not specific to VBCs, we understand that 

the $2 million was intended for VBCs. 

We also appreciate that the administration has also requested for fiscal year 2017 a $9 million increase for tribal clinic leases, on top of the $2 million provided in 

fiscal year 2016 funds. Approval of this request would finally help stabilize the desperately needed village-based care that is crucial in Alaska. 

The VBCs are essential for us to maintain the Community Health Aide Program 

(CHAP) in Alaska. As you know, CHAP is mandated by Congress as the instrument 

for providing basic health services in remote Alaska Native villages and often provides the only local source of healthcare for Alaska Native people in rural areas. 

We cannot overstate the critical role of village built clinics in Alaska. Lease rental 

amounts for the VBCs have failed to keep pace with costs—the majority of the 

leases for VBCs have not increased since 1989 and the IHS until this year resisted 

proposals to increase their funding. As a result, many of the VBCs are unsafe or 

have had to be closed, leaving some villages in Alaska without a local healthcare 

facility. 

In addition, the President’s proposed fiscal year 2017 clinic lease bill language 

may need some clarification, depending on IHS’s interpretation, concerning the references that healthcare be delivered in a space acquired through a ‘‘full service 

lease’’. In some cases tribes—including the Maniilaq Association—receive VBC funding as part of their recurring base, and so the IHS no longer has ‘‘full service leases’’ 

in place for those clinics. We know that the Appropriations Committees do not intend to limit VBC eligibility based on unclear terminology. 

In sum, these amounts are a step in the right direction but the 2105 ANHB study 

that analyzed the funding deficiency statewide for these facilities identified an increased need of $12.5 million increase. We urge that the full amount needed be appropriated. We also support maintaining this funding as a line item in the bill. 

Contract Support Costs Mandatory Funding 

Maniilaq appreciates the bipartisan support of the Interior appropriations subcommittees for full funding of Contract Support Costs (CSC). We very much appreciate the funding of CSC in fiscal year 2016 at an indefinite (‘‘such sums as necessary’’) amount, which has helped to ensure that CSC would be fully funded without having to reprogram funding for critical healthcare services and other programmatic funding to cover the CSC need. Maniilaq continues to believe that the 

indefinite appropriation of CSC funding must be made mandatory and permanent. 

We thus support the administration’s proposal to move CSC funding to a mandatory 

funding basis, although we would like it to begin in fiscal year 2017 rather than 

waiting until fiscal year 2018. We plan to reach out to and work together with the 

Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the House Natural Resources Committee 

in order to determine the best way to reach our goal for CSC funding to be made 

indefinite, permanent and mandatory. We ask for this subcommittee’s support for 

such mandatory CSC funding. 

Should CSC funding not be made mandatory in fiscal year 2017, we otherwise are 

supportive of the President’s request for an appropriation of ‘‘such sums as may be 

necessary,’’ with an estimated $800 million for CSC for the IHS, and an estimated 

$278 million for the BIA, in separate accounts in both the IHS and BIA discretionary budgets. However, we do not agree with the continued insertion of a proviso 

that could effectively deny the carryover authority granted by the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act for fiscal year 2017 and thereafter. We thus 

request the removal of the following proviso: ‘‘amounts obligated but not expended 

by a tribe or tribal organization for contract support costs for such agreements for 

the current fiscal year shall be applied to contract support costs otherwise due for 

such agreements for subsequent fiscal years.’’ 

IHS Advance Appropriations 

The Maniilaq Association continues to work toward a transition of the IHS budget 

to an advance appropriations basis. Over the past several fiscal periods, appropriations have been enacted well after the beginning of the Federal fiscal year: 2.5 
155 

months in both fiscal years 2016 and 2015, 3.5 months in fiscal year 2014, and 6 

months in fiscal year 2013. Following enactment, it takes a few months before funds 

are cleared through the Office of Management and Budget, allocated to the IHS 

Area Offices, and then finally provided to the tribes and tribal organizations. 

Both the tribal and IHS programs suffer under this situation. We need to be able 

to do the best job possible in planning, decisionmaking and administering programs, 

but we are impeded in our ability to do so because we do not know how much funding will be made available or when we will receive it. This uncertainty requires us 

to constantly re-work our budget and delay recruiting and hiring decisions, when 

we should be devoted to providing the best health services possible. These delays 

also ultimately cost us more money, since we are not able to take full advantage 

of buying items in bulk for lower cost, such as our heating fuel. 

We are asking that Congress appropriate IHS funds on an advance basis, just as 

it does for the Veterans Administration (VA) medical accounts funding. In the proposed fiscal year 2016 budget (fiscal year 2017 advance appropriations) for the VA, 

the administration justifies advance funding for the VA on the basis of providing 

timely, high-quality healthcare for the Nation’s veterans, and reiterates this justification in the proposed fiscal year 2017 budget. Our need for timely and predictable funding is no less great than it is for the VA. 

Alcohol & Substance Abuse Treatment, and Behavioral Health, Suicide Prevention 

The administration’s request includes $25 million in program increases for mental 

health. Of that amount, $21.4 million would be for a behavioral health integration 

initiative, for which tribes and tribal organizations would be eligible to seek funding 

for the expansion of their behavioral health services to areas outside of the traditional healthcare system; training; hiring behavioral health staff; and communitybased programs. Another $3.6 million in the proposal would be for funding pilot 

projects to implement the ‘‘Zero Suicide Initiative.’’ The overwhelming majority of 

the people we lose to suicide suffer from diagnosable, treatable mental health or 

substance abuse problems. However, the waiting list for treatment averages nearly 

9 months, and due to lack of funding there is often no place to refer people, particularly young people. We therefore request your support for funding the $25 million 

program increase for these critical programs. 

We also appreciate the $10 million appropriated in fiscal year 2016 for the Generations Indigenous (Gen–I) initiative, which provides increased resources for tribes 

to address youth behavioral, mental health and substance abuse issues. This funding is critical for the hiring of staff to provide more services and prevention programs for our youth. We ask for your support to fund the expansion of the Gen– 

I program in fiscal year 2017. For the IHS, the administration is requesting a $16.8 

million increase focused on youth: $15 million to expand Gen–I for additional staffing and $1.8 million for a pilot program that would provide a continuum of care for 

youth after discharge from a Youth Regional Treatment Center. For the BIA the 

proposal includes an increase of $21 million to expand the Tiwahe Initiative designed to address the inter-related problems of poverty, violence and substance 

abuse faced by Native communities, including $12.3 million for social services programs designed to provide culturally appropriate care. We ask for your support for 

this funding. 

The President’s proposal also includes 2-year mandatory funding of $10 million 

in fiscal year 2017 to expand the number of behavioral health professionals providing services in Indian communities, and $15 million to provide assistance ‘‘to prevent reoccurrences to tribes experiencing behavioral health crises including specialized crisis response staffing, technical assistance, and community engagement.’’ This 

funding and these programs are desperately needed in our communities. Increased 

behavioral health staffing is a necessity in order to save lives. We are committed 

to working together with the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and the House 

Natural Resources Committee and any others to develop legislation to support these 

proposals. 

Other 

We wish to join others in Indian Country in supporting the permanent authorization of the Special Diabetes Program for Indians; funding for annual built-in costs 

for medical and non-medical inflation, pay increases, and population growth; and 

the establishment of Medicare-like Rates for non-hospital services, thus stretching 

our otherwise limited Purchased/Referred Care funds. 

Thank you for your consideration of our views. 
156 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE METLAKATLA INDIAN COMMUNITY

Summary. The requests of the Metlakatla Indian Community for fiscal year 2017 

are: 

—Support Contract Support Cost (CSC) funding as being a separate, indefinite 

appropriation; remove the proviso potentially limiting carryover authority for 

CSC; and support permanent and mandatory CSC funding. 

—Exempt the IHS from any future sequestration, as Congress has done for the 

Veterans Health Administration programs. 

—Permanently authorize the Special Diabetes Program for Indians. 

—Substantially increase funding for BIA Natural Resources Management. 

The Metlakatla Indian Community (Tribe) is located on the Annette Island Reserve in southeast Alaska, a land base of 87,000 acres. Through our Annette Island 

Service Unit we provide primary health services at our outpatient facility through 

funding from the IHS as a co-signer to the Alaska Tribal Health Compact under the 

Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. We have significant fish 

and forestry resources, but as noted elsewhere in this testimony, we require more 

resources to fully manage them. 

Contract Support Costs (CSC).—We appreciate the change made to funding of 

CSC in the fiscal year 2016 appropriations act, which made the fiscal year 2016 

CSC funding for an indefinite amount. This shift helped to ensure that CSC would 

be fully funded without having to reprogram funding for critical healthcare services 

and other programmatic funding to cover the CSC need. 

For fiscal year 2017, we support the President’s request for an appropriation of 

‘‘such sums as may be necessary,’’ with an estimated $800 million for CSC for the 

IHS, and an estimated $278 million for the BIA, in separate accounts in both the 

IHS and BIA discretionary budgets. However, we request the removal of the following proviso: ‘‘amounts obligated but not expended by a tribe or tribal organization for contract support costs for such agreements for the current fiscal year shall 

be applied to contract support costs otherwise due for such agreements for subsequent fiscal years.’’ This proviso, which we understand the IHS proposed be included in the fiscal year 2016 appropriations language, is problematic because it 

could be misread to effectively deny the carryover authority granted by the Indian 

Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. We thus ask that the proviso be 

removed for fiscal year 2017 and thereafter. 

The Tribe’s long-term goal, however, remains that the indefinite appropriation of 

CSC funding be made mandatory and permanent. Under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, the full payment of CSC is not discretionary; it 

is a legal obligation, affirmed by the U.S Supreme Court. Funding of CSC on a discretionary basis has placed the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, 

in their own words, of being in the ‘‘untenable position of appropriating discretionary funds for the payment of any legally obligated contract support costs.’’ We 

are committed to working together with the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs 

and the House Natural Resources Committee to determine how best to achieve that 

goal. We also ask for the subcommittees’ intervention with the Budget Committee 

and any others that may influence this proposal for mandatory CSC funding. 

Sequestration.—We continue to ask that IHS funding be exempt from sequestration, as is the Veterans Health Administration (VA) programs. We understand that 

a number of members of Congress previously indicated that it was an oversight that 

IHS was not exempt from sequestration in the past and that the oversight should 

be corrected. The VA was made fully exempt from sequestration for all programs 

administered by the VA. See § 255 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit 

Control Act (BBEDCA), as amended by Public Law 111–139 (2010). Also exempt are 

State Medicaid grants and Medicare payments, which are held harmless except for 

a 2 percent reduction for administration of the program. We thus strongly urge the 

subcommittee to support an amendment to the BBEDCA to fully exempt the IHS 

from any future sequestration. 

Special Diabetes Program for Indians.—While we understand that the Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI) is not part of the IHS appropriations process, 

the SDPI funds are administered by the IHS. The current authorization and funding 

for the SDPI expires at the end of fiscal year 2017. The SDPI provides crucial funding for diabetes treatment and prevention programs for Alaska Natives and American Indians, among whom diabetes is an epidemic. As we have expressed in the 

past, the SDPI is an indispensable program that has shown identifiable, significant 

outcomes—both in terms of access to treatment and prevention. We support the administration’s proposal that the SDPI be permanently authorized, and hopefully at 

an increased amount. SDPI has been flat funded at $150 million for many years. 
157 

We ask for your support of the efforts to pass such an authorization as quickly as 

possible—well in advance of the SDPI’s expiration in September, 2017—so that 

these critical programs can continue to provide uninterrupted care and our contracts 

can be renewed without disruption and loss of expertise. 

BIA Natural Resources Funding.—Metlakatla has the only reservation (Annette 

Island Reserve) within the State of Alaska—87,000 acres, plus the marine waters 

3,000 feet out from the shorelines of Annette Islands. We did not participate in the 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA), though were given the opportunity 

to do so. Instead we communicated to the congressional drafters of ANCSA the need 

for the reservation to stay intact. Section 19 of ANCSA thus excludes the Tribe, preserving the Tribe’s trust land and reservation intact. 

The Alaska congressional delegation sent a joint letter on December 16, 2015 to 

Assistant Secretary Washburn at the BIA requesting information and a response to 

a significant issue: the BIA has, for decades, underfunded our natural resource programs. The BIA, thus far, has not responded. 

The Alaska congressional delegation acknowledges that we have produced a detailed analysis of not only the funding we currently receive to carry out BIA natural 

resource programs ($957,205), but an analysis of the funding necessary to adequately protect the trust assets (our lands, waters, habitat, minerals, and fish and 

wildlife), and also to steward those trust assets to meeting tribal needs on an ongoing basis. We determined that our BIA natural resource programs require a total 

funding of $3,118,050 on an annual basis, which means additional appropriations 

in the amount of $2,160,845. 

This breaks down as additional funds needed for the Tribe in the following budgetary accounts: BIA Hatchery Operations (∂$1,155,900); Fisheries Management and 

Development & Wildlife Management and Development (∂$201,456); Forestry 

(∂$439,772); Other Rights Protection (including water) (∂$208,123); and Mineral 

Development (∂$155,594). All of these funds have been requested directly from the 

BIA in a recent Title I Self-Determination contract request, but during negotiations 

on February 8, 2016, the BIA indicated there are no new funds available for these 

programs. The Tribe is awaiting the official written contract declination from the 

BIA. 

We urge the subcommittee to fully fund these needs so that the Tribe can adequately carry out responsibilities that are critical to ensure that the Tribe’s natural 

resources programs are adequately funded. We have a water shortage crisis at the 

Tribe currently, and there is no doubt that greater natural resources program funding would assist us in better understanding its causes and implementing solutions. 

I discuss below two of these program areas—Fisheries and Forestry—to greater illustrate all that is involved in carrying out these natural resource programs, the existing inequitable share of these funds that the Tribe receives in comparison with 

other Tribes in the Northwest, and why this funding is so critical to the Tribe. 

Fisheries.—Because State-managed waters surround the reservation’s waters, and 

because there is no court-ordered co-management relationship between the Tribe 

and the State, Tribal fisheries must be managed in a way that accounts for the 

Tribe’s fishing effort, as well as the State’s. This must be done without having any 

influence over the State’s management strategies, which, at times, have been preemptive of our subsistence and harvest rights. In order to properly manage our fishery resources, we need to bring our own scientists and resource managers to the 

table, but have insufficient funding to do so. 

We manage the following commercial fisheries (subject to Secretarial approval): 

Salmon—The Tribe’s fishery is the largest tribally managed salmon fishery in the 

Nation. In fact, the Tribe annually harvests more salmon than the five top fishing 

tribes in western Washington combined; Herring—we manage the second largest 

herring stock in southeast Alaska (second only to the Sitka fishery), the largest (almost certainly the only) tribally managed herring fishery in the Nation; Halibut— 

our halibut fishery is comparable to the tribal halibut fisheries in western Washington; and Dive Fisheries for Sea Cucumber and Geoduck—Comparable to tribal 

fisheries in western Washington. 

The tribes of western Washington, which conduct fisheries that are most similar 

to the Tribe’s, also have complex managerial, technical and scientific needs. Yet, 

their funding, although substantially greater than the Tribe’s, is still inadequate to 

cover the costs of retaining staff in each of the individual disciplines that, in combination, make up a legitimate fishery management program. However, Congress, 

through the BIA, makes millions of dollars available to the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) for that very purpose. The NWIFC, like the Columbia 

River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, is able to draw on economies of scale and consortia staff, so that when tribes meet with the State, or other management authorities, they are supported by expertise that the State cannot ignore. By contrast, the 
158 

Tribe not only does not have the funds necessary to hire its own experts, we are 

also not able to draw upon the expertise of an inter-tribal consortium. 

Our Tamgas Creek Hatchery is possibly the largest tribally operated hatchery in the Nation, but it inexplicably receives $0 in the Hatchery Operations line item in 

the BIA budget, while Oregon and Washington tribes receive substantial funding. 

Because of the role that hatcheries play in sustaining tribal fishing rights, every significant tribal hatchery in Washington State receives Hatchery Operations funding 

through the BIA budget, but Metlakatla receives none. Since the Tribe cannot compel the State to consider the Tribe’s needs, the Tribe’s only recourse is to increase 

the production of fish at its hatchery that will return to the Reserve, trusting that 

enough fish will get through the harvest gauntlet to meet the Tribe’s needs. Our 

Tribe is very much on its own. When considered in this light, the disparity between 

the fishery management support available to western Washington tribes and the 

support available to us is enormous. As a result, we are severely handicapped in 

efforts to protect our fishing rights and conserve our fishery resources. 

Forestry.—A second example of critically needed funding to meet tribal natural re- source program needs is in the forestry program. We receive $62,278 for our forestry 

program. This is insufficient funding to hire even one position in the program, let 

alone plan, design, and implement silvicultural prescriptions, forest harvest, conservation, and wildfire prevention and control strategies on the 21,172 acres of commercial forestland, and 54,197 acres of non-commercial forestland and associated 

muskeg habitat. Using the formula developed by the IFMAT III team in 2011, the 

Tribe’s forestry program should receive a minimum of $646,223.32 in Federal funding in order to ensure forest health and Federal trust obligations are met. Without 

this funding, we cannot maintain healthy forests that are not susceptible to fire 

risk, nor can we count on our forests for any jobs and income going forward. We 

have requested less than this full amount, or only an additional $439,772. 

We are glad to provide any additional information you may request. Thank you 

for your consideration of our concerns and needs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE METROPOLITAN WATER DISTRICT OF SOUTHERN

CALIFORNIA

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the subcommittee: 

The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (Metropolitan) encourages 

the subcommittee’s support for the U.S. Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Subactivity: Soil, Water & Air Management. This Subactivity includes Colorado River 

Salinity Control as a primary focus area. For fiscal year 2017, a funding level of 

$1.5 million for salinity specific control projects is needed in this primary focus area 

to prevent further degradation of Colorado River water quality and increased downstream economic damages. The salt concentration in the Colorado River causes over $300 million in damages 

to water users each year. While this figure is significant, had it not been for the 

efforts of the Salinity Control Program, damages would be much higher. Salinity 

Control Program actions have reduced salinity concentrations of Colorado River 

water by 90 milligrams per liter (mg/L) from what they would have been without 

the actions. That reduction of 90 mg/L has avoided additional damages of approximately $200 million per year. 

Metropolitan is the regional water supplier for most of urban southern California, 

providing supplemental water to retail agencies that serve approximately 19 million 

people. Water imported via the Colorado River Aqueduct has the highest salinity 

level of all of Metropolitan’s sources of supply, averaging around 630 mg/L since 

1976. This salinity level causes economic damages to all sectors. For example, high 

salinity leads to: 

—A reduction in the useful life of galvanized water pipe systems, water heaters, 

faucets, garbage disposals, clothes washers, and dishwashers, and an increased 

use of bottled water and water softeners in the household sector; 

—An increase in the cost of cooling operations, additional need for and cost of 

water softening, and a decrease in equipment service life in the commercial sector; 

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

—A decrease in the life of treatment facilities and pipelines in the utility sector; 

—Difficulty in meeting wastewater discharge requirements to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit terms and conditions, an 

increase in desalination and brine disposal costs due to accumulation of salts 
159 

in groundwater basins, and fewer opportunities for recycling due to groundwater quality deterioration; 

—Increased cost of desalination and brine disposal for recycled water in the municipal sector; and 

—A reduction in the yield of salt sensitive crops and increased water use for 

leaching in the agricultural sector. 

Concern over salinity levels in the Colorado River has existed for many years. To 

deal with the concern, the International Boundary and Water Commission signed 

Minute No. 242, Permanent and Definitive Solution to the International Problem of 

the Salinity of the Colorado River in 1973, and the President signed the Colorado 

River Basin Salinity Control Act of 1974 (Act) into law. To further foster interstate 

cooperation and coordinate the Colorado River Basin States’ efforts on salinity control, the seven Basin States formed the Colorado River Basin Salinity Control 

Forum (Forum). The Forum is charged with reviewing the Colorado River’s water 

quality standards for salinity every 3 years. In so doing, it adopts a Plan of Implementation consistent with these standards. The Plan of Implementation, as adopted 

by the States and approved by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, calls for additional salinity control measures to be implemented by BLM. 

BLM is the largest landowner in the Colorado River Basin. Due to geological conditions, much of the lands that are controlled and managed by the BLM are heavily 

laden with salt. Past management practices have led to human-induced and accelerated erosion processes from which soil and rocks, heavily laden with salt have been 

deposited in various stream beds or flood plains. As a result, salts are dissolved into 

the Colorado River system causing water quality problems downstream. 

The Salinity Control Program reduces salinity by preventing salts from dissolving 

and mixing with the River’s flow. Irrigation improvements (sprinklers, gated pipe, 

lined ditches) and vegetation management reduce the amount of salt transported to 

the Colorado River. Point sources such as saline springs are also controlled. 

The Salinity Control Program, as set forth in the Act, benefits the Upper Colorado 

River Basin water users through more efficient water management, increased crop 

production, benefits to local economies through construction contracts, and through 

environmental enhancements. The Salinity Control Program benefits Lower Basin 

water users, hundreds of miles downstream from salt sources in the Upper Basin, 

through reduced salinity concentration of Colorado River water. California’s Colorado River water users are presently suffering economic damages in the hundreds 

of millions of dollars per year due to the River’s salinity. 

Congress has charged Federal agencies, including the BLM, to proceed with programs to control the salinity of the Colorado River. Salt reduction is achieved by 

controlling both point and nonpoint sources of salt contributions; however, the majority of salt derived from public lands is of non-point-source origin. Salt loading 

from non-point sources is mainly reduced by minimizing soil erosion. BLM achieves 

salinity control goals through managing land use practices. BLM’s rangeland improvement programs can lead to some of the most cost-effective salinity control 

measures available. Metropolitan supports BLM’s current drafting of a comprehensive strategy to improve the implementation of salinity control and outreach efforts 

within the Colorado River Basin. BLM’s measures significantly complement programs and activities being considered for implementation by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation through its Basin-wide Program and by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through its on-farm Environmental Quality Incentives Program. 

Over the past years, the Salinity Control Program has proven to be a very cost 

effective approach to help mitigate the impacts of increased salinity in the Colorado 

River. Continued Federal funding of this important Basin-wide program is essential. 

The program change proposed by BLM in the 2017 budget request for the Soil, 

Water & Air Management Subactivity to enhance core capability is welcomed. This 

enhancement to support monitoring and analysis of soil, water and air resources, 

including sediment and salinity reductions within the Colorado River Basin, is needed. 

Metropolitan encourages the subcommittee’s support for sufficient funding in the 

Subactivity: Soil, Water & Air Management to allow for general water quality improvement efforts in the Colorado River Basin and $1.5 million for salinity specific 

control projects in 2017. This amount is needed to prevent further degradation of 

the quality of the Colorado River and increased downstream economic damages. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MINERALS SCIENCE AND INFORMATION COALITION

On behalf of the undersigned members of the Minerals Science and Information 

Coalition, thank you for the opportunity to submit a written statement for the 
160 

1 National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, 

and Sustainability, Subcommittee on Critical and Strategic Mineral Supply Chains. 2016. Assessment of Critical Minerals: Screening Methodology and Initial Application. Office of Science 

and Technology Policy, 57 p. 

record on fiscal year 2017 appropriations for the Mineral Resources Program within 

the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 

The Minerals Science and Information Coalition (MSIC or the Coalition) is a 

broad-based alliance of minerals and materials interests united in advocating for reinvigorated minerals science and information functions in the Federal Government. 

Our group is comprised of trade associations, scientific and professional societies, 

groups representing the extractive industries, processors, manufacturers, other mineral and material supply-chain users, and other consumers of Federal minerals 

science and information. 

MSIC supports the President’s request for $49 million for the U.S. Geological Survey’s Mineral Resources Program, and respectfully requests that Congress add $5 

million in new funding to create minerals forecasting capabilities as well as new investments in the USMIN project to continue development of a comprehensive national mineral resource database. 

Minerals are part of virtually all the products we use every day, acting as the 

raw materials for manufacturing processes or as the end products themselves. Minerals are critical ingredients in specialized applications for national defense and energy technologies, as well as essential building blocks for buildings, roads and civic 

infrastructure projects. They are used in the manufacture of paper, glass, ceramics, 

plastics, refined metals, and a host of intermediary materials. These, in turn, find 

their way into the manufactured products that make up our daily lives, such as 

automobiles, mobile phones, and computers. Every sector of industry relies on a variety of minerals to generate their end products, making a stable and reliable supply 

of minerals vital for the continued growth and success of our economy. 

The recent crisis in the global supply of rare earth elements caused by Chinese 

export restrictions is a case study in the importance of a stable mineral supply 

chain. Supply chains can be long, complex, and vulnerable to disruption for many 

reasons. The restrictions in the supply of rare earth elements threatened the production of components essential for U.S. defense systems, in addition to a vast array 

of communications, clean energy, electronics, automotive, and medical products. 

Both the private and the public sectors realize that we must reduce risks to key 

minerals supply chains. However, we cannot do this without accurate, timely information on the nature, location, and characteristics of our domestic mineral resources, and on the worldwide supply of, demand for, and flow of minerals and materials. This information is the foundation for identifying and anticipating existing 

and emerging vulnerabilities, and for sound decisionmaking by business leaders and 

policy makers. 

USGS MINERAL RESOURCES PROGRAM

The USGS plays a central role in providing the fundamental information that allows our business leaders and government institutions to make informed natural resource decisions. It is the Minerals Science and Information Coalition’s belief that 

prioritizing both the science and information components of USGS’s Mineral Resources Program is vitally important to our national defense and economic wellbeing. 

Minerals science covers the full life cycle of minerals from the discovery of mineral 

deposits to the disposal of mineral products, including understanding how mineral 

deposits are formed, the nature and location of mineral deposits, and the environmental issues associated with responsible mineral extraction. The Mineral Resources Program has a long and distinguished history of research and assessment 

of our Nation’s mineral resources. According to a National Science and Technology 

Council 1 report issued in March this year, an overarching trend in mineral production between 1996 and 2013 has been the concentration of production in countries 

with higher governance (geopolitical and regulatory) risk. This means that the risk 

of possible disruption to our mineral supply is rising. Therefore, it is vital that we 

invest in understanding our domestic resources to build resilient supply chains. 

The National Minerals Information Center (NMIC) is the premier source of information on the worldwide supply of, demand for, and flow of minerals and materials. 

The consistency and reliability of NMIC’s data over decades is one of its greatest 

strengths. Its data and products are used throughout the Federal Government to 

support economic, national security, and land-use decisionmaking. It is also critical 

to private sector investment and financial institutions. However, in spite of our ex-
161 

panding use of a range of critical and strategic mineral commodities that are essential to keep up our defense, economy, and wellbeing, NMIC does not have the resources needed to develop a robust forecasting function for the minerals sector. 

Therefore, we strongly urge additional new funding of $5 million for NMIC to support advanced mineral flow analysis and the development of minerals forecasting capability within the U.S. Geological Survey. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony to the subcommittee. 

American Chemical Society 

American Exploration & Mining Association 

American Geosciences Institute 

American Physical Society 

Industrial Minerals Association—North America 

Materials Research Society 

National Mining Association 

National Stone, Sand and Gravel Association 

Society for Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration, Inc. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MISSISSIPPI INTERSTATE COOPERATIVE RESOURCE

ASSOCIATION

My name is Ron Brooks. I am the Director of the Fisheries Division of the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. I am submitting written testimony on behalf of the Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Resource Association—an 

interstate partnership known as MICRA—regarding the priorities and budgets of 

two agencies within the Department of Interior, specifically the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The following testimony includes three appropriations requests totaling $4,460,000 in additional funding to the USFWS’s Fish and Aquatic Conservation fiscal year 2017 budget (Activity: Aquatic Habitat and Species Conservation; Subactivity: Aquatic Invasive Species). 

MICRA is an organization of my fellow State agency fish chiefs in the 28 States 

that have management jurisdiction of the fisheries resources in the Mississippi 

River Basin. The Mississippi River Basin is the largest watershed in the Nation, 

covering 41 percent of the continental U.S. and draining all or part of 31 States and 

2 Canadian Provinces. The Mississippi River Basin States formed the MICRA partnership in 1990 to cooperatively manage the interjurisdictional fisheries and aquatic 

resources in the basin. Recreational and commercial fishing in the Mississippi River 

Basin generates more than $19 billion in economic output annually. 

MICRA supports the increases in the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget for National Fish Hatchery System Operations and Maintenance, and for the Aquatic 

Habitat and Species Conservation’s Fish Passage Improvements and Aquatic 

Invasive Species Programs. Two of the primary basin-wide issues impacting our native fisheries and aquatic resources are the loss of diverse habitats and aquatic 

invasive species. The National Fish Hatchery System mitigation program, Aquatic 

Invasive Species Program, National Fish Passage program, and the National Fish 

Habitat Partnerships are all programs that MICRA strongly supports and would 

like to see remain priorities for the USFWS and Congress. 

Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) impact water resources, businesses, waterway 

users, native ecosystems, and the public in every State throughout the Nation. Management and control of nuisance fish—such as Asian carps and lion fish; mussels— 

such as quagga mussels, zebra mussels, New Zealand mud snails, and applesnails; 

plants such as Brazillian elodea, hydrilla, water hyacinth, and Eurasian water 

milfoil; and a plethora of other organisms cost the United States billions of dollars 

each year. 

The Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANS Task Force), composed of 13 Federal agencies and 13 ex-officio organizations, serves as the only intergovernmental 

organization dedicated to preventing and controlling ANS. The ANS Task Force provides a national forum for collaboration on critical issues that can impact prevention, control, and management of ANS. Regional coordination among Federal, State, 

and local partners is accomplished through the work of six Regional Panels. MICRA 

is an ex-officio member on the ANS Task Force and the host organization for the 

Mississippi River Basin Panel on Aquatic Nuisance Species—the largest Regional 

Panel in the country. 
162 

Funding for the Regional Panels is provided through the USFWS’s Aquatic 

Invasive Species Program, specifically as part of ‘NISA Implementation’ (i.e. National Invasive Species Act of 1996). Funding for the six Regional Panels is authorized in the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 

(NANPCA) at $300,000, providing a mere $50,000 in annual operations to each Regional Panel when fully appropriated. Beginning in 2013, the USFWS reduced annual funding to the Regional Panels by 20 percent. MICRA requests that Congress 

restore Regional Panel funding to at least the previously appropriated level of 

$300,000, but preferably to $600,000 which would provide each Regional Panel with 

$100,000 for annual operations. Leadership of the six Regional Panels has repeatedly stated that a minimum annual operational budget of $100,000 is needed for 

each Regional Panel to meet its legislated responsibilities under NANPCA. 

As part of the Federal-State partnership to address the myriad of ANS issues, 40 

State and 2 interstate ANS management plans have been developed to identify 

needed actions to address each State’s priority ANS issues. Funding for implementation of these 42 ANS Task Force approved State and interstate ANS management 

plans is administered through the USFWS and is authorized by NANPCA at $4 million annually. Funding for State ANS management plans allows States to leverage 

funds and implement the highest priority actions to prevent the continued spread 

of ANS and minimize their impacts on the public. Initial funding levels (fiscal year 

2000 and fiscal year 2001) provided more than $100,000 annually per approved 

plan; however, as the number of approved State ANS management plans has increased each year, the amount of funding received by each State has steadily decreased, severely limiting the ability of States to effectively manage ANS. 

Thankfully, Congress increased funding for implementation of State ANS manage- ment plans to $2 million in fiscal year 2016 and this increase is included in the 

President’s fiscal year 2017 budget. This much needed increase will result in each 

State with an approved plan receiving approximately $47,000 for implementation. 

The total funding requested by States to implement approved plans in fiscal year 

2012 was more than $14 million. MICRA requests Congress increase funding for implementation of approved State ANS management plans to the fully authorize level 

of $4 million in fiscal year 2017. This increase of $2 million for implementation of 

approved State and interstate ANS management plans is critically needed and long 

overdue. It is an investment in the States’ collective ability to prevent introductions 

of new ANS and manage and control existing ANS populations that cause millions 

of dollars in losses each year. 

State management plan and Regional Panel funding are included with USFWS 

operational costs in the agency’s budget for Aquatic Invasive Species as NISA implementation. We encourage appropriations language that clearly articulates the level 

of funding for State management plan implementation and Regional Panel operations as is intended by the subcommittee to prevent the continued loss of funds 

from these programs to USFWS operational costs. MICRA also recognizes the increased cost for USFWS operations each year, and underscores the importance of 

additional funding in the USFWS’s Fish and Aquatic Conservation budget for these 

important programs to the States. 

Asian carp have been spreading throughout much of the Mississippi River Basin 

over the past two decades impacting new waters each year. The States assisted the 

USFWS in the development of the national ‘Management and Control Plan for Bighead, Black, Grass, and Silver Carps in the United States’ that was approved by 

the national ANS Task Force in 2007. The Mississippi River Basin States have long 

advocated for national strategies to prevent and control Asian carps, recognizing 

that comprehensive efforts to address Asian carp throughout the Mississippi River 

Basin are necessary to achieve success in preventing Asian carp from becoming established in the Great Lakes, Upper Mississippi River, upper Ohio River, and elsewhere. Congress has made a significant investment over the last several years to 

prevent Asian carp from becoming established in the Great Lakes, first through 

Great Lakes Restoration Initiative (or GLRI) funding and more recently through 

base funding allocations to Federal agencies. 

Beginning in fiscal year 2014 the USFWS and USGS began receiving base funding to address Asian carp outside the Great Lakes, however this funding has been 

focused on preventing Asian carp from becoming established in the Upper Mississippi River and Ohio River basins. In addition to protecting uninvaded waters in 

every Mississippi River Basin State, many States in the Mississippi River Basin are 

attempting to reduce established populations of Asian carp and minimize their impacts on the businesses and recreational users that rely on these waters. The fiscal 

year 2017 President’s budget includes base funding for USFWS to ‘‘to prevent the 

spread of Asian carp in the Great Lakes Basin, and the upper Mississippi and Ohio 

rivers.’’ Such language has prevented Federal agencies from implementing a na-
163 

tional strategy for this issue and has kept Asian carp prevention and control technologies developed with Great Lakes Asian carp funding from being implemented 

and evaluated in parts of the Mississippi River Basin beyond the upper Mississippi 

and Ohio rivers where the results would have meaningful local and national benefits. For example, the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, and Parks has 

coordinated with USFWS, USGS, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) 

to identify potential tools and locations to prevent the interbasin transfer of silver 

carp from the Tennessee River to the Mobile River Basin via the TennesseeTombigbee Waterway. Despite the collaboratively agreed upon potential application 

of USGS developed technologies to prevent an inter-basin transfer of Asian carp, the 

Federal agencies have informed the Mississippi Department of Wildlife, Fisheries, 

and Parks that Asian carp funding is not available to implement and evaluate these 

technologies in the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway. The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget for USFWS includes $7.9 million in base funding for Asian carp; however $5.3 million is designated to be used for the Great 

Lakes and $2.6 million is designated for the Upper Mississippi River and Ohio River 

basins. MICRA supports these Federal agency base funding increases to enable the 

USFWS, in partnership with USGS and USACE, to lead national efforts to manage 

and control Asian carps in the United States. Greater focus on national priorities 

and increased funding for Asian carp prevention and control beyond the Great 

Lakes is desperately needed. MICRA urges the subcommittee to include an additional $2.1 million in USFWS base funding for Asian carp and to include language 

that the agency’s Asian carp base funds are to be used for ‘‘implementation of the 

national ‘Management and Control Plan for Bighead, Black, Grass, and Silver Carps 

in the United States’ and associated collaborative multi-State Asian Carp Control 

Strategy Frameworks and Action Plans to protect the Great Lakes, Mississippi 

River and tributaries, and other priority watersheds.’’ Similar wording is recommended for USGS and other Federal agencies receiving base funding for implementation of Asian carp programs. This wording is recommended to enable current 

work in the Great Lakes, Upper Mississippi River, and Ohio River basins to continue at their current levels, and to provide Federal agencies with the flexibility to 

implement additional work where needed based on national priorities. 

The Regional Frameworks/Action Plans for the Mississippi River Basin were developed with flexibility to use creative solutions to control existing populations of 

Asian carp and prevent further range expansion. Much of the work identified in the 

Asian Carp Regional Frameworks/Action Plans for the Mississippi River, Ohio 

River, and other parts of the Mississippi River Basin are State-led actions. The 

States are critical partners to the Federal agencies in the battle against Asian carp, 

but most States lack funding to implement actions and address priority needs. Federal grants to States for implementation of priority actions in support of the ‘Management and Control Plan for Bighead, Black, Grass, and Silver Carps in the 

United States’, and Regional Frameworks/Action Plans is needed to enable the 

States to engage as equal partners in addressing Asian carp. Funding increases to 

USFWS for Asian carp should include a specific amount or a percentage for grants 

to States for implementation of State-led priority needs identified in Asian Carp Regional Frameworks/Action Plans. Such a program could be administered by the 

USFWS and implemented in a similar manner as the State ANS management plan 

program. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony on the fiscal year 

2017 budget for the Department of Interior and for considering the recommendations and requests submitted by MICRA on behalf of our 28 Mississippi River Basin 

member States. I am happy to provide clarification or additional information to the 

subcommittee or its individual members regarding any of MICRA’s recommendations and requests presented in this written testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE MOUNTAIN PACT

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall: 

The Mountain Pact represents mountain communities across the American West, 

approximately 250,000 permanent residents and 40 million visitors each year. Positioned in rural mountain areas and often surrounded by Federal land, Western 

mountain communities are especially vulnerable to economic, public health, and environmental damages from catastrophic wildfire. 

It is not news to anyone living in the Western United States that wildfires have 

become a major threat to our communities. Many factors contribute to the increase 

in wildfire frequency and severity, including build-up of hazardous fuels, increasing 

populations in the wildland urban interface, and ongoing drought. This past decade 
164 

fires have burned 50 percent more land than in the previous four decades; the fire 

season has expanded by 2 months; and the average size of fires has increased by 

a factor of five since the 1970s. Just this summer, impacts from one of the worst 

western fire seasons on record have had far-reaching effects. The frequency and severity of these wildfires has and will have a disastrous effect on local economies, 

natural resources, and our communities and needs to be matched by significant levels of funding to protect people, water, and wildlife. 

In addition to the threat of the actual wildfires, critical landscape management 

activities are often postponed or canceled as a result of fire transfers from non-suppression agency accounts once annual wildfire suppression funds are depleted. Currently, the USDA Forest Service (USFS) and Department of Interior (DOI) are the 

only agencies required to pay for natural disaster response out of their annual discretionary budgets. Since 2000, these agencies have run out of money to fight emergency fires eight times and in the last 2 years, more than $1 billion was ‘borrowed’ 

from USFS programs to cover fire suppression shortfalls. Unfortunately and again 

in fiscal year 2015, the 10-year average was not enough to meet the USFS suppression needs, forcing the agency to transfer $700 million from non-suppression accounts to make up for the shortfall. 

The current wildfire suppression funding model and cycle of transfers and repayments has negatively impacted the ability to implement forest management, among 

many other activities. Additionally, the increasing 10-year average has not met annual suppression needs since before fiscal year 2002, which is why we are thankful 

to the subcommittee for the full transfer repayment and increased suppression funding in fiscal year 2016. However, we understand this is not expected to occur every 

year. 

DOI and USFS need a long-term fire funding solution that would result in stable 

and predictable budgets. Our local economies are incredibly vulnerable to the effects 

of underfunded Federal land management. 

We respectfully request a bipartisan fire funding solution that would (1) access 

disaster funding, (2) minimize transfers, and (3) address the continued erosion of 

agency budgets over time, with the goal of reinvesting in key programs that would 

restore forests to healthier conditions. 

[This statement was submitted by Diana Madson, Executive Director.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY OF STATE ARTS AGENCIES

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the invitation to prepare this testimony regarding Federal appropriations for the National Endowment for the Arts in fiscal year 2017. I am Pam 

Breaux, Chief Executive Officer of the National Assembly of State Arts Agencies 

(NASAA), the organization representing the State and jurisdictional arts agencies 

of the United States. Today, I urge the subcommittee to support funding the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) at $155 million in fiscal year 2017. In fiscal year 2016, this subcommittee supported an increase of $2 million in funding for the agency. The States and NASAA are extremely grateful to the subcommittee for this, particularly given the limitations Congress faces as a result of 

sequestration. As you look to the next budget, NASAA hopes you will once again 

consider increasing funding for the NEA, which continues to make a substantial impact in communities throughout the United States, even while operating with a 

budget that is more than $19 million (12 percent) lower than in fiscal year 2010. 

In asking for an increase in funding for the NEA, it is important to acknowledge 

the continued bipartisan support that this subcommittee, and Congress as a whole, 

has demonstrated for State arts agencies. As you know, through a highly effective 

Federal-State partnership, the NEA distributes 40 percent of its programmatic 

funds to State and regional arts agencies each year. The resulting $47.3 million in 

fiscal year 2016, helped to leverage additional public and private investment in the 

arts, empowered States and regions to address their unique priorities, and served 

far more constituents than Federal funds alone could reach. The report accompanying last year’s Consolidated Appropriations Act affirmed Congress’s support for 

this important partnership and the 40 percent allocation. We sincerely thank the 

subcommittee for this acknowledgement. 

State arts agencies use their share of NEA funds ($39 million last year), combined 

with funds from State legislatures, to support approximately 21,000 grants to arts 

organizations, civic organizations, schools and artists in more than 4,400 communities across the United States. Twenty-five percent of State arts agencies’ grant 

awards go to nonmetropolitan areas, supporting programs that strengthen the civic 

and economic sustainability of rural America. Twenty-nine percent of State arts 
165 

agencies’ grant dollars go to arts education, fostering student success in and out of 

school and providing the critical thinking, creativity and communications skills 

needed to meet the demands of today’s competitive work force. 

Congress’s continued support of the 40 percent formula is essential to State arts 

agencies, boosting their ability to drive innovation in their States. Throughout the 

country, State arts agencies play significant roles in shaping education policy, stimulating economic growth and helping communities thrive as rewarding and productive places to live, conduct business, visit and raise a family. Should Congress support an increase for the NEA, State arts agencies will be in a position to expand 

their meaningful role helping in every congressional district have full opportunities 

to experience the economic, civic, educational and cultural benefits that the arts 

offer. 

NASAA and State arts agencies also applaud the work of the NEA in its direct 

program areas and partnerships with other Federal agencies. The NEA’s direct 

grants support thousands of concerts, performances, readings and exhibitions, with 

annual live attendance of nearly 20 million people. Especially noteworthy partnerships include the NEA’s work with the Department of Defense (to support arts therapy in healing programs at the Walter Reed National Military Medical Center and 

the National Intrepid Center of Excellence) and the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis (to track the economic contributions of arts and cultural 

production to the U.S. gross domestic product and export portfolio). 

In the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016 Committee Report, this subcommittee urged State arts agencies to explore opportunities to work with the military. NASAA’s newly released study on State arts and military initiatives recounts 

that numerous States are either already implementing or considering such programs. In fact, a significant majority (45) of State arts agencies are pursuing at 

least one program, policy, service or partnership related to serving military and veteran populations through the arts. Further, 72 percent are actively engaged in or 

considering partnerships to facilitate the work. We look forward to supporting 

States as they continue this important, ground-breaking work. 

Thank you for your consideration. NASAA looks forward to continuing to work 

productively with this subcommittee, and we stand ready to serve as a resource to 

you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN AIR AGENCIES

On behalf of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), thank you 

for this opportunity to provide testimony on the fiscal year 2017 proposed budget 

for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), particularly grants 

to State and local air pollution control agencies under Sections 103 and 105 of the 

Clean Air Act, which are part of the State and Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG) program. Specifically, NACAA makes three requests of Congress: (1) State and local air 

pollution control agencies should be provided with Federal grants in the amount of 

the President’s request—$268.2 million—which is an increase of $40 million over 

fiscal year 2016 levels; (2) the $40-million increase should not be earmarked for any 

particular activity (e.g., climate change); rather, agencies should be given the flexibility to use the additional resources on the highest-priority activities in their areas; 

and (3) grant funds for fine particulate matter (PM2.5) monitoring should remain 

under Section 103 authority, rather than being shifted to Section 105 authority, as 

EPA is proposing. 

NACAA is a national, non-partisan, non-profit association of air pollution control 

agencies in 40 States, the District of Columbia, four Territories and 116 metropolitan areas. The members of NACAA have the primary responsibility under the Clean 

Air Act for implementing our Nation’s clean air program. The air quality professionals in our member agencies have vast experience dedicated to improving air 

quality in the United States. These observations and recommendations are based 

upon that experience. The views expressed in this testimony do not necessarily represent the positions of every State and local air pollution control agency in the country. 

Air Pollution Is Still a Serious Problem in the United States 

Air pollution continues to be a significant public health concern. Every year tens 

of thousands of people die prematurely as a result of breathing polluted air. Millions 

are exposed to unhealthful levels of air contaminants, which results in many health 

problems, such as cancer and damage to respiratory, cardiovascular, neurological 
166 

1Fiscal Year 2014–2018 EPA Strategic Plan (April 10, 2014), page 8. 

2https://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/iarcnews/pdf/pr221lE.pdf. 3Fiscal Year 2017 EPA Budget in Brief (February 2016), page 14. 

4Fiscal Year 2017 EPA Budget in Brief (February 2016), page 14. 

5http://www.epa.gov/national-air-toxics-assessment/2011-nata-assessment-results. 

6 Investing in Clean Air and Public Health: A Needs Survey of State and Local Air Pollution 

Control Agencies, (April 2009), NACAA, www.4cleanair.org/Documents/ 

reportneedssurvey042709.pdf. 

and reproductive systems.1 The evidence of adverse health impacts continues to 

mount. For example, in October 2013, the International Agency for Research on 

Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization classified outdoor air pollution as 

carcinogenic to humans. The IARC evaluated particulate matter separately and also 

classified it as a human carcinogen.2

The programs that Federal, State and local agencies have undertaken to address 

air pollution under the Clean Air Act have been hugely successful. For example, 

EPA data show that between 2003 and 2014, population-weighted ambient concentrations have declined by 29 percent for PM2.5 and 18 percent for ozone.3

In spite of these strides, significant problems still exist, posing threats to public 

health and welfare. According to EPA, in 2014 approximately 57 million people in 

this country lived in counties that exceeded one or more of the Federal health-based 

air pollution standards.4 With respect to hazardous air pollutants (HAPs), the newly 

released data from EPA’s National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) indicate that in 

2011 ‘‘all 285 million people in the U.S. ha[d] an increased cancer risk of greater 

than 10 in one million,’’ while one-half million people have an increased risk of cancer of over 100 in a million, due to exposure to the HAPs included in the NATA 

analysis.5

The task Congress faces of balancing many competing needs is daunting. However, we doubt any of the issues this subcommittee addresses pose more of a public 

health problem than that of air pollution. This body has the chance to take aim at 

this critical public health and welfare problem by providing additional Federal 

grants to those fighting on the front lines—State and local air quality agencies. 

The Proposed Increase Is Needed Even Without the Clean Power Plan Requirements 

The proposed budget for fiscal year 2017 calls for an increase of $40 million in grants for State and local air quality agencies, for a total of $268.2 million. The $40- 

million increase was originally intended to include $25 million for implementation 

of the Clean Power Plan (CPP) and $15 million for what we consider to be ‘‘core’’ 

activities, such as ongoing and day-to-day elements of our programs. As you know, 

after the budget was proposed, the Supreme Court stayed the CPP (February 9, 

2016) so many State and local agencies’ obligations related to this program will not 

be required during fiscal year 2017. However, we nevertheless urge Congress to provide the full $40-million increase to State and local air agencies because our needs 

are far greater than the total proposed additional grants could address, even without the requirements of the CPP. Moreover, if given flexibility on how the additional 

funds are used, State and local air agencies can target the resources to address the 

issues that are most pressing to their communities. 

State and Local Agencies Programs Face Significant Deficits 

State and local air pollution control agencies have done their best to operate with 

insufficient resources for many years, but it has been a struggle. State and local air 

programs face an annual shortfall of $550 million in Federal grants,6 which has 

caused many of these agencies to reduce or eliminate important air pollution programs, postpone necessary air monitoring expenditures and even reduce their 

workforces. In light of economic hardships, States and localities increasingly rely on 

Federal grants provided by the Clean Air Act. 

The Clean Air Act’s Section 105 authorizes Federal grants to cover up to 60 percent of the cost of State and local air programs and requires States and localities 

to contribute a 40-percent match. In reality, however, State and local air agencies 

provide over 75 percent of their budgets (not including permit fees under the Federal Title V program). Exacerbating the situation is the fact that Federal grants 

have decreased by nearly 17 percent in purchasing power since 2000 due to inflation. 

State and local air quality programs carry out a host of essential activities to attain and maintain healthful air quality. These include ongoing, day-to-day responsibilities that constitute the foundation or core of our programs, as well as additional efforts designed to address new problems and changing regulatory requirements. While the list of our responsibilities is too lengthy to include in this brief 

testimony, just a few examples for fiscal year 2017 include continued implementa-
167 

tion of the health-based national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for multiple pollutants; development and/or revision of State Implementation Plans (SIPs) 

for the ozone, PM2.5 and sulfur dioxide standards; implementation of air toxics 

standards, including revisions to Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

standards resulting from Risk and Technology Review updates; and implementation 

of control measures related to visibility and regional haze. 

These tasks require many resource- and labor-intensive activities including, 

among other things, air quality planning; compiling comprehensive emission inventories; carrying out complex modeling; analyzing extensive data; adopting regulations; inspecting facilities and enforcing regulations; addressing complicated transport issues; issuing minor source permits; and informing and involving the public 

in air quality decisions and issues. 

A major responsibility that State and local agencies face relates to air quality 

monitoring. This piece of our program is critical for determining the extent and location of air quality problems and assessing the efficacy of our programs. As in previous years, our monitoring program in fiscal year 2017 will call for ongoing monitoring as well as revisions to address new and changing requirements. Additionally, 

it has become obvious that one result of the financial crises of recent years is the 

postponement of necessary activities related to essential upkeep and maintenance 

for State and local air monitoring networks. Moreover, the loss of monitoring staff 

has hampered the program significantly. Simply stated, our monitoring program is 

in dire need of additional funds for essential infrastructure investments and additional personnel. 

I have articulated just some of the difficult fiscal issues facing State and local air 

pollution control agencies in order to emphasize how important it is for Congress 

to provide these agencies with the $40-million increase included in the administration’s request, even without the requirements of the CPP, and to also allow State 

and local agencies the flexibility to spend the funds on the highest priority activities 

in their areas. 

NACAA Recommends That Monitoring Grants Remain Under Section 103 Authority 

As in previous years, the administration’s request proposes to begin to shift the 

PM2.5 monitoring grant program from Section 103 authority to Section 105 authority. When funds are provided under Section 103, no State or local matching funds 

are needed, while Section 105 grants call for matching funds. We request that these 

funds remain under Section 103 authority. There are some State and local air quality agencies that are unable to provide additional matching funds. If the program 

is shifted to Section 105 authority, these agencies could have to refuse critical monitoring grants because they are unable to afford the required match. We have made 

this recommendation in previous years and State and local air quality agencies are 

very appreciative that Congress has been agreeable to our request in the past. 

NACAA Supports Resources for the ‘‘Climate Infrastructure Fund’’ 

NACAA supports the proposed ‘‘Climate Infrastructure Fund,’’ which includes 

$1.65 billion over 10 years to, among other things, retrofit, replace or repower diesel 

equipment, especially school buses. It is critically important that diesel emissions 

be reduced and this program will support important efforts to address this problem. 

NACAA Supports Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) Funds 

NACAA is pleased that the proposed budget includes funding for the Diesel Emission Reduction Act (DERA) program ($10 million). Diesel pollution poses significant 

threats to public health and the DERA program is an important effort to address 

emissions from the large legacy fleet of diesel engines. We are concerned that in fiscal year 2016 it appears that the DERA program was increased above the President’s request at the expense of the Section 103/105 grants and we strongly urge 

that any future funding for DERA not be in lieu of increases to State and local air 

grants. 

Conclusion 

In summary, NACAA supports the administration’s proposal to provide $268.2 

million in grants to State and local air pollution control agencies under Sections 103 

and 105 of the Clean Air Act for fiscal year 2017, which is an increase of $40 million 

above fiscal year 2016. NACAA also asks that Congress not ‘‘earmark’’ these funds 

for specific activities and instead provide State and local air pollution control agencies with the flexibility to use the additional resources on the highest priority activities in their areas. Finally, NACAA requests that that grants for PM2.5 monitoring 

remain under Section 103 authority, rather than being shifted to Section 105 authority. 
168 

Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on these critically important 

issues and for your consideration of the funding needs of State and local air quality 

programs. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN WATER AGENCIES

As the appropriations subcommittee begins to develop legislation to fund EPA in 

the 2017 fiscal year, the National Association of Clean Water Agencies (NACWA) 

appreciates your support of strong funding for programs that help provide clean and 

safe water infrastructure while making local utility investments more manageable 

for ratepayers. 

As you know, the ongoing water crisis in Flint, Michigan has focused national attention on the needs of our water infrastructure. This has prompted welcome proposals by some Members of Congress to dramatically boost water infrastructure 

spending next year. One such proposal would provide $2 billion each to the Clean 

Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs), well-established programs that deliver funding to all States to help communities improve their water 

and wastewater infrastructure to protect public health. NACWA strongly supports 

these higher proposed funding levels to dramatically increase SRF appropriations in 

the 2017 fiscal year while bringing parity to Clean Water and Drinking Water SRF 

funding levels. 

We also recognize that the budgetary situation faced by Congress may prevent 

total SRF appropriations from reaching these levels in fiscal year 2017. If that is 

the case, at minimum we urge Congress to reject any cuts to the Clean Water SRF 

in 2017—including those proposed in the President’s budget—and to bring the 

Drinking Water SRF to an equal level of funding. 

The Clean Water SRF is heavily utilized across the United States to help clean 

water utilities meet their many regulatory requirements under the Clean Water Act 

through more affordable financing terms which help ensure local ratepayers can afford their clean water bills. Clean Water SRF funds have been instrumental in 

many communities’ successes in complying with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, implementing secondary (biologic) treatment of 

wastewater, and reducing the frequency and size of sewer overflows during wet 

weather events. Clean Water SRFs are also increasingly used for innovative 

stormwater and nutrient management projects and to implement green infrastructure, which can provide cost-effective water quality improvements while also providing green spaces and improving community quality of life. 

Clean water utilities will also be looking to leverage low-cost financing from the 

Clean Water SRF to implement controls to maintain compliance with new and updated regulatory requirements from EPA. Regulatory and guidance changes ranging 

from updated water quality standards for ammonia to new air emission standards 

for Sewage Sludge Incinerators impose costs for clean water utilities. On the enforcement side, municipal wet weather issues will continue to be an enforcement 

priority for EPA in fiscal year 2017. This is anticipated to likely lead to new Federal 

consent decrees for which communities will need to finance hundreds of millions of 

dollars in additional improvements. Many POTWs are also facing increasingly stringent nutrient limits, which can similarly impose compliance costs in the hundreds 

of millions of dollars for individual communities. The Clean Water SRF serves as 

an essential tool helping utilities meet their new requirements and limits. 

While attaining strong SRF funding levels is clearly essential, in light of the massive costs clean water utilities face we also urge Congress to deliver robust funding 

to other important water infrastructure programs. In particular, we urge at least 

$6.5 million to continue EPA’s Integrated Municipal Stormwater and Wastewater 

Planning Approach (Integrated Planning), which helps communities address their 

EPA regulations cost-effectively and strategically. Integrated Planning allows clean 

water utilities and their communities to strategically prioritize clean water investments to provide greater ‘‘bang for the buck’’ in addressing environmental and public health issues more holistically and cost-effectively. 

Additionally, providing more robust SRF funding levels will help our Nation’s 

water and wastewater systems begin to address the billions of dollars of investment 

needs they face in the coming decades. EPA has reported that our wastewater systems face $271 billion in documented needs over the next 20 years—investments in 

publicly owned wastewater conveyance and treatment facilities, sewer overflow correction, and stormwater management. Drinking water systems require $384 billion 

in infrastructure rehabilitation and improvements over the same timeframe according to an EPA report. And these numbers likely do not reflect the true investment 

needs facing communities around the Nation. With the crisis in Flint renewing na-
169 

tional attention on water infrastructure, now is the time to take a stand by appropriating strong funding to the programs that help our communities ensure the ongoing delivery and treatment of clean and safe water. 

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration, and please do not hesitate to contact 

NACWA for additional information. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE ENERGY OFFICIALS

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the subcommittee, I am David Terry, Executive Director of the National Association of 

State Energy Officials (NASEO), which represents the 56 State and Territory Energy Offices. NASEO is submitting this testimony in support of funding for the ENERGY STAR program (within the Climate Protection Partnership Division of the Office of Air and Radiation) at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

NASEO supports funding of at least $55 million, including specific report language 

directing that the funds be utilized only for the ENERGY STAR program. The ENERGY STAR program is successful, voluntary, and cost-effective. The program has 

a proven track record—it makes sense, it saves energy and money and Americans 

embrace it. With a slowly recovering economy, ENERGY STAR helps consumers and 

businesses control expenditures over the long term. The program is strongly supported by product manufacturers, utilities and homebuilders, and ENERGY STAR 

leverages the States’ voluntary efficiency actions. Voluntary ENERGY STAR activities are occurring in public buildings, such as schools, in conjunction with State Energy Offices, in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Delaware, District 

of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, 

Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, 

Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. 

The ENERGY STAR program is focused on voluntary efforts that reduce the use 

of energy, promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy, and works with States, 

local governments, communities and business to achieve these goals in a cooperative, public-private manner. NASEO has worked very closely with EPA and approximately 40 States are ENERGY STAR Partners. With very limited funding, EPA’s 

ENERGY STAR program works closely with the State Energy Offices to give consumers and businesses the opportunity to make better energy decisions and catalyzes product efficiency improvements by manufacturers without regulation or mandates. 

ENERGY STAR focuses on energy efficient products as well as buildings (e.g., residential, commercial, and industrial). Americans purchased more than 320 million 

ENERGY STAR certified products in 2014 across more than 70 product categories 

for a cumulative total exceeding 5.2 billion products since 1992. The ENERGY STAR 

label is recognized across the United States. In 2014, 89 percent of households recognized the ENERGY STAR label when it was shown to them. This constitutes an 

increase of 48 percent since the Consortium for Energy Efficiency first conducted the 

National Awareness of ENERGY STAR survey in 2000. It makes the work of the 

State Energy Offices much easier, by working with the public on easily recognized 

products, services, and targets. In order to obtain the ENERGY STAR label a product has to meet established guidelines. ENERGY STAR’s voluntary partnership programs include ENERGY STAR Buildings, ENERGY STAR Homes, ENERGY STAR 

Small Business, and ENERGY STAR Labeled Products. The program operates by 

encouraging consumers and working closely with State and local governments to 

purchase these products and services. Marketplace barriers are also eradicated 

through education. State Energy Offices are working with EPA to promote ENERGY 

STAR products, ENERGY STAR for new construction, ENERGY STAR for public 

housing, etc. A successful example of how State Energy Offices are leveraging this 

key national program is the Nebraska Energy Office, which since 2005, has utilized 

ENERGY STAR as the standard for certifying home and office electronics that are 

eligible under the State’s successful and long-running Dollar and Energy Savings 

Loan program. 

In 2014, millions of consumers and 16,000 voluntary partners, that included manufactures, builders, businesses, communities and utilities, tapped the value of ENERGY STAR and achieved impressive financial and environmental results. Their investments in energy-efficient technologies and practices reduced utility bills by $34 

billion. 
170 

An estimated 93,000 homes were improved through the whole house retrofit program, Home Performance with ENERGY STAR (HPwES) in 2014. This work was 

performed by 48 locally sponsored programs and more than 2,100 participating contractors across the Nation. Since the program’s inception, more than 400,000 homes 

have been improved through HPwES. Over 30 States, including Alabama, California, Kentucky, Minnesota, Nevada, and Pennsylvania, operate or support the 

Home Performance with ENERGY STAR programs. 

The State Energy Offices are very encouraged with progress made at EPA and 

in our States to promote programs to make schools more energy efficient, in addition 

to an expanding ENERGY STAR Business Partners program. In Kentucky, the 

State has partnered with school districts and engineering firms to advance ENERGY STAR rated schools, resulting in more than 325 ENERGY STAR rated 

schools in the State, a 67 percent increase since 2012. Over the past few years, Kentucky has moved aggressively to promote and build zero-net energy schools. Other 

States that have over 150 ENERGY STAR rated schools include Arizona, California, 

Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, 

North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin. Over 27 percent of Utah’s K–12 schools are certified as ENERGY STAR. 

EPA provides technical assistance to the State Energy Offices in such areas as 

ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager (how to rate the performance of buildings), setting an energy target, and financing options for building improvements and building 

upgrade strategies. ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager is used extensively by State 

Energy Offices to benchmark performance of State and municipal buildings, saving 

taxpayer dollars. Portfolio Manager is the industry-leading benchmarking tool used 

voluntarily by more than 325,000 commercial buildings. Portfolio Manager is used 

to measure, track, assess, and report energy and water consumption. 

Additionally, the industrial sector embraces ENERGY STAR and companies such 

as GM, Eastman Chemical, Nissan, Raytheon, Boeing and Toyota are recognized for 

sustained energy excellence by the program. At the close of 2014, the number of industrial sites committed to the ENERGY STAR Challenge for Industry grew, while 

306 sites met or exceeded their targets by achieving an average 20 percent reduction 

in industrial energy intensity. 

The State Energy Offices are working cooperatively with our peers in the State 

environmental agencies and State public utilities commissions to ensure that programs, regulations, projects and policies are developed recognizing both energy and 

environmental concerns. We have worked closely with this program at EPA to address these issues. We encourage these continued efforts. 

CONCLUSION

The ENERGY STAR program saves consumers billions of dollars every year. The 

payback is enormous. NASEO supports robust program funding of at least $55 million in fiscal year 2017. Funding for the ENERGY STAR program is justified. It’s 

a solid public-private relationship that leverages resources, time and talent to 

produce tangible results by saving energy and money. NASEO endorses these activities and the State Energy Offices are working very closely with EPA to cooperatively 

implement a variety of critical national programs without mandates. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE FORESTERS

The National Association of State Foresters (NASF) appreciates the opportunity 

to submit written public testimony to the Senate and House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies regarding 

our fiscal year 2017 appropriations recommendations. Our priorities focus primarily 

on appropriations for the USDA Forest Service (Forest Service) State and Private 

Forestry (S&PF) programs. 

State Foresters deliver technical and financial assistance, along with forest 

health, water and wildfire protection for more than two-thirds of the Nation’s 751 

million acres of forests. The Forest Service S&PF mission area provides vital support to deliver these services, which contribute to the socioeconomic and environmental health of rural and urban communities. The comprehensive process for delivering these services is articulated in each State’s Forest Resource Assessment and 

Strategy (State Forest Action Plan), authorized in the 2008 Farm Bill and continued 

in the Agriculture Act of 2014. 

Your support of the following programs is critical to helping States address the 

many and varied challenges outlined in Forest Action Plans. 
171 

1Man, Gary. 2011. Major Forest Insect and Disease Conditions in the United States: 2010 Update. Last accessed on March, 5, 2015 at: http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/publications/ 

ConditionsReportl2011.pdf. 2Tkacz, Bory, et al. 2014. NIDRM 2012 Report Files: Executive Summary. Last accessed on 

March, 5, 2015 at: http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/pdfs/2012lRiskMaplExecl 

summary.pdf. 

Wildland Fire and Forest Fuels 

Wildland Fire Funding: State Foresters ask for your continued support to pass 

legislation that fixes the broken wildfire funding system and addresses much-needed 

forest management reforms, either separately or in tandem. 

The current wildfire suppression funding model and cycle of fire transfers and repayments continues to the challenge the Forest Service’s ability to achieve its overall mission and negatively impacts Agency programs of priority to State Foresters. 

Additionally, the increasing 10-year average has not met annual suppression needs 

since before fiscal year 2002. We are thankful to the subcommittee for the full transfer repayment and increased suppression funding in fiscal year 2016. However, we 

understand this is not expected to occur every year. The Department of the Interior 

and the Forest Service need a long-term fire funding solution that would result in 

stable and more predictable budgets. 

In addition to the wildfire funding challenges are the challenges posed by the Nation’s unhealthy, overgrown and fire-prone Federal forests. We support environmentally responsible forestry reforms on Federal lands as part of the funding remedy or as a separate effort. 

State Fire Assistance (SFA): More people living in fire-prone landscapes, high fuel 

loads, drought, and unhealthy landscapes are among the factors that led most State 

Foresters to identify wildland fire as a priority issue in their State Forest Action 

Plans. We now grapple with increasingly expensive and complex wildland fires— 

fires that frequently threaten human life and property. In 2015 there were 68,151 

wildfires with a record-breaking more than 10 million acres burned. Eighty percent 

of the total number of fires were where State and local departments had primary 

jurisdiction. Twenty-seven percent of the total acres burned were on State and private lands. In 2015, 85 percent of all local and State crews and engine dispatched 

outside of their geographic area were responding to Federal fires, primarily on initial attack. 

Attacking fires when they are small is the key to reducing fatalities, injuries, loss 

of homes and cutting Federal fire-fighting costs. 

SFA and Volunteer Fire Assistance (VFA) are the fundamental Federal mechanisms for assisting States and local fire departments in responding to wildland fires 

and in conducting management activities that mitigate fire risk on non-Federal 

lands. SFA helps train and equip local first responders who are often first to arrive 

at a wildland fire incident and who play a crucial role in keeping fires and their 

costs as small as possible. A small investment of SFA funds supports State forestry 

agencies in accessing and repurposing equipment from the Federal Excess Personal 

Property and the Firefighter Property programs. In fiscal year 2015, these two programs delivered more than $169 million in equipment for use by State and local 

first responders. NASF supports funding the State Fire Assistance program at $87 

million and Volunteer Fire Assistance at $15 million in fiscal year 2017. These are 

the 2011/12 enacted levels. The need for increased funding for fire suppression has 

broad support and the administration’s budget recommends a 12 percent funding increase to meet the anticipated fire threat. The need to increase fire suppression 

funding for State and private lands, where 80 percent of wildfires occur, is just as 

urgent. 

Forest Pests and Invasive Plants 

Also among the greatest threats identified in the State Forest Action Plans are 

native and non-native pests and diseases. These pests and diseases have the potential to displace native trees, shrubs and other vegetation types in forests; the Forest 

Service estimates that hundreds of native and non-native insects and diseases damage the Nation’s forests each year. They are also devastating the trees and forests 

of America’s cities and towns. (The cost of replacing a single street tree is approximately $1000.) The growing number of damaging pests and diseases are often introduced and spread by way of wooden shipping materials, movement of firewood, and 

through various types of recreation. In 2010, approximately 6.4 million acres suffered mortality from insects and diseases 1 and there is an estimated 81.3 million 

acres at risk of attack by insects and disease over the next 15 years.2 These losses 

threaten clean and abundant water availability, wildlife habitat, clean air, and 
172 

3Forest2Market. The Economic Impact of Privately-Owned Forests. 2009. 4 United States Census Bureau, Growth in Urban Population Outpaces Rest of Nation, Census 

Bureau Reports. Available at https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/2010lcensus/ 

cb12-50.html. Last Accessed March 5, 2015. 

other environmental services. Furthermore, extensive areas of high insect or disease 

mortality can set the stage for large-scale, catastrophic wildfire. 

The Cooperative Forest Health Management program supports activities related 

to prevention, monitoring, suppression, and eradication of insects, diseases, and 

plants through provision of technical and financial assistance to States and Territories to maintain healthy, productive forest ecosystems on non-Federal forest lands. 

Forest pests know no bounds. Controlling pests on private lands can stop millions 

of dollars in damage much of which would occur on public lands. The Cooperative 

Forest Health Management program plays a critical part in protecting communities 

already facing outbreaks and in preventing exposure of more forests and trees to 

the devastating and costly effects of exotic and invasive pests and pathogens. NASF 

supports funding the Forest Health Management—Cooperative Lands Program at 

$48 million in fiscal year 2017. (2012 enacted level.) 

Assisting Landowners and Maintaining Working Forest Landscapes—Forest Stewardship Program 

Working forest landscapes are a key part of the rural landscape, providing an estimated 900,000 jobs, clean water, wood products, and other essential services to millions of Americans. Private forests make up two-thirds of all the forestland in the 

United States and support an average of eight jobs per 1,000 acres.3 However, the 

Forest Service estimates that 57 million acres of private forests in the U.S. are at 

risk of conversion to urban development over the next two decades. Programs like 

the Forest Stewardship Program and Forest Legacy Program are key tools identified 

in the State Forest Action Plans for keeping working forests intact and for providing 

a full suite of benefits to society. Almost 90 percent of those who have stewardship 

plans, implement them. Almost 50 percent of the Nation’s wood supply comes from 

small landowners who are the target of this program. Last year this program assisted over 323,000 landowners. Again fires and diseases know no bounds. A robust 

program has positive impacts on the Nation’s watersheds, wildlife habitat and 

neighboring public lands. NASF supports funding the Forest Stewardship Program 

at $29 million in fiscal year 2017. $29 million is the fiscal year 2012 enacted 

amount. The need for increased funding on Federal lands for more active management has broad support and the administration’s budget recommends an 8 percent 

increase over last year’s enacted budget line item. The need to increase funding on 

State and private lands is just as urgent. 

Forest Legacy Program 

This program provides critical Federal assistance to States and private landowners to keep working forests working through permanent conservation easements 

and in some cases, fee acquisitions. Each easement acquisition is required to have 

a long-term forest stewardship plan. 

Working forests play an important role to sustain the economic, ecological, and 

social well-being of America’s rural and urban areas through the jobs they support 

and the benefits they provide, such as wildfire threat reduction, clean air and water, 

wildlife habitat, and outdoor recreation space. NASF supports funding the Forest 

Legacy Program at $62 million in fiscal year 2017. (NASF supports the program 

being fully funded from the Land and Water Conservation Fund and not be included 

in the discretionary budget cap. NASF also recommends report language requiring 

coordination with State Foresters prior to recommendation and selection of easements and acquisitions due to land management considerations and tax implications.) 

Urban and Community Forest Management Challenges 

Urban forests are important to achieving energy savings, improved air quality, 

neighborhood stability, aesthetic value, reduced noise, and improved quality of life 

in municipalities and communities around the country. There are demonstrable 

studies that show positive impacts urban trees and forests have on: childhood asthma, mitigating the impacts of auto exhaust, reducing home heating and air conditioning costs, providing economically viable solutions for storm water absorption, 

and even reducing crime rates. In fact, urban forests have been shown to provide 

environmental, social, and economic benefits to the more than 80 percent of Americans living in urban areas.4 Yet, urban and community forests face serious threats, 
173 

such as development and urbanization, invasive pests and diseases, and fire in the 

wildland urban interface (WUI). 

Since its expansion under the Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act of 1990 

(CFAA), the Forest Service’s Urban and Community Forestry (U&CF) Program has 

provided technical and financial assistance to promote stewardship of urban forests 

in communities of all sizes across the country. The program is delivered in close 

partnership with State Foresters and leverages existing local efforts that have 

helped thousands of communities and towns manage, maintain, and improve their 

tree cover and green spaces. The program directly serves more than 7,000 communities across the United States. In terms of climate change mitigation and effectiveness, urban and community activities including tree planting have virtually no detractors. The program has over a 2:1 match for Federal dollars provided for this program. NASF supports funding the Urban and Community Forestry program at $31 

million in fiscal year 2017. 

Importance of Forest Inventory Data in Monitoring Forest Issues 

The Forest Inventory and Analysis program (FIA) enables forest managers and 

the natural resource community to understand the scope and scale of trends and 

changes in forest conditions and to make projections of future conditions. Funding 

for FIA supports State and private lands, which account for two-thirds of America’s 

forests and provide public benefits such as clean air and water, wildlife habitat, outdoor recreation, jobs and wood products. 

NASF is concerned with the recent proposed and realized reductions to the USDA 

Forest Service Research and Development budget and recommends a total R&D 

funding level of $303 million—$83 million allocated to FIA. NASF supports funding 

the Forest Inventory and Analysis program at $83 million in fiscal year 2017. 

Landscape Scale Restoration 

National priority Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR) projects are a key way that 

States, in collaboration with the USDA Forest Service and other partners, address 

critical forest priorities across the landscape. LSR projects focus only on the most 

critical priorities identified in each State’s Forest Action Plan and on achieving national goals as laid out in the State and Private Forestry national themes. As a result, LSR contributes to achieving results across the landscape and to making meaningful local, regional, and national impacts. 

Competitive allocation of Cooperative Forestry Assistance Act funds was codified 

in the 2008 Farm Bill. The LSR budget line item was subsequently included in the 

fiscal year 2014 appropriations bill as the funding mechanism for a competitive 

process aimed at addressing critical priorities identified in State Forest Action Plans 

and based on the tenets of the State and Private Forestry redesign effort—conserve 

working forest landscapes, protect forests from harm, and enhance public benefit 

from trees and forests. 

LSR allows State forestry agencies to target resources toward the highest priority 

forest needs in a State, group of States, or region, while also meeting national priorities. 

Regional review teams comprised of State and Federal officials with knowledge of 

the on-the-ground realities within the region carry out a rigorous review process to 

select the LSR projects that will receive funding within their region. Selected LSR 

projects are, as a result, the best and most ground-truthed landscape-scale, crossboundary, outcome-driven projects. 

NASF supports funding the Landscape Scale Restoration program at $23 million 

in fiscal year 2017. NASF does not support increases in this program coming at the 

expense of other programs described above. NASF also supports report language 

which requires additional funding over fiscal year 2016 levels for LSR to be allocated for the highest national priorities as identified in each of the State Forest Action Plans as determined by each State Forester. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR AMERICAN INDIAN ENTERPRISE

DEVELOPMENT

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the subcommittee, I am Gary Davis, Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma tribal member, and 

President/CEO of the National Center for American Indian Enterprise Development 

(NCAIED or the National Center). The National Center appreciates this opportunity 

to express support for fiscal year 2017 funding requests within the Interior appropriations bill that will support access to capital, and business, economic and energy 

development in Indian Country. 
174 

Now in its 5th decade of operations, the National Center assists Indian tribes, 

tribal enterprises, Alaska Native regional and village corporations, Native Hawaiian 

Organizations, and American Indian, Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian business 

owners and entrepreneurs with their business, financing and contracting needs, including trainings, business development and other guidance, marketing tools, access 

to capital, and procurement technical assistance. In addition to providing these offerings 24 hours, 7 days a week through our new Native Edge Web portal, we host 

national and regional Reservation Economic Summits (RES). During March 21–24, 

we presented our 30th Anniversary National RES in Las Vegas, featuring Business 

Boot Camp and many other training sessions focused on business and economic development, a full day of procurement and business matchmaking, and a 2-day trade 

show. Several sessions addressed access to capital, the focus of this statement. 

Overview of Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Requests for Indian Programs 

The National Center views the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget requests as 

quite responsive to Indian tribes’ call for increases in myriad tribal programs, representing roughly 5 percent and 8 percent hikes in funding for the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service, respectively, as well as fully funding Contract Support Costs. We are excited about the significant emphasis on Native youth 

through the Generation Indigenous Initiative, especially the components focused on 

Youth Entrepreneurship. The National Center hosted a successful ‘‘Youth Entrepreneurship Summit’’ (YES!) at our regional RES New Mexico in November, 2015 for 

over 200 students who traveled from nearby Pueblos and Indian tribes from out of 

State. Our RES Oklahoma conference in July, 2016 will feature another full day of 

YES! sessions for students from tribes in Oklahoma and surrounding States. 

Properly Fund Interior’s Indian Loan Guarantee Program 

One major shortcoming in the fiscal year 2017 budget requests is the paltry funding for the Indian Loan Guarantee Program of the Department of the Interior (DOI). 

Congress must increase the funding for this important program, as the National 

Center has testified repeatedly at several hearings conducted by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs over the last 2 years, and urged at a special Committee 

briefing hosted for its staff and professional staff of the House and Senate Interior 

Appropriations Subcommittees last June. 

The fiscal year 2017 budget request provides only $7.57 million for a tiny increase 

to cover inflation, but reduces the current level, $113 million, to $105.9 million for 

the aggregate value of loans than can be guaranteed—despite the huge demand for 

this program. Instead, we urge the subcommittee to approve $15 million, a $7.4 million increase that would be modest compared to the huge jump in total value of private sector guaranteed loans that are needed to meet demand for capital in Indian 

Country. Aggregate loan value could be $225–$250 million, depending on what the 

Office of Management and Budget would allow. 

The DOI loan guarantee program has proven to be a very successful leveraging 

tool that incentivizes private sector lenders to finance tribal projects, tribal enterprises, and businesses owned by Native Americans. Yet the current funding prevents the program from keeping pace with burgeoning demands for business and 

economic development capital in Indian Country where most private banks will not 

lend because they deem the risks too high. The banks (several tribal owned) that 

DOI has certified to receive these guarantees will lend to tribes and Indian businesses on Indian lands that cannot be used as loan collateral, and will consent to 

tribal court jurisdiction to resolve disputes or claims (which are rare). While the 

Small Business Administration (SBA) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

loan guarantee programs may be larger sources of guarantee support, they are not 

a substitute for the DOI program, for several reasons: (1) the guarantee is lower; 

(2) SBA’s loan documents are not feasible in Indian Country; and (3) loan purpose 

and USDA product offering are not as flexible as offered by DOI. USDA does not 

offer a revolving line of credit for working capital, seasonal or cyclical needs. In one 

recent case, a USDA loan guarantee’s terms would have resulted in a default had 

DOI’s program not stepped in with a guarantee structure that allowed the loan to 

fund a project that will create more than 100 jobs over the loan’s term. 

Recognizing the need to expand the Indian Loan Guarantee Program, Congress 

authorized a major increase in 2006 for the aggregate limit on guaranteed loans 

from $500 million to $1.5 billion. However, due to insufficient funding for the program’s credit subsidy, the annual aggregate of guaranteed loans has hovered around 

only $100 million. In fiscal year 2015, the program was funded at about $7.7 million, and the entire guarantee allocation was exhausted 4 months before the end of 

the fiscal year—leaving a backlog of pending loan applications approaching another 
175 

$100 million. At the current funding level, the guarantee allocation likely will be 

exhausted even earlier in fiscal year 2016! 

The DOI program has a good track record of successful projects, less than a 2.5 

percent default rate (lower than those of SBA and USDA), and could infuse hundreds of millions more dollars into Indian Country if expanded significantly, as requested. In Senate Committee on Indian Affairs testimony on June 17, 2015, National Center Board Chairman Derrick Watchman listed six successful projects financed with the support of Indian loan guarantees, and the many jobs those 

projects created. Below are additional examples: 

—A $12 million guaranteed loan enabled Alaska Native village Huna Totem Corporation, Inc. to redevelop an old cannery site into a new dock and tourist destination for visiting cruise ships, creating about 130 year-round and summer 

jobs—Grand Opening May 23; —A $2.65 million guaranteed loan to Alaska Native village, Kwethluk, to construct a general store, adding 2–3 jobs, space for small engine repair operations, 

and greater storage for larger food quantities to afford offering lower prices to 

village customers; —Five guaranteed loans, totaling $15 million over many years, helped build the 

Indian Pueblo Cultural Center, owned by 19 Pueblos in New Mexico, and create 

200 jobs; —A series of 10 new guaranteed loans (totaling $47 million) to 5 separate borrowers will finance projects on Navajo Nation, including: a gasoline stop with 

a convenience store on Navajo, creating 50 temporary and 30 permanent jobs; 

the Navajo Tribal Utility Authority headquarters building construction and infrastructure improvements, creating over 200 temporary and 100 permanent 

jobs; and several $150,000∂ lines of credit for seasonal working capital for Navajo businesses; 

—Two new loans totaling $7.3 million to Big Lagoon Rancheria in California to 

construct a wellness center to serve the tribe and surrounding area, creating 8– 

12 additional jobs; 

—A $12 million guaranteed loan for a California tribe’s resort construction, creating an estimated 100∂ jobs; 

—A $6.6 million guaranteed refinance for improvements and added services for 

a Native family’s three convenience stores, one on the Pine Ridge Reservation 

in South Dakota; 

—A $5.5 million guaranteed loan to construct a new hotel on the Blackfeet Reservation in Montana near Glacier National Park, adding tourism, retail traffic, 

and 25 jobs; 

—Pending loans subject to guarantee for projects in North Dakota: one in Belcourt 

for a startup hardware/lumber business; and the other for business expansion 

and start up of a new procurement division of a tribal enterprise of the Three 

Affiliated Tribes; and 

—A $10 million guaranteed loan for a Nevada tribe’s economic development 

project. 

As the program produces a remarkable return of $15 in private sector funds for 

every $1 of Federal funds invested, Congress should appropriate $15 million for the 

Indian Loan Guarantee Program for fiscal year 2017 to support private lending in 

a range of $225–$250 million. 

Funding for the Indian Loan Guarantee Programs at $15 million is supported by 

the National Center, National Congress of American Indians, Native American Finance Officers Association and many other national and regional Native American 

organizations representing Indian tribes, Alaska Native regional and village corporations, tribal enterprises and Native American-owned businesses nationwide. 

Other Programs Facilitating Business and Economic Development in Indian Country 

The National Center also urges approval of the following fiscal year 2017 budget 

requests as modest initiatives that leverage or spur substantial development in Indian Country: 

Carcieri: The Interior budget requests include general provisions to restore parity 

among tribes striving to protect and enhance their original land base, or to reacquire some of the lands they lost, by confirming the Secretary of Interior’s authority 

to acquire land in trust for any federally recognized tribe. Approval is imperative. 

Streamlining and Capacity Building: Approving the requested increases for the 

following initiatives will help streamline delivery of technical and financial assistance to accelerate business, economic and energy development in Indian Country: 

—$4 million for the BIA’s ‘‘Native-One-Stop’’ initiated in 2015 to facilitate tribes’ 

search for and access to Federal resources; 
176 

—$1 million to assist tribes in adopting uniform commercial codes to strengthen 

their legal infrastructure and promote credit and other capital transactions that 

will spur business and economic development; and —$5 million for the Indian Energy Service Center for its Tribal Energy Program 

to provide technical and financial assistance to tribal communities to deploy 

small to medium-scale renewable energy generation projects. 

Support for the Office of Indian Energy and Economic Development: In addition 

to the increases requested for the energy components of this important Office, we 

recommend that some additional funding be provided for activities of the Economic 

Development Division. 

In closing, I want to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to present these 

requests to increase support for the above programs that invest Federal dollars as 

leverage to multiply exponentially the amount of private capital invested in business, economic and energy development in Indian Country. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL GROUND WATER ASSOCIATION

The National Ground Water Association (NGWA) requests that $5 million be allocated in the fiscal year 2017 Department of Interior budget to the United States 

Geological Survey (USGS) account in its Groundwater and Streamflow Information 

Program to continue implementation and maintenance of the National GroundWater Monitoring Network (NGWMN). NGWA is the world’s largest association of 

groundwater professionals, representing public and private sector engineers, scientists, water well contractors, manufacturers, and suppliers of groundwater related 

products and services. 

Water is one of the most critical natural resources to human, ecosystem and economic survival. Nationally, nearly 50 percent of the drinking water supply comes 

from groundwater and in some locations it is relied on by 80 percent of Americans 

for drinking water. Groundwater also serves as a key source of agricultural irrigation water. 

However, this vital unseen resource—on which the Nation’s people, food supply, 

economy and ecosystems rely—is not monitored on a consistent basis across States, 

nor is most data publicly available. Groundwater levels and quality change over 

time, and the continued implementation of the NGWMN will allow water resources 

to be better utilized, managed and protected through data-sharing on an online portal. 

As with any valuable natural resource, our groundwater reserves must be monitored to assist in planning and minimizing potential impacts from shortages or supply disruptions. Just as one cannot effectively oversee the Nation’s economy without 

key data; one cannot adequately address the Nation’s food, energy, economic, and 

drinking water security without understanding the extent, availability and sustainability of a critical input—groundwater. 

Congress acknowledged the need for enhanced groundwater monitoring by authorizing a national groundwater monitoring network with passage of Public Law 111– 

11 (Omnibus Public Land Management Act) the SECURE Water Act of 2009 and 

viability of the network was proven through the completion of pilot projects in six 

States—Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, and Texas. These States 

voluntarily pilot tested concepts for a national groundwater monitoring network as 

developed by the Federal Advisory Committee on Water Information’s (ACWI) Subcommittee on Ground Water (SOGW). 

$2.6 million in funding was provided in fiscal year 2015 and an additional $3.6 

million was provided in fiscal year 2016. The funds are being used to begin implementation of the national network through the creation of cooperative agreements 

with new and existing data providers. However, this funding will only allow implementation to begin across a handful of States. Additional funding for fiscal year 

2017 is requested to allow for implementation across more States. 

Once implemented nationwide, the NGWMN would provide consistent, comparable nationwide data that would be accessible through a public Web portal for 

Federal, State, local government and private sector users. In these tight fiscal times, 

the proposed network would build on existing State and Federal investments, maximizing their usefulness and leveraging current dollars to build toward systematic 

nationwide monitoring of the groundwater resource. 

Funding from the NGWMN will be used for two purposes: 

1. Provide grants to regional, State, and tribal governments to cost share increased expenses to upgrade monitoring networks for the 50 States to meet the 

standards necessary to understand the Nation’s groundwater resources. 
177 

2. Support the additional work necessary for USGS to manage a national groundwater monitoring network and provide national data access through an Internet Web portal. 

Though the amount requested is small in the context of the Department of Interior’s annual budget request, funding is vital when we understand that for a small 

investment we can begin finally to put in place adequate monitoring of the hidden 

resource that provides nearly 50 percent of the Nation’s drinking water supply and 

serves as a key driver for our agricultural economy. 

Thank you for your considering this testimony. 

The National Ground Water Association is a not-for-profit professional society and trade association for the groundwater industry. NGWA is the largest 

organization of groundwater professionals in the world. Our more than 11,000 

members from all 50 States and 72 countries include some of the leading public and private sector groundwater scientists, engineers, water well contractors, 

manufacturers, and suppliers of groundwater related products and services. 

The Association’s vision is to be the leading community of groundwater professionals that promotes the responsible development, use and management of 

groundwater resources. 

PREPARED STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE NATIONAL GROUNDWATER MONITORING

NETWORK

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall: 

On behalf of the undersigned organizations, we ask for your continued support of 

the National Groundwater Monitoring Network (NGWMN) in the fiscal year 2017 

Interior and Environment Appropriations bill. Groundwater is a critical source of 

drinking water for more than 40 percent of the country, and in some locations is 

relied on by more than 80 percent of the population. It is a primary source of irrigation water for high-quality agricultural products and an important economic driver 

for the U.S. economy. Therefore, we the undersigned ask Congress to fund the 

NGWMN at a level of $5 million for fiscal year 2017. 

Drought conditions persist throughout the West, and groundwater depletion has 

expressed itself through subsidence, lowering of aquifer water-levels below well intakes, and impacts on water quality. Drought conditions underscore the need to develop a comprehensive and publicly accessible groundwater monitoring network. 

The NGWMN was authorized in the 2009 SECURE Water Act and is at the beginning stages of implementation, providing Federal support for pilot programs in six 

States—Illinois, Indiana, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, and Texas and initial 

appropriations of $2.6 million and $3.6 million provided in fiscal year 2015 and fiscal year 2016. This support allowed for cooperative agreements to be signed between 

the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and several States. However, support 

must continue and be expanded to enable broader implementation at a time when 

stresses to water supplies across the country are felt daily. 

The NGWMN is designed to expand and enhance many existing monitoring efforts, but these efforts are not presented in a common platform and often require 

extensive analysis in order to use the data collected on a national scale, limiting 

the data’s usability. The NGWMN, through a Federal-State cooperative program, 

provides for the collection of groundwater data from representative wells meeting 

common criteria, assuring the usability and quality of the data contributed to the 

network. 

The United States Geological Survey (USGS) maintains and updates the network, 

providing public access through a web portal, allowing anyone with a web browser 

to see groundwater level and water quality trends for wells in the network. States 

and other contributors to the NGWMN retain ownership of the collected data. 

Ultimately, the network will provide the data required to assess baseline conditions and long-term trends in groundwater levels and water quality in important 

aquifers at national, multistate, and regional scales—even aquifers shared with 

Canada and Mexico. The network will also provide data for national, State, and aquifer-level management decisions to help determine the long-term viability of these 

groundwater sources. 

Groundwater’s role in securing our Nation’s future is invaluable, which is why we 

request that Congress fund the NGWMN at $5 million for fiscal year 2017. To en-
178 

sure that the funding fulfills the intent of the NGWMN as authorized by the SECURE Water Act, we also request the following report language be included: 

Within Water Resources, the bill includes $5 million for continuation of a 

National Groundwater Monitoring Network, as requested. The Committee 

intends at least 50 percent of these funds to be used to provide cost-share 

grants to State and local entities to upgrade monitoring networks to national standards and to incorporate wells into the network. The funding will 

also support additional work by the USGS necessary to manage and provide 

data access through an Internet web portal. 

Sincerely, 

Alaska Water Well Association 

American Geosciences Institute 

Arizona Water Well Association 

Association of American State Geologists 

California Groundwater Association 

Colorado Water Well Contractors 

Association 

Empire State Water Well Drillers 

Association 

Florida Ground Water Association 

Georgia Association of Groundwater 

Professionals 

Groundwater Resources Association of 

California 

Ground Water Protection Council 

Illinois Association of Groundwater 

Professionals 

Irrigation Association 

Louisiana Ground Water Association 

Michigan Ground Water Association 

Minnesota Water Well Association 

Montana Water Well Drillers Association 

National Ground Water Association 

National Utility Contractors Association 

Nebraska Well Drillers Association 

Nevada Groundwater Association 

North Carolina Ground Water 

Association 

South Carolina Ground Water 

Association 

Tennessee Water Well Association 

Oregon Ground Water Association 

Washington State Ground Water 

Association 

Water Systems Council 

Water Quality Association 

Wyoming Water Well Association 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL HORSE & BURRO RANGELAND MANAGEMENT

COALITION

The National Horse & Burro Rangeland Management Coalition appreciates the 

opportunity to submit testimony regarding the fiscal year 2017 appropriations for 

the Bureau of Land Management Wild Horse & Burro Program. The National Horse 

& Burro Rangeland Management Coalition includes a wide range of sportsmen’s, 

livestock, wildlife, and land conservation organizations and professional societies. 

Collectively, we represent millions of Americans and focus on commonsense, ecologically sound approaches to managing horses and burros to promote healthy wildlife and rangelands for future generations. 

Our coalition is concerned about the exponentially growing population of wild 

horses and burros on our Nation’s rangelands and the minimal efforts proposed in 

the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget to reduce their impacts. 

As of March 1, 2015, wild horse and burro populations surpassed 58,000 animals 

on BLM rangelands. This threshold exceeds the BLM estimated ecologically sustainable level of 26,715 horses and burros by more than 31,000. This extreme level of 

overpopulation negatively impacts the country’s rangelands, risking the future of 

the ecosystem. By continuing to allow horses and burros to exceed sustainable levels, the BLM and Congress are placing the future of wildlife, rangelands, livestock 

operations, and the horses and burros themselves in jeopardy. 

The focus of the BLM Wild Horse & Burro program should revert to its original 

purpose and stated goal of achieving appropriate management levels (AML). Direct 

removal of horses and burros from impacted regions will aid in AML being achieved 

while simultaneously reducing their impact on the supporting ecosystem. 

The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget proposal plans for the removal of only 

2,500 horses and burros from the country’s rangelands. Wild horse populations typically grow by 18–20 percent per year and double in size every 4–5 years. This 

means that even with fiscal year 2016 removals reaching the proposed amount of 

2,500 individuals, the current on-range population is likely around 66,000. This is 

an unacceptable rate of increase for a population that already greatly exceeds AML. 

Such population numbers will continue to cause an unacceptable level of damage to 

a valuable asset for our country. 
179 

We appreciate the BLM’s increased attention to fertility control methods through 

research partnerships with universities and the U.S. Geological Survey, as we believe that scientifically based use of fertility control and implementation of non-reproducing herds can be an important component of the solution to this problem. 

However, fertility control alone does not solve the problem and should not be the 

primary approach. About 85 percent of Herd Management Areas (HMA) are already 

over AML, some reaching more than 500 percent of their AML. Fertility control 

methods, if they are effective in reducing pregnancies, will only help maintain population levels in the short term, not reduce them. 

Direct removal of wild horses and burros from the range is the only way to 

achieve AML in a reasonable amount of time. The BLM’s efforts to transfer corralled horses and burros to more cost effective eco-sanctuaries and holding facilities 

as well as the BLM’s request for authority to transfer horses and burros to local, 

State, and Federal agencies are steps in the right direction to free up space for further removals. They will not, however, come close to providing the space needed for 

the removal of 31,000 excess horses and burros currently on the range. 

We are hopeful that these small initiatives will highlight the need for drastic legislative changes to the BLM’s management of wild horses and burros. Without an 

increase in the rate of removal of horses and burros, populations will continue to 

expand and our Nation will witness not only growing degradation to its rangeland 

ecosystem, but also growing costs to its taxpayers. 

We urge this subcommittee and other Members of Congress to address this increasing problem for our Nation’s valuable rangelands by directing the BLM to remove horses at a rate substantial enough to produce significant results and protect 

our resources. 

Thank you for considering the input of our coalition. We invite your questions and 

welcome the opportunity to discuss this ongoing issue and possible solutions with 

the subcommittee. 

American Farm Bureau Federation 

American Sheep Industry Association 

Masters of Foxhounds Association 

Mule Deer Foundation 

National Association of Conservation 

Districts 

National Cattlemen’s Beef Association 

National Rifle Association 

National Wildlife Refuge Association 

Public Lands Council 

Public Lands Foundation 

Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation 

Safari Club International 

Society for Range Management 

The Wildlife Society 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL HUMANITIES ALLIANCE

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee: 

On behalf of the National Humanities Alliance, with our more than 150 member 

organizations, I write to express strong support for the National Endowment for the 

Humanities (NEH). 

OVERVIEW

For fiscal year 2017, we respectfully urge the subcommittee to fund the National 

Endowment for the Humanities at $155 million. 

We would like to thank the subcommittee for appropriating $147.9 million to the 

NEH for fiscal year 2016, thereby increasing the Endowment’s funding by nearly 

$2 million. This increase was a first step in rebuilding the capacity of NEH, which 

has been severely eroded in recent years. Despite the increase for fiscal year 2016, 

the Endowment’s current funding is 20 percent below its fiscal year 2010 level, 

when adjusted for inflation. Modestly increasing NEH’s budget to $155 million 

would allow the Endowment to regain its capacity to support the humanities at a 

time when the humanities are increasingly called upon to meet national needs. 

While we recognize the seriousness of the fiscal situation faced by Congress and 

the administration, and we understand the difficult choices that are before this subcommittee, we believe that expanding the capacity of NEH should be a priority. In 

the remainder of this testimony, I will highlight some of the many ways that NEH 

serves national needs and describe the ways in which the humanities, more generally, have been called upon to help accomplish critical national goals. 
180 

NEH SERVES NATIONAL NEEDS

The National Endowment for the Humanities’ funding is distributed to the Federal/State Partnership, which supports humanities councils in every State and Territory; Competitive Grants divisions, which award peer-reviewed grants in Research, 

Education, Preservation, Digital Humanities, Challenge Grants, and Public Programs; and the Common Good Initiative, which harnesses the power of the humanities to address society’s pressing challenges. I will highlight just three examples of 

how NEH grants serve clear national needs. 

1. NEH’s Standing Together program aids veterans’ assimilation into civilian life 

and deepens the public awareness of the experience of war. 

In the past 3 years, the NEH has added the Standing Together program to its 

already critical work. Last year’s increased appropriation was critical to expanding 

this program, although much unmet demand continues to exist. The initiative funds 

reading groups for veterans that help them process their experiences through discussions of literature on war and homecoming; writing programs for veterans suffering from PTSD; intensive college-preparation programs; and training for Veterans 

Affairs staff to help them understand the experiences of veterans. One key example 

is Missouri’s Veteran’s Writing Workshops, sponsored by the Missouri Humanities 

Council and executed in collaboration with the VA St. Louis Medical System at Jefferson Barracks, the St. Louis Public Library, and Drury University. These workshops are designed for veterans and their families—helping them to process and better express their experiences through writing and narrative. The fiction, non-fiction, 

and prose composed in these workshops has been compiled into an anthology series 

entitled Proud to Be: Writing by American Warriors, published by Southeast Missouri State University Press, which allows the broader American public to more 

fully understand the experience of military service. 

2. NEH plays a key role in the preservation of native languages and cultures. 

NEH supports the documentation and teaching of native languages, history, and 

culture. A recent grant supported the creation of an online digital archive of approximately 700 objects, art works, and photographs representing the cultural heritage of the Chugach people of southern Alaska. Another grant provided support to 

make Ojibwe cultural artifacts—including beadwork, recorded songs, historical photographs, and census rolls—accessible online to tribal members, teachers, and the 

public. NEH’s Office of Challenge Grants awarded funding to the Northwest Indian 

College in Bellingham, Washington to develop programs to preserve the culture and 

revitalize the language of the Salish people. These are just a few examples of NEH’s 

long-term commitment to sustaining, revitalizing, and preserving Native American 

languages and cultures. 

3. NEH works in underserved regions. 

Through NEH on the Road, NEH brings museum exhibitions to underserved regions. Between 2014 and 2017, House & Home, the flagship installation at the National Building Museum, will travel to Belton, Texas; Townsend, Tennessee; and 

Carthage, Missouri among 25 sites total. The Humanities in the Public Square program, launched in late 2015, also promises to play a key role in building rural and 

underserved communities. One grant awarded under this program to North Dakota 

State University in Fargo, entitled ‘‘Telling Stories, Creating Community: Understanding the Legacies of War at Home,’’ will foster community building through dialogues between veterans, families of veterans, and the larger community in FargoMorehead. 

In addition to these highlighted programs, each year NEH awards hundreds of 

competitive, peer-reviewed grants to individual scholars and a broad range of nonprofit educational organizations around the country. Grantees include universities, 

2- and 4-year colleges, humanities centers, research institutes, museums, historical 

societies, libraries, archives, scholarly associations, K–12 schools, local education 

agencies, public television/film/radio producers, and more. Through its competitive 

grants programs, NEH supports the preservation of collections that would be otherwise lost, path-breaking research that brings critical knowledge to light, programs 

for teachers that enrich instruction in schools, and public programs that reach individuals and communities in every district in the country. 

Overall, NEH’s support is crucial for building and sustaining humanities’ infrastructure in all 50 States, serving American citizens at all stages of life. 
181 

IMPORTANCE OF THE HUMANITIES TO NATIONAL NEEDS

The humanities are increasingly called upon to play critical roles in our efforts 

to achieve four national goals: opportunity for all Americans, innovation and economic development, productive global engagement, and strong communities. 

Opportunity for All Americans 

Many Americans lack access to opportunity because they are deficient in a number of critical skills that are sought by employers. In a recent study conducted by 

the Conference Board, Corporate Voices for Working Families, the Partnership for 

21st Century Skills, and the Society for Human Resource Management, employers 

ranked reading and writing as top inadequacies in new hires. More than a third of 

employers found high school graduates ‘‘deficient’’ in reading comprehension, and 

‘‘written communications’’ topped the list of applied skills found lacking in high 

school and college graduates. These deficiencies not only limit the economic mobility 

of individuals, they also carry an economic burden for society as annual spending 

on remedial writing courses is estimated at more than $3.1 billion for large corporations and $221 million for State employers. 

Innovation and Economic Growth 

Employers increasingly seek employees who can combine the cultural knowledge 

and analytical ability fostered by humanities programs with technical knowledge 

and scientific research fostered by STEM education to create innovation and economic growth. In an effort to serve this demand, the Committee on the Engineer 

of 2020, a group convened by the National Academy of Engineering, recommends 

increased interdisciplinary education—including the humanities—in order to train 

engineers with the broad perspective necessary for 21st century innovation. Similarly, a substantial number of medical schools have integrated humanities 

coursework into their programs to enhance the cultural knowledge and observational abilities of their graduates with the goal of providing higher quality, more efficient care. Recognizing the role that the humanities play in fostering innovation, 

countries such as China and India have begun to integrate the humanities into their 

own education systems. 

Productive Global Engagement 

As they deal with increasingly complex international relationships, business and 

military leaders look to the humanities to provide critical knowledge about communities throughout the world. These leaders argue that our ability to engage productively with the world depends on the deep knowledge of the languages, cultures, and 

histories of rapidly changing areas of the world that the humanities cultivate and 

maintain. Historians, linguists, anthropologists, archaeologists, and scholars of literature and religion, among others, spend years learning about communities and 

their deep roots, thereby gaining expertise that informs those who seek to work in 

these geographic areas. In 2013, former Ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl 

Eikenberry, described the critical role of the humanities in preparing our citizens 

for global engagement, ‘‘We need a strong cadre of Americans in our government, 

military, business, civil society, academe, and beyond who have the right skills and 

experience to help America stay connected with the world and shape outcomes that 

secure our national interests.’’ 

Strong Communities 

Finally, with the well-documented decline in critical, community-based social institutions, communities throughout our own country are trying to foster a sense of 

shared identity and responsibility. In doing so, they rely on the humanities to preserve and explore their history and traditions in order to promote the understanding 

of common ideals, enduring civic values, and shared cultural heritage. To strengthen 

communities, humanities councils, museums, libraries, and universities produce 

vital programs that promote understanding among diverse communities through the 

cultivation and exchange of knowledge about cultural heritage and history. 

CONCLUSION

We recognize that Congress faces difficult choices in allocating funds in this and 

coming years. We ask the subcommittee to consider modestly increased funding for 

the humanities through NEH as an investment in opportunity for all Americans, innovation and economic growth, productive global engagement, and strong communities. Thank you for consideration of our request and for your past and continued 

support for the humanities. 

Founded in 1981, the National Humanities Alliance advances national humanities 

policy in the areas of research, preservation, public programming, and teaching. 
182 

1 U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2014). Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on American Indian/Alaska 

Native Children Exposed to Violence: Ending violence so children can thrive (p. 51). Retrieved 

from http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/defendingchildhood/pages/attachments/2014/11/18/ 

finalaianreport.pdf. 2 Ibid. 

More than 150 organizations are members of NHA, including scholarly associations, 

humanities research centers, colleges, universities, and organizations of museums, 

libraries, historical societies, humanities councils, and higher education institutions. 

[This statement was submitted by Stephen Kidd, Executive Director.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL INDIAN CHILD WELFARE ASSOCIATION

The National Indian Child Welfare Association (NICWA) is a national American 

Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) nonprofit organization. NICWA has provided leadership in the development of public policy that supports tribal self-determination in 

child welfare and children’s mental health systems for over 30 years. This testimony 

will provide recommendations for the following programs administered by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) in the Department of the Interior: Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention ($43 million), Social Services ($57.3 million), 

Welfare Assistance ($80 million), Indian Child Welfare Act On or Near Reservation 

Program (Tribal Priority Allocation—$18.9 million), and Indian Child Welfare Act 

Off-Reservation Program ($5 million). 

Congress has unequivocally recognized that there is nothing ‘‘more vital to the 

continued existence and integrity of Indian tribes than their children.’’ (25 U. S. C. 

§ 1901[3] [2006]). Congress must promulgate a budget that empowers tribes to provide the programs and services necessary to safeguard their children and strengthen 

their families. A recent report from the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on 

American Indian/Alaska Native Children Exposed to Violence emphasized this very 

point: 

Congress and the executive branch shall direct sufficient funds to AI/AN 

tribes to bring funding for tribal criminal and civil justice systems and tribal 

protection systems into parity with the rest of the United States and shall remove barriers that currently impede the ability of AI/AN nations to effectively 

address violence in their communities. The Advisory Committee believes that 

treaties, existing law, and trust responsibilities are not discretionary and demand this action.1

As this recommendation suggests, Congress must prioritize the safety and wellbeing of all children. According to the advisory committee, ‘‘AI/AN children are generally served best when tribes have the opportunity to take ownership of the programs and resources they provide.’’ 2 The recommendations below suggest funding 

increases that will provide tribes with sufficient child welfare funding and avoid unnecessary restraint on tribal decisionmaking. We urge Congress, as they make budgetary decisions for fiscal year 2017, to not forget AI/AN children and families. 

PRIORITY PROGRAM RECOMMENDATION

Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act Recommendation.— Appropriate for the first time $43 million for the three grant programs under this 

law—$10 million for the Indian Child Abuse Treatment Grant Program, $30 million 

for the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Grant Program, and 

$3 million for the Indian Child Resource and Family Service Centers Program to 

protect AI/AN children from child abuse and neglect. 

The Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Act (ICPFVPA), Public Law No. 101–630 (1991), was enacted to fill gaps in tribal child welfare services—specifically child protection and child abuse treatment—and to ensure better 

coordination between child welfare and domestic violence programs. The act authorizes funding for two tribal programs: (1) the Indian Child Protection and Family Violence Prevention Program, which funds prevention programming and supports investigations of family violence and emergency shelter services; and (2) the Treatment of Victims of Child Abuse and Neglect program, which funds treatment programs for victims of child abuse. It also authorizes funding to create Indian Child 

Resource and Family Service Centers at each of the BIA regional offices. 

Child abuse prevention funding is vital to the well-being and financial stability 

of AI/AN communities. Beyond the emotional trauma that maltreatment inflicts, victims of child maltreatment are more likely to require special education services, 
183 

3Fang, X., Brown, D. S., Florence, C. S., & Mercy, J. A. (2012). The economic burden of child 

maltreatment in the United States and implications for prevention. Child Abuse & Neglect, 36, 

156–65. doi: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.10.006. 4 Ibid. 

5Department of the Interior, Office of Inspector General. (2012). Management of social services 

in BIA: Opportunity for action (Report No. WR–EV–BIA–0001–2012). (pp. 5–6) Retrieved from 

http://www.doi.gov/oig/reports/upload/WR-EV-BIA-0001-2012Public.pdf. 6Stegman, E. & Ebarb, A. (2010). Sequestering opportunity for American Indians/Alaska Natives. Center for American Progress. (Para. 1). Retrieved from https://www.americanprogress.org/ 

Continued 

more likely to be involved in the juvenile and criminal justice systems, more likely 

to have long-term mental health needs, and have lower earning potential than their 

peers.3 Financially, child maltreatment costs tribal communities and the United 

States $210,012 per victim.4 Child abuse prevention funding is essential, therefore, 

to the well-being of families and the social and economic development of tribal communities. 

Therefore, tribes, like States, need adequate resources to effectively prevent and 

respond to family violence in their communities. However, unlike States, tribes do 

not have access to the key Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) child 

protection programs, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) Basic 

Funding Program and the Social Services Block Grant (Title XX). The programs authorized under ICPFVPA were created to fill this gap but, without appropriation, 

tribes are left without funding for child protection and child abuse prevention services. 

OTHER PROGRAM RECOMMENDATIONS

Social Services Recommendation.—Increase funding by $12.1 million as recommended by the President’s proposed Tiwahe Initiative for a total appropriation 

of $57.3 million so that child and family programs in Indian Country can be 

strengthened and expanded. 

The Social Services Grant Program provides a wide array of family support services filling many funding gaps for tribal programs, and ensuring Federal staff and 

technical assistance for these programs. These funds are desperately needed. A recent assessment of BIA social services found that, in large part due to inadequate 

funding: 

BIA and tribal social services staff prepare, authorize, and document various 

social services activities as part of their daily activities. Some tribes reported 

frequent vacancies and staff turnover in social services programs and mentioned 

a need for BIA to provide basic guidance and supporting materials to ensure 

continuity of services throughout tribal communities...

Technical support is one area where roles and responsibilities remain unclear, 

as demonstrated by BIA’s social services contracts with tribes. The contracts, 

or annual funding agreements, state that BIA will provide technical support 

with social services issues as needed. Contrary to these agreements, we uncovered reports of insufficient or nonexistent technical support. In some cases, 

tribes could wait up to three weeks before receiving a response, or they might 

receive no response at all.5

As this assessment describes, the program is drastically underfunded, and tribal 

programs, families, and children suffer as a result. In fiscal year 2016 this program 

saw a $5 million increase. This is to be commended and the momentum must continue. Another $12.1 million must be appropriated for this program, as suggested 

in the President’s budget to support the Tiwahe (family) Initiative—children and 

families depend on it. 

Welfare Assistance Recommendation.—Increase current funding levels to $80 million to provide a safety net for Native families and assist grand families and other 

kinship caregivers in tribal communities. 

The Welfare Assistance line item provides five important forms of funding to AI/ 

AN families: (1) general assistance, (2) child assistance, (3) non-medical institution 

or custodial care of adults, (4) burial assistance, and (5) emergency assistance. 

These programs often provide the assistance necessary to help a family make ends 

meet, prevent neglect, and keep their children safely in the home. Currently the 

need far exceeds the funding provided by this program. 

AI/AN adults on reservations—including parents and kinship caregivers—are unemployed at a rate more than two times the unemployment rate for the total population.6 Thirty-four percent of AI/AN children live in households with incomes below 
184 

issues/poverty/news/2013/11/26/80056/sequestering-opportunity-for-american-indians-and-alaskanatives/. 7 U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration, Maternal and Child Health Bureau. (2013). Child health USA 2012 (p. 9). Rockville, 

MD: Author. 8 U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (2014). Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on American Indian/Alaska 

Native Children Exposed to Violence: Ending violence so children can thrive (p. 75). Retrieved 

from http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/defendingchildhood/pages/attachments/2014/11/18/ 

finalaianreport.pdf. 

the poverty line as compared to 20.7 percent of children nationwide.7 AI/AN families 

live much closer to financial crisis than the average American family. AI/AN child 

welfare programs and social service agencies need to have the resources necessary 

to support families in times of crisis and uncertainty to promote stability and prevent abuse. In light of these identified needs and current underfunding, funds 

should be increased by $5.2 million to provide tribal governments the resources they 

need to support families and children in crisis. 

ICWA Funding Recommendation.—Increase the ICWA On or Near Reservation 

Program (TPA) appropriations by $3.4 million to help tribes meet the needs of their 

communities. Appropriate an additional $5 million for the authorized, but unfunded, 

Off-Reservation ICWA Program to ensure ICWA protects all children. 

As the Attorney General’s Advisory Committee on American Indian/Alaska Native 

Children Exposed to Violence recently stated ‘‘If AI/AN children today are to be provided with a reliable safety net, the letter and spirit of [the Indian Child Welfare 

Act] must be enforced.’’ 8 ICWA provides protections to AI/AN families in State child 

welfare and judicial systems. It also recognizes the sovereign authority of tribal nations to provide child welfare services and adjudicate child welfare matters. To effectuate these provisions, ICWA authorized grant programs to fund child welfare services on or near reservations and for ICWA support in off-reservation, urban Indian 

programs. 

ICWA funding is the foundation of most tribal child welfare programs. Compliance with the letter and spirit of ICWA necessitates adequate funding so that tribal 

child welfare programs can monitor State court proceedings and provide communitybased, culturally appropriate services to children and families. At the time that 

ICWA was passed in 1978, Congress estimated that between $26 million—$62 million would be required to fully fund tribal child welfare programs on or near reservations (S. Rep. No. 95–597, p. 19 (1977)). Even after an important fiscal year 

2015 increase, for which we thank Congress, current funding levels fall far short 

of this estimate—especially after adjusting for inflation. Funding must be increased 

by an additional $3.4 million for the On or Near Reservation ICWA Program (TPA). 

According to the 2010 Census, 67 percent of AI/AN people lived off-reservation. 

These children and families are best served when State child welfare systems are 

not only working with the child’s tribe, but also with urban Indian child welfare programs. These programs provide assistance to States and the child’s tribe, and provide culturally appropriate child welfare services. For this reason, ICWA authorizes 

child welfare funding for urban Indian programs. From 1979–1996, funding was allocated to urban organizations serving Native children and families. When funded, 

off-reservation programs provided important services such as recruitment of Native 

foster care homes, child abuse prevention efforts, and culturally appropriate case 

management and wraparound services. When funding stopped, the majority of these 

programs disintegrated even as the population of AI/AN children off-reservation increased. This funding must be reinstated. We recommend a $5 million appropriation 

to support AI/AN children and families living off-reservation. 
185 

1 Indian Health Care Improvement Act, § 103 (2009). 

2 ‘‘The State of the State’s Health: A Report on the Health of Montanans.’’ Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services. 2013. p. 11. 3 ‘‘2014 South Dakota Vital Statistics Report: A State and County Comparison of Leading 

Health Indicators.’’ South Dakota Department of Health. 2014. P. 62. 4The full fiscal year 2017 Tribal Budget Request is available at http://nihb.org/legislative/ 

budgetlformulation.php. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL INDIAN HEALTH BOARD

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you the opportunity to offer this testimony. On behalf of the National Indian 

Health Board and the 567 federally recognized tribes we serve, I submit this testimony on the Indian Health Service fiscal year 2017 budget. 

The Federal promise to provide Indian health services was made long ago. Since 

the earliest days of the Republic, all branches of the Federal Government have acknowledged the Nation’s obligations to the tribes and the special trust relationship 

between the United States and American Indians and Alaska Natives (AI/ANs). The 

United States assumed this responsibility through a series of treaties with tribes, 

exchanging compensation and benefits for tribal land and peace. The Snyder Act of 

1921 (25 U.S.C. 13) legislatively affirmed this trust responsibility. Since its creation 

in 1955, IHS has worked to fulfill the Federal promise to provide healthcare to Native people. In 2010, as part of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act, Congress 

reaffirmed the duty of the Federal Government to AI/ANs, declaring that ‘‘it is the 

policy of this Nation, in fulfillment of its special trust responsibilities and legal obligations to Indians—to ensure the highest possible health status for Indians and 

urban Indians and to provide all resources necessary to effect that policy.’’ 1

Devastating consequences from historical trauma, poverty, and a lack of adequate 

treatment resources continue to plague tribal communities. AI/ANs have a life expectancy 4.2 years less than other Americans, but in some areas, the life expectancy 

is far worse. For instance, in Montana, ‘‘white men... lived 19 years longer than 

American Indian men, and white women lived 20 years longer than American Indian women.’’ 2 In South Dakota, in 2014, ‘‘for white residents the median age [at 

death] was 81, compared to 58 for American Indians.’’ 3 AI/ANs also suffer significantly higher mortality rates from suicide, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease than 

other Americans. According to CDC data, 45.9 percent of Native women experience 

intimate partner violence, the highest rate of any ethnic group in the United States. 

American Indian/Alaska Native children have an average of six decayed teeth, when 

other U.S. children have only one. These health statistics are no surprise when you 

compare the per capita spending of the IHS and other Federal healthcare programs. 

In 2015, the IHS per capita expenditures for patient health services were just 

$3,136, compared to $8,097 per person for healthcare spending nationally. 

The following testimony reflects the IHS Tribal Budget Formulation Workgroup 

recommendations for fiscal year 2017.4 Tribes recommend $30 billion to fully fund 

IHS. This includes amounts for personal health services, wrap-around community 

health services and facility capital investments. Within this $30 billion is: $15.82 

billion for Medical Services; $1.66 billion for Dental and Vision Services; $3.71 billion for Community and Public Health Services; $8.77 billion for facility upgrades 

and upfront costs (non-recurring investments). 

Fiscal year 2017 President’s Budget Request.—The administration has proposed 

$5.2 billion for IHS for fiscal year 2017. This is $377 million (7.28 percent) above 

the fiscal year 2016 level. NIHB appreciates the bipartisan work this subcommittee 

has undertaken since fiscal year 2008 to ensure that meaningful increases have 

been awarded to the IHS. However, when considering staffing for new facilities, inflation, medical inflation, population growth, and Contract Support Cost obligations, 

the effective increase is minimal. For example, of the $377 discretionary increase 

requested for IHS, almost half ($159 million) is just what is needed to maintain current services, and $82 million is for Contract Support Costs, leaving actual program 

expansion with just $136 million. We implore this subcommittee, to take the courageous step forward and recommend a budget for Indian Health that truly lives up 

to the Federal trust responsibility and gives AI/ANs a chance at achieving better 

health outcomes. 

To begin the 12 year phase-in of the full $30 billion request, tribes recommend 

$6.2 billion in fiscal year 2017. All areas of the IHS budget are important, and we 

hope to see a strong increase across the IHS budget fiscal year 2017. However, the 

tribes have identified several priorities including Purchased/Referred Care (PRC); 

Hospitals & Clinics; Alcohol & Substance Abuse Services; Mental Health; and Dental Services. 
186 

5 Braveheart, M. Y. A., & DeBruyn, I. M. (1998). The American Indian Holocaust: healing historical unresolved grief. American Indian and Alaska Native Mental Health Research, 8(2). 6 Urban Indian Health Institute. (2012). Addressing depression among American Indians and 

Alaska Natives: A literature review. Seattle, Washington: Urban Indian Health Institute. 

Purchased/Referred Care (PRC).—In fiscal year 2017, tribes recommend $1.2 billion for the Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) program. This is $270.4 million over the 

fiscal year 2017 President’s request and $318.6 million above the fiscal year 2016 

enacted level. The PRC budget supports essential healthcare services from non-IHS 

or non-tribal providers and includes inpatient and outpatient care, emergency care, 

transportation, and medical support services such as diagnostic imaging, physical 

therapy, laboratory, nutrition, and pharmacy services. In fiscal year 2015, PRC denied over $645 million for an estimated 132,000 services needed. It is critical that 

this account continue to be prioritized by Congress. Tribal leaders have voiced concern that PRC was flat-funded in fiscal year 2016. This core funding is still a top 

priority for the tribes, as some areas rely heavily on PRC dollars, and we hope to 

see continued prioritization by the subcommittee in fiscal year 2017. 

Hospitals and Clinics.—In fiscal year 2017, tribes recommend $2.3 billion for Hospitals and Clinics (H&C) which is $300 million over the fiscal year 2016 President’s 

request and $422.8 million over the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. This core budget 

line item provides for the direct service delivery to AI/ANs. IHS/Tribal/Urban Indian 

(I/T/U)-managed facilities are often located in rural settings with service at many 

locations limited to primary care, due to inadequate funding. IHS H&C faces tremendous challenges. Some of these factors include: an increased demand for services 

related to trends in significant population growth, an increased rate of chronic diseases, rising medical inflation, difficulty in recruiting and retaining providers in 

rural healthcare settings, and the lack of adequate facilities and equipment. For 

many AI/ANs, IHS represents the healthcare access in its entirety, both in terms 

of monetary resources but also facility access. Consequently, any underfunding of 

H&C equates to no healthcare. For many in Indian Country, there are no alternatives. 

Quality of Care Issues—Direct Service Facilities.—Perhaps even more disturbing 

than the severe lack of resources at IHS, is recent findings by the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) at several hospitals in the Great Plains Area of 

IHS. In the last year, three hospitals serving tribes in the region have lost, (or received threats of revocation) their ability to bill CMS. This not only severely hampers the critical 3rd Party Revenue on which these facilities depend, but more importantly these findings raise serious questions about the quality of healthcare provided by IHS. At the Winnebago Indian Hospital, Pine Ridge Indian Hospital and 

the Rosebud Indian Hospital the deficiencies in question are simply unacceptable 

and more must be done to ensure that IHS management never allows this to happen again. Just last week, NIHB learned that Rosebud Indian Hospital was told it 

will lose this CMS certification on March 16, despite the fact that an IHS team has 

been on the ground for the last several months trying to prevent this. While it is 

our understanding that the agency has recently reached an agreement with CMS 

to keep the accreditation until at least May 16, we are continued to be troubled by 

the situation on the ground. NIHB believes that IHS should certainly be held to 

task by Congress for the poor management of these facilities, but it is also incumbent on Congress to provide IHS with sufficient funding so that the Service is able 

to safely and effectively carry out its mission. As one tribal leader stated at a Senate 

hearing on February 3, 2016: ‘‘[IHS] is all we have to count on. We don’t go there 

because they have superior healthcare. We go there because it is our treaty right. 

And we go there because many of us lack the resources to go elsewhere. We’re literally at the mercy of IHS.’’ 

Mental Health.—In fiscal year 2017, tribes are recommending $154.9 million. This 

is $43.75 million above the President’s fiscal year 2017 request and $72.8 million 

above fiscal year 2016. Expansion of mental health services are critically needed. 

Nowhere is the issue of poor coordination perhaps more acute than when it comes 

to mental and behavioral health services. AI/AN children and communities grapple 

with complex behavioral health issues at higher rates than any other population. 

Destructive Federal Indian policies and unresponsive or harmful human service systems have left AI/AN communities with unresolved historical and generational trauma.5 But access to behavioral health services is limited. In a study of 514 IHS and 

tribal facilities, 82 percent report providing some type of mental health service such 

as psychiatric services, behavioral health services, substance abuse treatment, or 

traditional healing practices, and to improve access 17 percent (87) have implemented telemedicine for mental health services.6 However, none provide inpatient 
187 

7 Indian Health Service. (2011). Inpatient mental health assessment. Retrieved from http:// 

www.ihs.gov/newsroom/includes/themes/newihstheme/displaylobjects/documents/ 

FINALlIHCIAlInpatientMHlAssessmentlFinal.pdf. 8 Ibid. 

9 25 U.S.C. 1616l(d). 

psychiatric services.7 Without access to care, persons in psychiatric distress often 

end up at the hospital emergency room.8 We support the administration’s request for $21.4 million in behavioral health integration as well as the $3.6 million for the 

Zero Suicide Initiative. We also support the administration’s mandatory funding requests for the Behavioral Health Professions Expansion Fund ($10 million) and the 

Tribal Crisis Response Fund ($15 million). 

Alcohol and Substance Abuse.—In fiscal year 2017, tribes recommend $312.3 mil- lion for the Alcohol and Substance Abuse budget. This is $79 million above the 

President’s request and $107 million above the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. Of the 

challenges facing AI/AN communities and people, no challenge is more far reaching 

than the epidemic of alcohol and other substance abuse. Now that tribes manage 

a majority of alcohol and substance abuse programs, IHS is in a supportive role to 

assist the tribes plan, develop, and implement a variety of treatment modalities. 

The collaboration has resulted in more consistent evidenced-based and best practice 

approaches to address substance abuse disorders and addictions. Successful treatment approaches include traditional healing techniques that link the services provided to traditional cultural practices and spiritual support. NIHB strongly supports 

the administration’s request for an extra $15 million for the Substance Use and Suicide Prevention Program. 

Dental Health.—For fiscal year 2017, tribes recommend $218.6 million for Dental Health. This is $31.8 more than the President’s request and $40.3 million above the 

fiscal year 2016 level. These critical funds are desperately needed to improve the 

oral health of AI/ANs. Over 80 percent of AI/AN children ages 6–9 suffer from dental caries, while less than 50 percent of the U.S. population ages 6–9 have experienced cavities. The IHS Dental program supports clinic-based treatment and prevention services, oral health promotion and disease prevention activities. However, 

access is one of the key issues in improving oral health for tribal communities. Half 

of AI/AN youth live in a dental shortage area. NIHB and the tribes continue to support the expansion of Dental Therapists (DTs) to tribes outside of Alaska as a safe, 

reliable, cost-effective means for tribal members to access oral health services. 

Sadly, provisions in the Indian Healthcare Improvement Act (IHCIA) 9 have made 

it difficult to use IHS programs to use these effective midlevel providers. We encourage the subcommittee to work with the relevant authorizing Committees to repeal 

this prohibitive section of the law so that IHS and tribes can utilize scarce discretionary dollars in the most cost-effective way possible. 

Contract Support Costs.—NIHB and tribes were pleased to see the separate funding account for contract support costs (CSC) that was created in fiscal year 2016. 

However, we continue to support the administration’s request for mandatory CSC 

and encourage Congress to work to enact this change as soon as fiscal year 2017. 

Other Recommendations.—Tribes have also proposed other budget-related recommendations for IHS in fiscal year 2017. One of these priorities is support for advance appropriations for IHS which would allow tribes to have predictability on the 

IHS budget and place IHS on parity with other Federal health providers. 

The implementation of the IHCIA remains a top priority for Indian Country. 

IHCIA provides new authorities for Indian healthcare, however additional funding 

is needed to fully implement the Act. This year, tribes have set priorities for funding 

the additional provisions of IHCIA as follows: Section 205: Funding for Long-term 

Care Services ($37 million); Section 704: Comprehensive Behavioral Health Prevention and Treatment Program ($20 million); Section 204: Diabetes Prevention, Treatment, and Control ($20 million); Section 123: Health Professional Chronic Shortage 

Demonstration Project ($15 million); Section 705: Mental Health Technician Program ($5 million). 

As noted above, the trust responsibility for health extends beyond the IHS. We 

also encourage this subcommittee to work with other agencies at the Department 

of Health and Human Services to ensure that funds reach tribal communities. Specific funding ‘‘set asides’’ for tribes or language directing the HHS to fund tribal 

communities specifically could be ways to ensure that appropriated dollars reach 

tribes. 

Thank you for the opportunity to offer this statement. We look forward to working 

with the Appropriations Committee as Congress considers fiscal year 2017 appropriations. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact the National 

Indian Health Board. 
188 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL OPERA CENTER OF AMERICA (OPERA 

AMERICA) 

Madam Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, I am grateful 

for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of OPERA America, its board of 

directors and its more than 2,000 organizational and individual members. We 

strongly urge the Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies in 

the Committee on Appropriations to designate a total of $155 million to the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) for fiscal year 2017. This testimony and the 

funding examples described below are intended to highlight the importance of Federal investment in the arts, so critical to sustaining a vibrant cultural community 

throughout the country. 

The NEA makes it possible for everyone to enjoy and benefit from the performing 

arts. Before the establishment of the NEA in 1965, funding for the arts was mostly 

limited mostly larger cities. The NEA has helped to strengthen regional dance, 

opera, theater and other artistic disciplines that Americans enjoy. NEA funding provides access to the arts in regions with histories of inaccessibility due to economic 

or geographic limitations. The NEA envisions a ‘‘nation in which every American 

benefits from arts engagement, and every community recognizes and celebrates its 

aspirations and achievements through the arts.’’ The agency has helped the arts become accessible to more Americans, which in turn has increased public participation 

in the arts. 

Opera is a continuously growing art form that can address the diverse needs and 

backgrounds of our communities. New opera companies are being established in 

communities that have never before had access to live performances. OPERA America’s membership includes 141 professional company members representing 42 

States, as well as 5 Canadian provinces and 3 countries. Sixty-seven percent of 

these companies were established after 1970 and over 43 percent were established 

since 1980, indicating the growth of opera throughout America over the last 45 

years. 

In the 2013–2014 season, OPERA America members were involved with 37 world 

premieres. Since 1900, 950 new operatic works have been produced by professional 

opera companies in North America. Of that, 478 new operatic works have been produced since 2000. The growth in number and quality of American opera corresponds 

directly to the investment of the NEA’s earlier investment in the New American 

Works program of the former Opera-Music Theater Program. 

Beyond the opera house, opera companies are finding new and exciting ways to 

bring the essence of opera to other local theaters and community centers, frequently 

with new and innovative works that reflect the diverse cultures of the cities they 

serve. Strong partnerships with local schools extend the civic reach of opera companies as they introduce children to a multi-media art form and discover promising 

young talent. 

The NEA is a great investment in the economic growth of every community. Despite diminished resources, including a budget that is $20 million less than it was 

in 2010, the NEA awarded 2,139 grants in 2015, totaling $103.47 million in appropriated funds. These grants nurture the growth and artistic excellence of thousands 

of arts organizations and artists in every corner of the country. NEA grants also 

preserve and enhance our Nation’s diverse cultural heritage. The modest public investment in the Nation’s cultural life results in both new and classic works of art, 

reaching the residents of all 50 States and in every congressional district. 

The return of the Federal Government’s small investment in the arts is striking. 

In 2013, the American creative sector was measured by the Federal Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA). The BEA and the NEA developed an ‘‘Arts and Cultural Production Satellite Account’’ which calculated the arts and culture sector’s contributions to the gross domestic product (GDP) at 4.2 percent (or $704.2 billion) of current-dollar GDP in 2013. Additionally, the nonprofit performing arts industry generates $135.2 billion annually in economic activity, supports more than 4.13 million 

full-time equivalent jobs in the arts, and returns $9.59 billion in Federal taxes (Arts 

and Economic Prosperity IV, Americans for the Arts). 

On average each NEA grant leverages at almost $10 from other State, local, and 

private sources. Few other Federal investments realize such economic benefits, not 

to mention the intangible benefits that only the arts make possible. Even in the face 

of cutbacks in the recent years, the NEA continues to be a beacon for arts organizations across the country. 

The return on investments is not only found in dollars. In 2012, 2.2 million people 

volunteered 210 million hours with arts and cultural organizations, totaling an estimated value of $5.2 billion—a demonstration that citizens value the arts in their 

communities. 
189 

NEA GRANTS AT WORK

Past NEA funding has directly supported projects in which arts organizations, artists, schools and teachers collaborated to provide opportunities for adults and children to create, perform, and respond to artistic works. NEA funding has also made 

the art form more widely available in all States, including isolated rural areas and 

inner cities. 

The more than 2,000 Art Works grants were awarded to nonprofit arts organizations for projects that encourage artistic creativity and that bring the arts to millions of Americans. In a striking example of Federal/State partnership, 40 percent 

of NEA’s program dollars are granted to State arts agencies, conditional on each 

State devoting its own appropriated funds. These grants, combined with State legislative appropriations and other dollars, are distributed widely to strengthen arts infrastructures and ensure broad access to arts. 

NEA grants are awarded to opera organizations through its core programs: Art 

Works; Challenge America Fast Track Grants; and Federal/State Partnerships. In 

fiscal year 2015, the NEA awarded 68 grants to the opera field through the Art 

Works category, totaling $2,095,000. 

Opera Memphis 

$30,000 

Memphis, Tennessee 

To support ‘‘30 Days of Opera.’’ Launched in 2012 as an outreach initiative with 

the goal of breaking down barriers that prevent new audiences from attending 

opera, the festival has successfully reached more than 50,000 people with more than 

100 performances in at least 80 different locations. The project includes admissionfree concerts, opera performances for schools, an original children’s opera, pop-up or 

guerilla opera performances, and a family day at the opera. 

Intermountain Opera Bozeman 

$12,000 

Bozeman, Montana 

To support performances of Puccini’s ‘‘Suor Angelica’’ and Gianni Schicchi.’’ Conducted by Christopher Allen, the cast included soprano Maria Kanyova and baritone 

Levi Hernandez. Educational and outreach activities to build audiences included a 

public workshop, a performance for elementary school students, a class for students 

at Bozeman High School, and a class for adults at Montana State University. 

Shreveport Opera 

$13,000 

Shreveport, Louisiana 

To support the Shreveport Opera Xpress educational and touring program. The 

program serves as the educational programming arm of the company through which 

performances and activities reach public school students. Interactive residencies in 

which public school music teachers will select students for instruction in vocal technique, acting, singing, and stage direction by Shreveport Opera Xpress (SOX) artists 

are an integral part of the program. Elementary through high school students 

throughout central and south Louisiana were reached during the 2015–2016 academic year. 

The Industry 

$12,000 

Los Angeles, California 

To support artistic and production fees for the premiere of Hopscotch, a mobile 

opera. Multiple Los Angeles-based composers and librettists were commissioned to 

each develop three short pieces. The opera was experienced in several ways: via a 

limited audience inside limousines with the artists as they drive around Los Angeles; at a large central hub where all of the limousine journeys were streamed live; 

and through the finale of the work when the two audiences converged. The project’s 

multidisciplinary collaborations continued the organization’s mission of creating new 

works that honor the origins of the genre while pushing to expand its traditional 

boundaries. The performances included a free component at the work’s central location, allowing a large audience to experience the performance. 

Over 50 million people experienced opera on stage, via radio and TV, in cinemas, 

and at stadiums, parks and alternative venues through one of OPERA America’s 

Professional Company Members in the 2012–2013 season. The collective expenses 

of member opera companies totaled over $1 billion. Total government support, including city, county, State, and Federal, amounted to $118 million, representing 10 

percent of total operating income. 
190 

Despite overwhelming support by the American public for spending Federal tax 

dollars in support of the arts, the NEA has never recovered from a 40 percent budget cut in the mid-nineties, leaving its programs seriously underfunded. We urge you 

to continue toward restoration and increase the NEA funding allocation to $155 million for fiscal year 2017. 

On behalf of OPERA America, thank you for considering this request. 

[This statement was submitted by Marc A. Scorca, President and CEO.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL PARKS CONSERVATION ASSOCIATION

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of National 

Parks Conservation Association (NPCA). Founded in 1919, NPCA is the leading national, independent voice for protecting and enhancing America’s National Park System for present and future generations. I appreciate the opportunity to provide our 

views regarding the National Park Service (NPS) fiscal year 2017 budget. 

National parks protect America’s heritage and deliver robust economic returns of 

$10 in economic benefits nationally for every dollar invested in the NPS. NPCA polling indicates the vast popularity of national parks and strong bipartisan support for 

adequately funding them. 

We acknowledge the tremendous challenge the subcommittee faces in setting 

thoughtful spending priorities, so we are grateful for your consistent support for national parks. NPCA and our partners in the National Parks Second Century Action 

Coalition commend your subcommittee for supporting a needed increase for the National Park Service in fiscal year 2016, the Service’s Centennial year. This level will 

make an important difference in recovering from years of cuts and inadequate funding. As there are still many needs, we urge you to do your best to build on this support as the System enters its next century of service to the American people. 

Fiscal Year 2017 Priorities: NPCA requests appropriated funding for NPS of 

$3,111,829,000, which is equal to the President’s appropriated request, but rejecting 

his proposal to reduce Heritage Partnership Programs funding. This level includes— 

but is not limited to—NPCA’s priorities of meeting the President’s request for: 

—$2,524,362,000 for park operations; 

—$252,038,000 for construction; and 

—$35,000,000 in appropriated funds for the Centennial Challenge. 

My testimony outlines these and several other issues: 

—The Budget Control Act, overarching budget concerns and the subcommittee’s 

allocation; 

—Park operations and construction funding and their connection to the maintenance backlog; 

—The Centennial Challenge program; 

—The Land and Water Conservation Fund and Historic Preservation Fund; 

—National Heritage Areas; 

—The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act; 

—Policy riders 

Budget Control Act (BCA) and budget process: We’ve been dismayed to see the 

many challenges to the budget and appropriations process in recent years, and the 

threat and harm they have brought to national parks. We were deeply dismayed in 

fiscal year 2013 when the BCA, due to the failure of the Joint Select Committee 

on Deficit Reduction to identify offsets, mandated sequester cuts that were so damaging to national park operations that they resulted in shuttered facilities and thousands of ranger positions going unfilled. We were consequently pleased that the Bipartisan Budget Acts (BBA) of 2013 and 2015 provided needed relief from that indiscriminate and damaging instrument with spending levels that are already austere absent the sequester. 

We were alarmed to see the draconian out-year cuts to nondefense discretionary 

spending proposed in the recent House budget and the challenges that struggle is 

posing to the appropriations process. Thus we are grateful that the Senate instead 

deferred to the BBA, fostering a more orderly and functional budget process in your 

chamber. 

The Interior allocation: NPCA believes the allocation provided to the subcommittee in recent years has been insufficient and emblematic of the austere constraints on domestic discretionary investments. In part to address this concern, we 

continue to urge legislation to address the dysfunctional system of catastrophic wildfire funding that burdens the Interior allocation. We support a clean fire funding 
191 

fix, a bipartisan solution that would (1) access disaster funding, (2) minimize transfers, and (3) address the continued erosion of agency budgets over time, with the 

goal of reinvesting in key programs that would restore forests to healthier conditions. 

Further, we feel that the Interior subcommittee allocation is unlikely to ever be 

sufficient to meet the full needs of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), 

the National Park System backlog, or the Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and 

Secure Rural Schools (SRS) programs, all of which should receive mandatory funding support outside of the Interior bill. 

We were disappointed to see the reduction in your fiscal year 2017 302(b) suballocation and understand the deep challenges this will pose in meeting the needs 

of national parks and other priorities. Therefore, in this context, we are grateful in 

advance to you and your subcommittee staff for doing what you can to continue the 

trajectory to restore funding for America’s treasures as they begin the next century 

of service to the American people. 

Park operations and the maintenance backlog: The subcommittee’s fiscal year 2016 

investment will be very helpful for national parks—but we regret to acknowledge 

that more is needed. The fiscal year 2016 increase in park operations, after adjusting for inflation, still leaves a level $90 million—or 3.6 percent—below levels in fiscal year 2010, when NPCA analysis indicated an annual operations shortfall of approximately a half billion dollars. Many parks remain understaffed: between fiscal 

year 2010 and fiscal year 2015, discretionary FTEs for the park service were reduced by 2,006 FTEs—an 11.2 percent reduction in staff. As you know, these losses 

can be damaging, with impacts such as less day-to-day maintenance, less scientific 

inventory and monitoring, reduced hours or even closed public facilities, fewer visitor programs, and other challenges to parks fulfilling their mission. The operations request would support $96 million in cyclic maintenance and re- pair needs. Support for this request would help address the $12 billion deferred 

maintenance backlog. The backlog continues to threaten the protection of nationally 

significant resources and, eventually the experience of visitors. In February 2015, 

NPS estimated that it needed $820 million annually just to keep up with the backlog, but only received $473 million, or less than 60 cents for every dollar needed. 

While this number also included park transportation infrastructure that is not within the jurisdiction of this subcommittee, funding to deal with the non-roads backlog 

remains vastly insufficient, and both short- and long-term solutions are needed. 

Construction and the backlog: The NPS construction account is a principal mechanism for addressing major repair needs, yet even after the fiscal year 2016 increase 

in that account, it remains 48 percent below levels of a decade ago after adjusting 

for inflation. This is why the requested increase for this account is so important to 

address needed projects throughout the park system. 

Mandatory backlog funding: We respect that it can be very difficult to identify 

budgetary offsets for mandatory programs, yet urge Congress to recognize that a 

more realistic long-term solution is needed to address the maintenance backlog. 

Under current allocations established by the BCA, it is difficult to see how this subcommittee will be able to address even the $2.4 billion highest priority non-transportation facilities’ needs. NPCA supports enacting legislation to begin reducing the 

backlog through a mandatory account and encourages Congress to pursue this approach to paying down the backlog’s most critical projects over the initial years of 

the system’s new century of service. 

Centennial Challenge: We commend this subcommittee for restoring the Centennial Challenge program in fiscal year 2015, and for the increase for the program 

in fiscal year 2016. This support has leveraged more than 2 dollars for every 1 dollar invested for signature projects across the National Park System that enhance 

the visiting experience. Many more philanthropic opportunities await, so we hope 

the subcommittee can support the request for an increase in this exciting program 

that enjoys strong bipartisan support. Further, we look forward to movement of a 

centennial bill that includes more robust funding for this important program, and 

urge members of this subcommittee to support such a bill that we hope will enjoy 

the bipartisan backing it deserves. That legislation would also include an endowment, another idea helpful in fostering a sustainable long-term funding model for 

NPS that supplements—but does not supplant—important appropriated dollars. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF): The acquisition of inholdings is directly related to better managing the places in which our Nation already has made 

a significant investment. Thus we support the administration’s appropriated request 

of $68.2 million for the NPS Federal land acquisition and management portion of 

LWCF, a critical tool for protecting our national parks. This appropriated request 

would help prevent incompatible development in 10 NPS units, including Grand 

Teton National Park. We were pleased the fiscal year 2016 omnibus included better 
192 

funding for the LWCF program and a 3-year reauthorization. We urge support for 

the administration’s proposal to partially fund LWCF with mandatory funds in fiscal year 2017 and then phase in full and mandatory funding for the program, to 

provide this successful program with the dependability it deserves. 

Historic Preservation Fund (HPF): The funding authorization for HPF was allowed to expire on October 1, 2015; we were disappointed the authorization was not 

extended in the omnibus as it was with LWCF. The HPF provides the primary 

source of funding for State Historic and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices in all 

50 States. The HPF also supports the Historic Tax Credit program, responsible for 

the rehabilitation of over 40,000 buildings, the creation of 2.5 million jobs and the 

leveraging of $117 billion in private investments in historic preservation projects. 

H.R. 2817, the bipartisan National Historic Preservation Amendments Act, would 

both restore the funding authorization for the HPF and extend it through fiscal year 

2028. NPCA urges passage of this bill to support continued preservation and rehabilitation of historic sites and structures. 

National Heritage Areas (NHAs): The president’s proposed 50 percent cut to the 

National Heritage Area program is an unwarranted attack on a program with a successful track record. In 2013, the 49 existing NHAs generated $13 billion in economic activity and $1.2 billion in tax revenues, and generated over 900,000 volunteer service hours. This mighty program with a modest budget ($19.8 million in fiscal year 2016) deserves support from both Congress and the President. 

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA): We are grateful that this 

subcommittee has supported multiple short-term extensions of FLREA, now extended through fiscal year 2017. Reauthorization is critical for NPS to retain needed 

funds of nearly $200 million annually. As NPCA continues to support a long-term 

reauthorization of FLREA with the respective authorizing committees, we hope this 

subcommittee will continue to support annual extensions. 

Policy Riders: Efforts to attach environmentally damaging policy riders only further threatens the appropriations process, so we were grateful that the final fiscal 

year 2016 bill was free of riders that threaten parks, their ecosystems, and the 

health of visitors and wildlife within them. We are deeply concerned to see riders 

threatening clean water in national parks and their ecosystems in the Senate fiscal 

year 2017 Energy and Water appropriations bill and urge that fiscal year 2017 and 

future appropriations bills be free of these damaging and controversial riders. 

In conclusion: NPCA has emphasized to this subcommittee and its House counterpart over the years the importance of providing more adequate funding for America’s treasures. As the subcommittee has acknowledged, the National Park Service 

and System are deeply popular with the American public and are important for local 

economies. As we emphasize the importance of providing staff to serve record numbers of visitors, and staff and resources to address the repairs backlog, we should 

not forget the profound importance of park sites in preserving and interpreting our 

natural and cultural heritage—a heritage that defines America’s very identity. Outstanding wildlife habitat, geysers, cliffs, Civil War sites that commemorate our fallen ancestors, the places we celebrate—and where we have suffered: this is America’s 

extraordinary National Park System. This subcommittee has recognized these places 

as priorities; we again commend you for supporting their needs and urge your continuing support. 

This subcommittee and its House counterpart have also emphasized the importance of a sustainable funding model for NPS. As you know, NPCA has long explored ideas to support such a model and advocate for mechanisms that, very importantly, do not supplant the Federal responsibility to appropriate funding for our Nation’s parks, but supplement these needed funds. 

Again, respectfully recognizing your constrained allocation, we urge you to provide 

the best appropriated level possible for NPS to help the agency recover from years 

of underfunding. We ask you to support a centennial bill that provides an endowment and more robust support for the Centennial Challenge program. We will seek 

to leverage new fee opportunities, historic leasing, and other innovative approaches. 

But we also urge this and future sessions of Congress to identify mandatory support 

and/or other robust mechanisms to address the deferred maintenance backlog, as 

well as the backlog of land acquisition needs. As the National Park Service prepares 

to celebrate its Centennial and to embark on its next century of service to the American people who collectively own these national treasures, we stand to work with 

you to provide needed support to recover, restore and bolster America’s National 

Park System. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. 
193 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION

Thank you Chairwoman Murkowski, Senator Udall, and other honorable members 

of the subcommittee for the opportunity to submit written testimony pertaining to 

funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund’s (LWCF) State Assistance Program and Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR) in the fiscal 

year 2017 Interior appropriations bill. 

Overview of Funding Request 

As outlined below, we encourage you to renew the Federal investment in the 

LWCF. However, given that the purpose of the Act is to help preserve, develop, and 

assure access to outdoor recreation facilities to strengthen the health of U.S. citizens, we urge you to make a greater investment in States and local communities 

by: 

—Allocating a minimum of 40 percent of fiscal year 2016 LWCF appropriations 

to the State Assistance Program; 

—Continuing the innovative, ‘‘Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership’’ (ORLP) competitive grant program in the amount of $12 million; —Allocating up to $30 million in funding for Urban Park and Recreation Recovery 

program (UPARR) out of total fiscal year 2017 LWCF appropriations; and, 

—Ensuring that any amount allocated to either the ORLP or UPARR program is 

not done at the expense of the existing core formula grants distributed to the 

States for conservation and active recreation. 

About the National Recreation and Park Association 

The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA), is a nonprofit organization 

working to advance parks, recreation and environmental conservation efforts nationwide. Our members touch the lives of every American in every community every 

day. Through our network of more than 50,000 citizen and professional members we 

represent park and recreation departments in cities, counties, townships, special 

park districts, and regional park authorities, along with citizens concerned with ensuring close-to-home access to parks and recreation opportunities exist in their communities. Everything we support and do is focused through our three pillars: Conservation; Health & Wellness and Social Equity. 

40 Percent Allocation of Total LWCF Appropriations to the State Assistance Program 

The LWCF State Assistance Program provides dollar-for-dollar matching grants 

to States and local communities for the construction of outdoor recreation projects. 

The land purchased with LWCF State Assistance funding remains the property of 

the State or local government, and the resources developed through the LWCF remain publicly accessible in perpetuity. 

The LWCF provides numerous benefits to local communities across America, and 

it does so through a dedicated funding source—namely oil and gas leasing revenues 

from the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). As much as $9 billion has been generated 

from these leases annually, with only a small fraction provided to the LWCF. Unfortunately an even more miniscule amount is provided to the State Assistance Program. This is in large part due to the fact that current law mandates that a minimum of 40 percent of the total LWCF annual appropriations must be provided to 

the Federal land acquisition program without specifying an amount for the State 

Assistance Program. As a result, States and local communities have historically received a very disproportionate share of the total LWCF appropriations, with less 

than 15 percent of total LWCF funding going to the State Assistance Program since 

1998. 

With this as background, we thank you very much for your efforts in fiscal year 

2016, which led to the highest total appropriation for LWCF in years. You also realized that a higher percentage of overall LWCF dollars should be allocated to the 

States for the purpose of meeting the ever increasing need for safe and accessible 

close-to-home recreation. The $110 million for State Assistance in fiscal year 2016 

represents approximately one-quarter of overall LWCF appropriations for the year. 

While this amount signifies a major improvement over the long-term average of, 

again, less than 15 percent of total LWCF spending, we call upon the subcommittee 

to seek a permanent solution to funding the LWCF with the State and Local Assistance Program receiving at least 40 percent of overall LWCF expenditures each year. 

With four-out-of-five Americans now living in our larger communities, and the fact 

the original LWCF Act called for 60 percent to State Assistance, it’s reasonable that 

the formula grants to the States for outdoor recreation should receive a more equitable distribution of LWCF dollars annually. 

We agree on the importance of preserving and providing access to our national 

treasures for all to enjoy—and congratulate and recognize the National Park Service 
194 

1Outdoor Industry Association, ‘‘The Outdoor Recreation Economy Report 2012.’’ 

2 NRPA, ‘‘The Economic Impact of Local Parks’’ published 2015. 

as it celebrates its centennial—we’d like to remind you that many treasured public 

areas are NOT located on Federal property. 

For the reasons outlined below, we are asking you to empower States and local 

communities to do more to preserve, develop, and assure access to outdoor recreation facilities to strengthen our Nation by allocating 40 percent of total LWCF appropriations to the State Assistance Program in fiscal year 2017. 

LWCF State Assistance’s Return on Investment and Return on Objective 

One of the key aspects of the LWCF State Assistance Program is the ability to 

create jobs. The outdoor recreation industry, as such is supported by LWCF State 

Assistance, is an economic powerhouse in the United States. According to the Outdoor Industry Association, the industry generates $646 billion in consumer spending 

and supports over 6 million jobs annually.1 In fact, our own research has determined that America’s local and regional public park agencies generated nearly $140 

billion in economic activity and supported nearly 1 million jobs from their operations 

and capital spending alone in 2013.2

Considering there are 7,800 State and over 100,000 locally managed parks 

throughout the country, it is obvious that outdoor recreation is most prevalent at 

the State and local level, and it is the LWCF State Assistance Program which provides the vast majority of places, spaces, and opportunities for outdoor recreation 

which stimulates the outdoor economy. 

When viewed through the lens of the importance of the American outdoor recreation industry, the LWCF State Assistance Program has, for more than four decades, achieved a proven return on investment (ROI) demonstrated by the fact that 

$4.1 billion in Federal support has been matched and leveraged to provide more 

than $8.2 billion in total public investment. But the benefits of this program, don’t 

stop there, as the State Assistance Program has not only provided a ROI, but has 

also done a tremendous job of providing an outstanding ‘‘return on objective’’ for the 

American taxpayer by ensuring access for all. 

Not everyone has the ability to visit one of our treasured national parks, and even 

those who do so are unable to on a regular basis. Their visits are often destination 

vacations or once-in-a-lifetime trips. To the average American, however, the neighborhood park—down the street, open and accessible to the public, and without an 

admission fee—is the most important public space in their lives. The State Assistance Program has played a critical role in the creation of these important places, 

with more than 40,400 grant projects covering nearly every county across America. 

The LWCF State Assistance Program is dedicated to ensuring that Americans 

have access to close-to-home public recreation opportunities. It is a means by which 

the subcommittee can provide investment to critically important local park infrastructure, including: a new soccer field at Sisterhood Park in Anchorage, Alaska; enhancements at Bluewater Lake State Park near Perwitt, New Mexico; and an accessible playground at Fall Creek Falls State Park in Spencer, Tennessee. Each of the 

aforementioned communities benefited from State Assistance grant funding since 

2013. 

LWCF State Assistance Provides Health and Environmental Benefits 

In addition to creating jobs and ensuring access for all, the LWCF State Assistance Program delivers tangible health benefits, contributing to the overall health 

and well-being of Americans. The National Park Service recognizes this through its 

‘‘Find Your Park’’ initiative, which aims to increase public recognition of parks and 

public lands (including State, local, and regional park and trail systems) as places 

for the promotion of physical, mental, and social health. The CDC reports obesity 

is now a leading cause of chronic disease and identifies increased access to parks, 

green space, and recreation opportunities is essential to becoming a healthier nation 

and reducing unsustainable healthcare costs. 

The LWCF State Assistance Program also significantly contributes to protecting 

the environment and promoting environmental stewardship. LWCF State Assistance 

projects have a historical record of contributing to reduced and delayed storm water 

runoff volumes, enhanced groundwater recharge, storm water pollutant reductions, 

reduced sewer overflow events, increased carbon sequestration, urban heat island 

mitigation and reduced energy demands, resulting in improved air quality, increased wildlife habitat, and increased land values on the local level. 
195 

Revitalizing Urban Parks and Recreation through Funding of UPARR 

While the LWCF has indeed benefited virtually every community in the country, 

many of our Nation’s cities and urbanized counties face distinct challenges that require additional resources. Recognizing this fact as well as the importance of public 

parks and recreation to larger urban renewal and community development efforts, 

Congress established the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR) 

to provide matching grants directly to localities in metropolitan areas. Over the 

course of two decades UPARR provided $272 million for nearly 1,500 projects in 380 

communities. This enabled neighborhoods across the country to restore both outdoor 

and indoor recreation facilities; support innovative recreational programming and 

enhance delivery of services and programs that provided constructive alternatives 

to at-risk youth. 

Despite its successes, UPARR has not been funded since fiscal year 2002, yet 

many of the urban open space and recreation challenges still exist today. NRPA is 

very pleased to see UPARR in the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget and calls on 

Congress to update and fund this needed program to enable metropolitan areas to 

address quality of life, health and wellness, and conservation issues as they work 

to make their communities more attractive for families and businesses alike. Both 

LWCF State Assistance and UPARR are critical to providing Americans close to 

home recreation opportunities. The programs complement each other and NRPA implores Congress to fund UPARR from total LWCF appropriations but not at the expense of the already underfunded State Assistance Program. 

Maintaining The Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Competitive Grant Program 

With UPARR now dormant for over a decade, we appreciate greatly your recognition for the need to target some State Assistance dollars to assist our most underserved, urban communities. Your support has led to the development of what is now 

known as the ORLP. This national competitive grant program complements the traditional State Assistance formula grants program by focusing on national priorities, 

specifically helping urban communities to acquire or develop land to create or reinvigorate public parks and other outdoor recreation spaces in ways that significantly 

improve local communities and encourage people to connect (or re-connect) with the 

outdoors. 

NRPA is pleased to have worked with NPS to help develop the pilot for this initiative and believes it will prove successful in highlighting the innovative projects and 

partnerships the State Assistance Program provides across America. This year, NPS 

intends to award as many as 40 ORLP grants to support the revitalization and protection of close-to-home parks and recreation opportunities in underserved areas. 

We ask that you maintain funding for the ORLP at $12 million for fiscal year 

2017. Also, as this program is included as part of the overall funding for the State 

Assistance Program, we ask the subcommittee to ensure that any continued funding 

for the ORLP does not negatively impact the total amount provided to the critical 

formula grants to the States for conservation and outdoor recreation. 

Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee, few programs can address so 

many national priorities as effectively as the LWCF State Assistance Program. This 

subcommittee and Congress have the rare opportunity to achieve national goals, all 

without costing the individual American taxpayer a penny, and can do so by adopting three simple recommendations: Allocate a minimum of 40 percent of LWCF 

funding to the State Assistance Program; continue the innovative ORLP grant program, and address the need for improved infrastructure in urban areas by allocating 

a portion of the total LWCF funding to UPARR. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to share NRPA’s recommendations and your 

consideration of our request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL TRIBAL CONTRACT SUPPORT COST

COALITION

My name is Lloyd Miller and I am a partner in the law firm of Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Miller and Munson, LLP. I submit outside written testimony on behalf 

of the National Tribal Contract Support Cost (NTCSC) Coalition. The Coalition is 

comprised of 21 tribes and tribal organizations situated in 11 States. Collectively, 

they operate contracts to administer almost $500 million in IHS and BIA programs 
196 

1The NTCSCC is comprised of the: Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (Alaska), Arctic 

Slope Native Association (Alaska), Central Council of Tlingit & Haida Indian Tribes (Alaska), 

Cherokee Nation (Oklahoma), Chickasaw Nation, Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky Boy’s Reservation (Montana), Choctaw Nation (Oklahoma), Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes 

(Montana), Copper River Native Association (Alaska), Forest County Potawatomi Community 

(Wisconsin), Kodiak Area Native Association (Alaska), Little River Band of Ottawa Indians 

(Michigan), Pueblo of Zuni (New Mexico), Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health (California), Shoshone Bannock Tribes (Idaho), Shoshone-Paiute Tribes (Idaho, Nevada), Southeast 

Alaska Regional Health Consortium (Alaska), Spirit Lake Tribe (North Dakota), Tanana Chiefs 

Conference (Alaska), Yukon-Kuskokwim Health Corporation (Alaska), and Northwest Portland 

Area Indian Health Board (43 tribes in Idaho, Washington, Oregon). 

on behalf of over 250 Native American Tribes.1 The NTCSC Coalition was created 

to assure that the Federal Government honors the United States’ contractual obligation to add full contract support cost funding to every contract and compact awarded 

under the Indian Self-Determination Act. I also litigated the Supreme Court Cherokee and Arctic Slope cases against the Indian Health Service, and co-litigated the 

Ramah class action case against the Bureau of Indian Affairs, all of which held that 

IHS and BIA contracts with Indian Tribes are true, binding contracts which must 

be paid in full no less than any other government contract. As a direct result of 

these litigations, the government since 2012 has agreed to pay over $1.75 billion in 

contract damages to Native American Tribes and tribal organizations, and close to 

$2 billion if we include judgments awarded in earlier years. 

No single enactment has had a more profound impact on tribal communities than 

the Indian Self-Determination Act of 1975. Since its enactment, tribes and intertribal organizations have taken control over vast portions of the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs and the Indian Health Service, including services previously provided by the 

Federal Government in the areas of healthcare, education, law enforcement and 

land and natural resource protection. Today, not a single tribe in the United States 

is without at least one self-determination contract with the IHS or the BIA. Collectively, the tribes administer nearly $3 billion in essential Federal Government functions employing an estimated 35,000 people. 

Under all of these contracts, the tribes must cover contract support costs—essentially overhead—to responsibly manage their programs. They have to make payroll. 

They have to manage their finances and their information technology systems. They 

have to buy insurance. They have to procure goods and services. All of the same 

things the Government has to do, the tribes have to do—and even more: the tribes 

must complete costly annual audits, negotiate indirect cost rates, and comply with 

a raft of unfunded Federal mandates. 

Full payment of contract support costs is essential to keeping faith with the Government’s contractual commitments, honoring the Government’s trust responsibility, 

and permitting the tribes to prudently carry out the contracted programs, from law 

enforcement to range management to full-on hospital operations. And since these 

costs are fixed, when the Government does not pay them, tribes pay them out of 

program funds or tribal trust funds. For many years, appropriators have well understood the nature of the Government’s obligation in this area: 

The Committee believes that both the Bureau [of Indian Affairs] and the 

Indian Health Service should pay all contract support costs for which it has 

contractually agreed and directs the Service to include the full cost of the 

contract support obligations in its fiscal year 2013 budget submission. 

H.R. Rep. No. 112–151, at 98 (2011). See also id. at 42 (addressing the BIA). The 

Supreme Court has agreed with Congress’s assessment: ‘‘Consistent with longstanding principles of Government contracting law, we hold that the Government 

must pay each tribe’s contract support costs in full.’’ Salazar v. Ramah Navajo 

Chapter, 132 S. Ct. 2181, 2186 (2012). See also Arctic Slope Native Ass’n, Ltd. v. 

Sebelius, No. 2010–1013, Order at 6, 2012 WL 3599217 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 22, 2012), 

on remand from 133 S. Ct. 22 (2012) (applying the Ramah ruling to the Indian 

Health Service). Today it is beyond any debate that the payment of contract support 

costs is a binding contractual obligation owed to all tribes that operate BIA and IHS 

contracts. The only issue remaining has been how to meet that obligation. 

Thanks to the vision and decisive action of congressional appropriators, fiscal year 

2014 was the first year in which contract support costs were paid in full through 

the ordinary appropriations process. For the agencies, particularly IHS, it was a 

rocky start, as early mistaken estimates gave way to the reality that the agency had 

missed the mark by millions of dollars. A major reprogramming action was necessary to make tribes whole, threatening direct services. Although IHS weathered 

the storm with a minimum of disruption to direct service operations, doing so re-
197 

2 A time-limited mandatory appropriation is ill-suited to paying a permanent obligation, because each renewal is subject to the vagaries of the political process. The best example of those 

vagaries is reflected in the history of the time-limited mandatory appropriation enacted for the 

Special Diabetes Program for Indians (SDPI). Public Law No. 105–33, § 4922, 111 Stat. 251 

(1997) (5 years); Public Law No. 107–360, § 1(b), 116 Stat. 3019 (2002) (6 years); Public Law 

No. 110–173, § 302(b), 121 Stat. 2492, 2515 (2007) (one year); Public Law No. 110–275, § 303(b), 

122 Stat. 2494, 2594 (2008) (2 years); Public Law No. 111–309, § 112(2), 124 Stat. 3285, 3289 

(2010) (2 years); Public Law No. 112–240, § 625(b), 126 Stat. 2313, 2352–53(2014) (1 year); Public Law No. 113–93, § 204(b), 128 Stat. 1040, 1046 (2014) (1 year). This instability is orders of 

magnitude more destabilizing when it comes to the payment of contract support costs for the 

delivery of core governmental functions, including the annual operation of police departments, 

schools and entire hospitals and clinics serving many of the Nation’s most vulnerable populations. It is one thing for a discrete program to end; it is quite another for an entire hospital 

or police department to close or be substantially cut back because contract support cost payments suddenly cease. One can imagine the grave instability that would ensue if by March 2020, 

Congress had not yet renewed a 3-year measure and yet the Budget Committee was developing 

its discretionary caps for the coming year and the subcommittee elected to hold hearings. 

quired diverting nearly all of the increases that Congress had appropriated that 

year for program services. 

The 2014 disruptions were avoided in fiscal year 2015, thanks to better planning 

and more accurate agency projections. Even still, the threat to ongoing program operations was palpable, given the prior year’s experience. That threat led directly to 

bold and unprecedented action for fiscal year 2016 in establishing an entirely separate contract support cost account, and to allocate to that account an uncapped 

amount for the payment of these costs. The solution was as elegant as it was brilliant: (1) it avoided the substantial difficulties of transferring these payments to the 

mandatory side of the ledger; (2) it removed any possible threat to ongoing program 

operations; and (3) at the same time it assured full payment of the Government’s 

contract obligations to the tribes. The tribal experience in 2014, 2015 and 2016 is 

that the new system is now working, and even working quite well. The National 

Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition fully supports this approach and encourages 

the subcommittee, with one modification, to continue this year’s approach in future 

years. 

The one modification we strongly request is to eliminate the agency-requested 

‘‘proviso’’ that was included in these new IHS and BIA accounts. The proviso addresses contract funds that go unspent in a given fiscal year. Existing law already 

addresses that issue. See 25 U.S.C. 450(a)(4) (‘‘For each fiscal year during which a 

self-determination contract is in effect, any savings attributable to the operation of 

a Federal program, function, service, or activity under a self-determination contract 

by a tribe or tribal organization (including a cost reimbursement construction contract) shall (A) be used to provide additional services or benefits under the contract; 

or (B) be expended by the tribe or tribal organization in the succeeding fiscal year, 

as provided in section 13a of this title.’’). At the risk of stating the obvious, all funds 

paid under self-determination contracts or compacts must be spent under those contracts to deliver (or support the delivery of) healthcare to Indian people. The new 

proviso is somewhat in conflict this existing law. Worse yet, it will require new accounting rules to track subaccounts across fiscal years, at significant expense but 

with no discernible benefit to the taxpayer, the Treasury, or Indian people. Nothing 

in the new mechanism for contract support cost payments justifies changing the 

longstanding rules controlling how those funds are accounted for and spent. We 

therefore respectfully request that the subcommittee delete the proviso going forward. 

As it did last year, the administration has also proposed to transfer CSC appropriations from the discretionary side of the budget to the mandatory side of the 

budget, starting in fiscal year 2018. The National Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition strongly supports the President’s proposal, and indeed would prefer a proposal 

to make such a provision permanent.2 That said, we recognize that the proposal will 

have difficult sledding without an offset, and unfortunately none has been proposed 

by the administration. We stand ready to work with the subcommittee this year and 

next to explore how best to move forward with a mandatory appropriation. 

We applaud the IHS and BIA for their efforts over the past several months to 

work closely with tribes in the development of internal guidelines for calculating 

and reconciling CSC payments. Each agency now has a draft policy ready for tribal 

consultation, and we are encouraged by these efforts. That said, the Coalition is 

quite concerned that the IHS approach remains terribly over-complicated, partly due 

to the agency’s insistence on maintaining what we believe are untenable legal positions that the Office of General Counsel prefers to litigate. 

For instance, IHS wants to litigate the proposition that a tribe may not receive 

any contract support costs for an activity (say, information technology costs or facil-
198 

ity support costs) if that activity was already partly funded in the program budget 

that was paid to the tribe under the contract. But Congress has already stated precisely the opposite—that if program funds for given costs are insufficient as compared to what is necessary and reasonable under the circumstances, then contract 

support costs are to be paid to make up the difference. See S. Rep. No. 103–374, 

at 9 (1994) (‘‘[I]n the event the Secretarial amount under [§ 450j–1(a)(1)] for a particular function proves to be insufficient in light of a contractor’s needs for prudent 

management of the contract, contract support costs are to be available to supplement such sums.’’) 

We respectfully urge the subcommittee to underscore these instructions, direct the 

agencies to further simplify the contracting process, and instruct the agencies not 

to seek to reduce tribal contract support cost entitlements. 

To further simplify and streamline contracting activities, we also respectfully suggest that the subcommittee urge the agencies to explore using multi-year arrangements for fixed rates or fixed lump-sum amounts subject to inflationary adjustments. 

Finally, the Coalition respectfully urges the subcommittee to clarify once and for 

all that other funds under this subcommittee’s jurisdiction that are paid to tribes 

and tribal organizations that contract with IHS under the Indian Self-Determination Act, shall be paid to the tribes under those contracts and compacts—not under 

separate grant agreements—and that tribal contract support cost requirements are 

to be calculated on such funds. Although this was the agency’s practice between 

2008 and 2012, the agency changed course after the 2012 Ramah decision and, for 

the last 2 years, has only awarded methamphetamine and suicide prevention initiative (MSPI) funds and domestic violence prevention initiative (DVPI) funds under 

grant instruments. Not only does using grants instead of existing contracts and compacts considerably over-complicate the accounting and reporting process; denying 

tribes contract support costs on these funds and future behavioral health funds 

forces tribes to divert scarce program dollars to cover overhead costs. On average, 

IHS’s change in position—undertaken without any tribal consultation whatsoever— 

has reduced these behavioral health program funding amounts nationwide by 25 

percent. Congress should not tolerate this irrational, arbitrary and capricious 

change to these programs. 

I thank the subcommittee for the opportunity to provide written testimony on behalf of the National Tribal Contract Support Cost Coalition concerning the fiscal 

year 2017 budget. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL TRUST FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION

Madame Chairman, Senator Udall, and members of the subcommittee, I appreciate this opportunity to present the National Trust for Historic Preservation’s recommendations for fiscal year 2017 appropriations. My name is Tom Cassidy and I 

am the Director of Government Relations and Policy. The National Trust is a privately-funded nonprofit organization chartered by Congress in 1949. We work to 

save America’s historic places to enrich our future. 

The Nation faces a challenging fiscal environment. The National Trust recognizes 

there is a need for fiscal restraint and cost-effective Federal investments. However, 

we do not believe that preservation, conservation and recreation programs should 

suffer from disproportionate funding reductions. We look forward to working with 

you, Madame Chairman, as you address the ongoing needs for investments to sustain our Nation’s rich heritage of cultural and historic resources that generate lasting economic vitality for communities throughout the Nation. 

Historic Preservation Fund.—The Historic Preservation Fund (HPF) is the principal source of funding to implement the Nation’s historic preservation programs. 

Like the Land and Water Conservation Fund, its dedicated revenues are generated 

from oil and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf. 

The National Park Service distributes HPF grants that are matched by State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPOs) and Tribal Historic Preservation Offices 

(THPOs). Inadequate HPF funding limits support for preservation activities such as 

survey, nomination of properties to the National Register of Historic Places, public 

education, project review required by the National Historic Preservation Act and for 

the Federal Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit (HTC). The HTC is the largest Federal investment in historic preservation. It has catalyzed the rehabilitation of more 

than 41250 buildings. Since its creation more than 30 years ago, the HTC has created 2.5 million jobs and leveraged more than $117.6 billion in private investment. 

The National Trust applauds the administration’s request of $87.41M for the 

HPF. Most of the increase over fiscal year 2016 enacted is attributable to the $25 
199 

million for competitive grants to preserve the sites and stories of the Civil Rights 

movement and $3 million for grants to Historically Black Colleges and Universities. 

In addition, the administration requested an additional $2 million over fiscal year 

2016 enacted for grants to Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. There are presently 

158 THPOs recognized by NPS—a dramatic increase from the 12 tribes who received funding in fiscal year 1996, the first year of THPO funding. The National 

Trust enthusiastically endorses these well-deserved increases for preservation activities. The request would also continue for a fourth year the successful $500,000 competitive grants program for the survey and nomination of properties associated with 

communities currently underrepresented in the National Register of Historic Places 

and National Historic Landmarks. Recent studies have documented that less than 

8 percent of such listings identify culturally diverse properties. 

However, the National Trust is disappointed that the administration did not request any funding increase to the SHPOs. We will work with the preservation community to urge the appropriations subommittee to provide much needed increases 

for SHPOs to ensure that they can provide essential preservation services to businesses and communities throughout the Nation. 

National Park Service: Operation of the National Park System and Cultural Resources Stewardship.—The National Park Service (NPS) is responsible for 411 units 

of the National Park System ranging from the battlefields where our ancestors 

fought and died to places that stir the soul like the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island, the gateway for millions of new Americans. Three-quarters of our parks were 

created to protect our most important historic and cultural resources. Over the past 

20 years, more than 40 new parks have been added to the park system, many of 

which preserve historic places and themes that have been underrepresented within 

the system. We support the President’s budget proposal of $154 million above the fiscal year 

2016 enacted level for National Park Service Operations. The increase includes several Centennial Initiative requests of great importance to the preservation community, including increases of $49.2 million for repair and rehabilitation projects, $46.6 

million for cyclic maintenance, and $2 million for the Cultural Resource Challenge. 

Repair and Rehabilitation.—The Repair and Rehabilitation Program is a part of 

the overall service wide deferred maintenance strategy that directs funds to high 

priority mission critical and mission dependent assets with deferred maintenance 

projects less than $1 million. Approximately $4.5 billion of the overall deferred 

maintenance backlog is for the 27,000 properties listed on the National Register of 

Historic Places within National Park units. The deferred maintenance backlog on 

these properties is the result of repair and rehabilitation maintenance not being performed in a timely manner. 

Cyclic Maintenance.—Investing in cyclic maintenance required to maintain historic structures is essential to abate the continued growth of the deferred maintenance backlog. The kind of projects addressed by cyclic maintenance funding includes roofing of buildings, re-pointing masonry walls, painting, sealing and stabilizing archaeological sites. 

Leasing Historic Structures in National Parks.—In recent years, the Committee 

has repeatedly included report language encouraging the NPS to utilize leases as 

a means to mitigate the main The Service continues to move slowly to implement 

the policy changes he Service is slow to implement the policy changes necessary to 

facilitate more leasing and catalyze even broader use of this important authority. 

We recommend that the subcommittee request the NPS to report on its actions to 

expand this public-private approach to bring private investment into the parks. 

Visitor Services: New Responsibilities and Critical Needs.—We support the requested $3.2 million increase to support the operations of newly established units 

of the National Park System including the recently established Pullman National 

Monument in Illinois and Honouliuli National Monument in Hawaii. The requested 

increase would also support the critical operating needs of parks with Civil Rights 

stories, including the Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail and the Carter 

G. Woodson Home National Historic Site. 

Visitor Services: Centennial Initiatives, Every Kid in a Park.—We support the administration’s ongoing efforts to increase the exposure of our national park to young 

people, particularly those from underserved communities, through the Every Kid in 

a Park campaign. 

As part of our commitment, and assist the NPS reduce the maintenance backlog 

of historic properties, the National Trust launched the HOPE (Hands-On Preservation Experience) Crew initiative in 2014 to train young adults in preservation skills 

while helping protect and restore historic sites. Youth and veterans are trained in 

the preservation skills necessary to perform preservation work in the parks and 

other Federal lands through a cooperative agreement between the NPS, other Fed-
200 

eral land management agencies, and several NGOs including the Student Conservation Association and The Corps Network. In the first 2 years of the program, HOPE 

Crew has engaged over 300 Corpsmembers (youth and veteran), spent 60,000 hours 

completing 67 projects and supporting over 8 million dollars of preservation work, 

including rehabilitating structures at Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic 

Site, Little Big Horn Battlefield National Monument, Golden Gate National Recreation Area, and Shenandoah National Park. Projects like these help reduce the 

maintenance backlog while also providing job skills and education for the next generation of stewards of America’s most important historic sites. 

National Park Service: Construction.—We support the requested increase of $37 

million over fiscal year 2016 enacted for the Line Item Construction program. This 

account addresses the deferred maintenance for the NPS’ highest priority non-transportation assets with projects larger than $1 million. We also support the President’s request that this fund be used for the repair and stabilization of important 

historic structures as opposed to new construction. Of the 6,735 highest priority 

non-transportation assets approximately 4,000 have deferred maintenance needs. 

Examples of these needs include critical health and safety issues in the lobby of the 

Many Glacier Hotel in Glacier National Park; the rehabilitation of historic cottages, 

and reroofing Ebenezer Church and seven historic houses at Martin Luther King, 

Jr. National Historic Site; and the rehabilitation of the Lincoln Memorial to provide 

accessible spaces, restrooms and pathways. 

National Park Service: National Heritage Areas.—We recommend funding for National Heritage Areas (NHAs) at the fiscal year 2016 enacted level or higher. The 

administration’s repeated proposals to reduce NHA funding, justified as ‘‘encouraging self-sufficiency,’’ would severely impair the sustainability of the program and 

most likely have the exact opposite effect by rendering many NHAs not self-sufficient, but rather unable to function. National Park Service Director Jon Jarvis has 

described National Heritage Areas as ‘‘places where small investments pay huge 

dividends.’’ We agree. 

National Park Service: Centennial Challenge.—We support the $35 million Centennial Challenge to provide dedicated Federal funding to match donations for signature National Park Service projects and programs. This funding will allow the 

NPS to leverage private contributions to enhance visitor services and improve cultural and natural resources across the parks in the Service. 

Bureau of Land Management: Cultural Resources Management.—The BLM oversees the largest, most diverse and scientifically important collection of historic and 

cultural resources on our Nation’s public lands as well as the museum collections 

and data associated with them, including 10 million artifacts and specimens, 

366,232 documented cultural sites, 3,965 monitored archaeological sites, 431 maintained historic structures and 108 properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places. This program funds National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 

106 review of 13,000 land use proposals each year, compliance with the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and Government-to-Government 

consultation with Indian Tribes and Alaska Native Governments. Since fiscal year 

2003 this program has lost 19 FTEs while the demand for Section 106 compliance 

has remained even or increased. The loss of personnel has diminished the BLM’s 

ability to review land proposals like transmission lines, energy development and 

recreation permits. 

We support the administration’s fiscal year 2017 request of $17.3M, a modest increase of $1.2M above fiscal year 2016 enacted. The increased support is necessary 

to fulfill BLM’s statutory requirements for Section 106 reviews of land use proposals, and NHPA’s Section 110 requirements for inventory and protection cultural 

resources. The increase would support 60 on-the-ground surveys of sensitive areas, 

site protection and stabilization projects for priority sites vulnerable to unauthorized 

activities and damage due to fire, erosion and changing water levels. Projects will 

also update predictive modeling and data analysis to enhance the BLM’s ability to 

address large-scale, cross jurisdictional land-use projects. 

Bureau of Land Management: National Landscape Conservation System.—The Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) National Landscape Conservation System (National Conservation Lands) includes 31 million acres of congressionally and presidentially designated lands, including National Monuments, National Conservation 

Areas, Wilderness, Wilderness Study Areas, National Scenic and Historic Trails, 

and Wild and Scenic Rivers. 

As the Nation’s newest system of protected lands, the National Conservation 

Lands encompass some of our country’s most significant historic and cultural resources, yet the BLM’s ability to steward these resources is undermined by insufficient funding. The National Conservation Lands are just one-tenth of BLM managed 

lands but they host one-third of all BLM’s visitors. Without sufficient funding, the 
201 

BLM struggles to complete essential resource protection, such as signing trails, 

inventorying and protecting cultural sites from looting and vandalism. We support the administration’s fiscal year 2017 request of $83.1 million, a $14 

million increase over fiscal year 2016 enacted, in order to prevent critical damage 

to the resources found in these areas, ensure proper management and provide for 

a quality visitor experience. This funding level would enable BLM to hire essential 

management and law enforcement staff, monitor and protect natural and cultural 

resources, close unauthorized routes that damage fragile cultural sites and undertake needed ecosystem and species restoration projects. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund.—The National Trust supports robust funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. Many of the Nation’s most significant historic and cultural landscapes have been permanently protected through 

LWCF investments, including Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site, Canyons of the Ancients National Monument and Harpers Ferry National Historic Park. 

Culturally significant projects in the fiscal year 2017 request include Aqua Fria National Monument (Arizona), Galisteo Basin ACEC (New Mexico), Palo Alto Battlefield National Historical Park (Texas), Hawaii Volcanoes National Park (Hawaii), 

Appalachian Trail (West Virginia), Lewis & Clark National Historic Park (Oregon/ 

Washington) and the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail (District of Columbia/Delaware/Maryland/Virginia). We strongly support the administration’s request for the American Battlefield Protection Program Grants. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present the National Trust’s recommendations 

for the fiscal year 2017 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies appropriations 

bill. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE ASSOCIATION

Chair Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the subcommittee: 

On behalf of the National Wildlife Refuge Association and its membership of representatives from Refuge Friends organizations and concerned citizens, thank you 

for your support for the National Wildlife Refuge System (NWRS), particularly for 

the funding increase for fiscal year 2016. We appreciate the opportunity to offer 

comments on the fiscal year 2017 Interior appropriations bill and respectfully request: 

—$506.6 million for the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) accounts of the NWRS, including $5 million for the Pacific Marine Monuments; —$900 million for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), with $150 

million allocated for the FWS, including these high priority requests: 

—$10 million for Everglades Headwaters NWR and Conservation Area (Florida); —$5 million for Silvio O. Conte NFWR (Connecticut, New Hampshire, Vermont, 

Massachusetts); —$3 million for Cache River NWR (Arizona); 

—$2 million for Bear River Watershed Conservation Area (Wyoming, Idaho, 

Utah); —$2 million for Blackwater NWR (Maryland); 

—$1.4 million for Balcones Canyonlands NWR (Texas); 

—$2 million for Clark River NWR (Kentucky); 

—$6.2 million for Hakalau Forest NWR (Hawaii); and 

—$8 million for the Dakota Grasslands Conservation Area (North Dakota, 

South Dakota); 

—$50 million for the Refuge Fund; 

—$75 million for the FWS Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program; 

—$15 million for the FWS Coastal Program; 

—$60 million for FWS for Preparedness and Hazardous Fuels Reduction (under 

DOI); 

—$70 million for the State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program; 

—$47.6 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund; 

—$6 million for the Neotropical Migratory Bird Fund; and 

—$13 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund. 

We understand our Nation’s challenging fiscal constraints, but cutting funding to 

programs that are economic drivers and job creators in local communities only exacerbates an already difficult situation. For example, the NWRS averages almost $5 

in economic return for every $1 appropriated. Budgets have not kept pace with rising costs, and the gap between the funding needed to maintain these programs and 

the funding appropriated has widened dramatically. 
202 

Now, with the expansion of the Pacific Remote Islands Marine National Monument, the Refuge System is responsible for over half a billion acres of land and 

water and therefore must have adequate funding to keep pace with this newly expanded area of responsibility. The Service is also expanding their outreach by working to make conservation more accessible to the American public via urban refuges 

and urban partnerships. To begin bridging these gaps, the Refuge Association urges 

Congress to fund these critical programs that leverage Federal dollars and serve as 

economic drivers. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM—OPERATIONS & MAINTENANCE

The Refuge Association chairs the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement 

(CARE), a diverse coalition of 23 sporting, conservation, and scientific organizations 

representing more than 16 million Americans that supports increased funding for 

the Refuge System. CARE estimates the NWRS needs at least $900 million annually to manage its 150 million acres and 418 million acres of national marine monuments, yet it is currently funded at roughly half that amount—at less than $1 per 

acre. The Refuge System cannot fulfill its obligation to the American public, our 

wildlife, and 48.5 million annual visitors without increases in maintenance and operation funds. 

Funding for the Refuge System has declined substantially from a funding level 

of $503 million in fiscal year 2010 to its current $481 million—$77 million below 

what it needs to keep pace with inflation and salary increases. This has forced the 

Service to cut back on programs and create efficiencies whenever possible. Because 

of these new efficiencies, the Service has cut its deferred maintenance backlog in 

half from $2.7 billion to $1.17 billion as of the end of fiscal year 2015. But budget 

cuts also led to the loss of 500 positions since fiscal year 2011 and thus an increase 

in the operations backlog, now at $735 million. Because most refuge lands and waters are highly managed, this deterioration in staffing has had a dramatic impact 

resulting in significant declines in habitat protection and management, hunting, 

fishing, volunteerism and scientific research. 

For instance, visitor services staff has declined by 15 percent, forcing a reduction 

in public programs and hours of operation, yet there is more demand than ever for 

recreational opportunities on refuges. Hunting visits are up 2 percent since fiscal 

year 2011 and fishing visits are down 5 percent, but photography participation is 

up 52 percent and auto tour visits are up 14 percent. Visitation to all refuges since 

fiscal year 2011 has increased by 9 percent. Overall, more people are looking to 

recreate on wildlife refuges, but fewer staff is available to provide those opportunities. 

Reductions in visitor services can be extremely troubling to constituencies who 

want to visit. At Tualatin NWR in Oregon, elimination of the visitor services position cut all teacher training workshops and community outreach. Prior to this loss, 

over 100 teachers were trained each year at the refuge. Patuxent Research Refuge 

in Maryland—the refuge closest to the Nation’s capital —has closed its visitor’s center every Thursday due to budget shortfalls, reduced programs for schools, and lost 

half its visitor services staff. 

Equally troubling is a 15 percent drop in the number of volunteers since fiscal 

year 2011. At a time when record numbers of Americans are retiring and have the 

capability to give back, the Service’s ability to oversee their efforts has been curtailed. Volunteers provide an additional 20 percent of work on our national wildlife 

refuges, yet they are being turned away when the System needs them the most. 

During these years of challenging budgets, the Refuge System’s potential to drive 

local economies and create jobs is of paramount importance. Banking On Nature, 

a report issued by the FWS in 2013, shows that even during the worst recession 

since the Great Depression, the Refuge System saw economic output in local communities increase 20 percent to $2.4 billion, visitation increase 30 percent to 46.5 

million, an average return on investment increase of 22 percent to $4.87 for every 

$1 appropriated, and supported jobs increase 23 percent to 35,000. 

Not included within the request of $506.6 million is the need for an additional 

$6 million to recoup costs related to the armed occupation of the Malheur NWR in 

Oregon. For 40 days this winter, armed occupiers took over the refuge, causing injury to infrastructure and habitat. This funding includes costs already incurred by 

the Service for additional law enforcement as well as the cost to repair damages in 

order to open the refuge. Without these additional funds, all costs will come out of 

the Service’s operating budget, reducing the amount available to the rest of the System. 

In addition, invasive species control is critically required at the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee NWR in Florida. This refuge is owned by the State of Florida and 
203 

managed by the Service, and invasive weeds have degraded much of the 230 square 

mile refuge. $5 million annually is required each year for 5 years to remove invasive 

species, plus an additional $3 million each year thereafter to maintain invasive species control. 

The Refuge Association appreciates the subcommittee’s consideration of our request 

of $506.6 million for fiscal year 2017 for National Wildlife Refuge System Operations 

and Maintenance. We additionally request $6 million for costs related to the Malheur 

NWR occupation and $5 million for invasive species control at the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee NWR. 

STRATEGIC GROWTH—LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND (LWCF)

The Land and Water Conservation Fund is an essential tool for protecting the integrity of the Refuge System and is the primary funding source for land and conservation easement acquisition by Federal land agencies. Some in Congress have argued that public lands like the Refuge System can’t manage what they have and 

thus, all land acquisition should end. However, in the past 20 years, lands contained 

within the Refuge System have only grown by 5.6 percent, while at the same time, 

visitation has grown by 30 percent. The real cause of rising operations and maintenance costs is that the public is hungry for more opportunities to recreate. 

Increasingly, LWCF is being used to conserve working lands and local culture 

through the acquisition of easements that secure conservation protection while leaving the land in private ownership and on the tax rolls. Easements are powerful tools 

that foster public-private partnerships with ranchers, farmers and foresters to conserve wildlife, habitat and a uniquely American way of life. Innovative landscapescale initiatives using easements have broad community and State support in New 

England’s Connecticut River Watershed, the Everglades Headwaters, the Bear River 

Watershed, and the Dakota Grasslands. These iconic landscapes remain privately 

managed, generating tax income for local communities, securing our Nation’s food, 

and balancing resource use and resource protection for wildlife. 

In many cases, however, land acquisition is required to conserve intact and functional natural habitat. The Refuge System is responsible for safeguarding population levels of a range of species, including many that require specific habitat conditions, such as beaches for sea turtles and isolated springs for endemic desert fish. 

Others require multiple habitat types during their life cycle. By acquiring critical 

habitat areas and linking conserved lands, the Refuge System enhances the integrity of the System and strengthens our network of habitat to give wildlife space and 

time to respond to changes, whether from climate or changing land use patterns. 

The Refuge Association calls on Congress to fund LWCF at $900 million per year, 

with $150 million provided in fiscal year 2017 to the USFWS for conservation easements and refuge in-holdings, including the projects enumerated at the beginning of 

this statement and those advocated by Refuge Friends. 

COMMITMENT TO REFUGE COMMUNITIES—REFUGE FUND

The Refuge System uses net income derived from permits and timber harvests to 

make payments to local communities to offset property tax revenue lost when the 

federally acquired lands are removed from local tax rolls. The System relies on congressional appropriations to the Refuge Fund to compensate for the shortfall between revenues and tax replacement obligations. However, declining revenues and 

lack of appropriations have resulted in the Service paying less than 50 percent of 

its tax-offset obligations since 2001. The negative impact on local communities is felt 

even more starkly in difficult economic times and reduced funding threatens the 

partnerships that are so important for successful conservation. 

The Refuge Association requests $50 million for the Refuge Fund. We also call for 

a review of the Refuge Revenue Sharing Act of 1935 as amended, and consideration 

of conversion to a Payment-in-Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program to be consistent with 

other Federal land management agencies and to provide Refuge communities with 

more equitable payments. 

PARTNERSHIPS—PARTNERS FOR FISH AND WILDLIFE PROGRAM (PARTNERS PROGRAM)

With 75 percent of all fish and wildlife species dependent upon private lands for 

their survival, the Partners Program is one of the most powerful tools for protecting 

wildlife where it lives. By building effective partnerships between public agencies 

and private landowners to conserve America’s expansive working landscapes, the 

Partners Program has implemented nearly 29,000 restoration projects in the past 

25 years, restoring over one million acres of wetlands, three million acres of up-
204 

lands, and 11,000 miles of streams. The Partners Program leverages Federal dollars, 

generating nearly $16 in economic return for every $1 appropriated for projects. 

The Partners Program is playing a key role in conserving greater sage-grouse habitat in the intermountain west. To this end, we request an additional $78 million 

for the Interior agencies to implement sagebrush steppe habitat conservation and 

monitoring efforts that will leverage $300 million in Department of Agriculture investments. 

The Refuge Association and the landowner-led Partners for Conservation request 

$75 million for fiscal year 2017. Such a funding level would result in an additional 

$400 million worth of conservation across the Nation. 

We believe that with sound conservation policy, adequate funding, and the power 

of more than 40,000 dedicated volunteers, the Refuge System can fulfill its mission 

to provide wildlife dependent recreation for Americans and protect the habitat for 

more than 700 species of birds, 220 species of mammals, 250 reptile and amphibian 

species and more than 1,000 species of fish. 

We look forward to working with Congress in 2016 to accomplish this goal and 

appreciate your consideration of our requests. Please let our staff know if you have 

any questions. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to submit recommendations for fiscal year 2017 appropriations. The Nature Conservancy is an international, non-profit conservation 

organization working around the world to protect ecologically important lands and 

waters for nature and people. Our mission is to conserve the lands and waters upon 

which all life depends. 

As we enter the fiscal year 2017 budget cycle and another year of a challenging 

fiscal environment, the Conservancy continues to recognize the need for fiscal austerity. The Conservancy also wishes to thank this subcommittee for the final fiscal 

year 2016 funding levels for Department of Interior conservation programs. Our 

budget recommendations this year reflect a balanced approach with funding levels 

consistent in most cases with fiscal year 2016 funding levels or, in rare instances, 

reflecting specific program needs. Of particular note, we wish to work with this subcommittee and the authorizing committees on identifying permanent funding solutions for wildfire funding, the Land and Water Conservation Fund, the Payment in 

Lieu of Taxes Program and Secure Rural Schools. The Conservancy is concerned 

about the increasing impacts of wildfire suppression funding on Interior funding levels and urges the subcommittee to adopt a bipartisan fire funding solution. The Interior Bureaus (and USDA Forest Service) need a stable and efficient budgeting 

process that provides firefighters with the necessary upfront resources to address 

wildfire disasters, while also providing the stability to perform activities that restore 

forests and reduce fire risk and costs to communities. A solution to the current fire 

funding problem must include all three of the following: (1) accesses disaster funding, (2) minimizes impacts from transfers/borrowing, and (3) addresses the increasing costs of suppression over time. We also strongly support the emphasis on funding for sage grouse conservation in the fiscal year 2017 budget request. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).—The fiscal year 2017 President’s 

budget again proposes the establishment of a dedicated source of long-term funding 

for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. In the proposal, the President’s budget 

includes $475 million for LWCF activities through ‘‘current authority’’ or discretionary appropriations and then an additional $425 million in ‘‘permanent authority’’ or mandatory funding for LWCF. The budget then proposes to reach the $900 

million funding level in fiscal year 2017 through this blend of current and permanent funding. The Conservancy supports this phased shift to mandatory funding for 

the LWCF Program. However, consistent with prior years and as noted above, we 

believe the administration must work closely with the relevant appropriations and 

authorizing committees to move this proposal forward. Additionally, the Conservancy supports the balanced approach in the budget on both ‘‘core’’ and ‘‘collaborative’’ LWCF projects. Projects in the Upper Rio Grande landscape in Colorado and 

New Mexico, Rivers of the Chesapeake in Maryland and Virginia, and the Island 

Forests at Risk landscapes of Hawaii will benefit greatly from the collaborative emphasis. Our core priorities this year include the Silvio O. Conte NFWR (New Hampshire/Vermont/Connecticut/Massachusetts) and the working ranches and agricultural production areas of Florida’s Everglades Headwaters NWR & Conservation 

Area, North Dakota and South Dakota’s Dakota Grasslands Conservation Area, 

Utah, Idaho and Wyoming’s Bear River Watershed Conservation Area, Kansas’s 
205 

Flint Hills Legacy Conservation Area and Montana and Washington’s Great Western Checkerboard. 

Forest Legacy.—We support a minimum of $62 million for the Forest Legacy Pro- gram in current discretionary funding and the $38 million in permanent, mandatory 

funding (with our aforementioned caveats), totaling $100 million for Forest Legacy 

Programs. 

Endangered Species.—The Conservancy supports a funding level of at least $53 

million for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF), and 

also requests the subcommittee give consideration to the additional fiscal year 2017 

President’s budget request for permanent funding per our earlier request for negotiations to occur between the administration and relevant congressional committees 

on a path forward for this funding. We also request your continuing support for 

Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) funding, specifically HCP Land Acquisition 

Grants where the need has greatly outpaced available resources in recent years. 

Wildlife Planning.—The Conservancy continues to support the Western Governors’ Association’s (WGA) and this subcommittee’s efforts to recommend Federal 

land management agencies utilize State fish and wildlife data and analyses to inform the land use, land planning and related natural resource decisions of those 

agencies. As an example of strong State-led data systems, WGA has partnered in 

recent years with State wildlife agencies and the Federal Government to develop 

statewide GIS mapping tools to identify crucial wildlife habitat and migratory corridors. These geospatial mapping tools, which provide access to credible, broad-scale 

scientific data—compiled and analyzed by the States—are designed to reduce conflicts and surprises while ensuring wildlife values are better incorporated into land 

use planning, particularly for large-scale linear projects. 

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants.—The Conservancy supports the President’s fis- cal year 2017 funding request of $67 million for this program. Strong Federal investments are essential to ensure strategic actions are undertaken by State, tribal 

and Federal agencies and the conservation community to conserve wildlife populations and their habitats and to prevent species from being listed as threatened or 

endangered. 

Wildlife Conservation Programs.—The variety of wildlife conservation programs 

conducted by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) continue a long and successful 

tradition of supporting collaborative conservation in the U.S. and internationally. 

We urge the subcommittee to fund the President’s request for such established and 

successful programs as the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA), 

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Fund (NMBCA), and the FWS Coastal 

Program. We support the President’s request for the Migratory Bird Joint Ventures 

and the FWS Migratory Bird Management Program. For the latter, we are particularly supportive of FWS’ efforts at developing updated eagle permitting regulations 

which will both support the development of renewable energy in our country and 

contribute to sustainable and growing populations of these iconic North American 

species. We support the President’s fiscal year 2017 request for the Partners for 

Fish and Wildlife Program and the requested funding for Cooperative Landscape 

Conservation and Adaptive Science at $17.87 million. The latter will help support 

DOI’s overall commitment to Landscape Conservation Cooperatives and will contribute to collaborative problem solving for some of our Nation’s most challenging 

issues. We also request strong funding this year for the National Fish Habitat Initiative. 

International Programs.—The international conservation programs appropriated 

annually within the Department of Interior are relatively small but are effective and 

widely respected. They encompass the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service’s (FWS) Multinational Species Conservation Funds, the FWS Wildlife Without Borders regional 

and global programs, and the U.S. National Park Service International Program. 

We urge that fiscal year 2017 levels for these programs remain equivalent to fiscal 

year 2016 levels at a minimum. 

National Wildlife Refuge System.—The Conservancy supports the President’s 

budget request of $506.6 million for the Refuge System’s Operations and Maintenance accounts. Found in every U.S. State and Territory, national wildlife refuges 

conserve a diversity of America’s environmentally sensitive and economically vital 

ecosystems, including oceans, coasts, wetlands, deserts, tundra, prairie, and forests. 

This represents the funding necessary to maintain management capabilities for the 

Refuge System. 

DOI Wildland Fire Management.—The Wildfire Disaster Funding Act (WDFA) 

must be approved prior to an fiscal year 2017 appropriations package to adequately 

fund suppression and provide flexibility for activities that reduce fire risk and longterm suppression costs in fiscal year 2017. The Conservancy greatly appreciates the 

subcommittee’s support of this much-needed fire funding fix. 
206 

Hazardous Fuels and Restoration.—Strategic, proactive hazardous fuels treatments have proven safer and more cost-effective in reducing risks to communities 

and forests by removing overgrown brush and trees, leaving forests in a more natural condition resilient to wildfires. Additionally, drought conditions increase the 

need for investment in this program. The Conservancy recommends investing in 

DOI’s Hazardous Fuels Program at levels of $178 million, in addition to investing 

$30 million into the new Resilient Landscapes program designed to restore and 

maintain fire adapted landscapes and habitats and repeating the subcommittee’s fiscal year 2012 instructions for allocating funds to priority landscapes in both WUI 

and wildland settings. 

Sage Grouse Conservation.—This budget requests additional investment to provide needed resources for ongoing efforts to restore and conserve sagebrush habitat 

and the greater sage-grouse across Federal, State, tribal and private lands. We support the President’s budget request for $90 million for sage-grouse conservation at 

Interior agencies ($79 million—BLM, $4 million—FWS, $4.2 million—USGS and 

$2.8 million—WFM). The additional budgetary support is needed to implement onthe-ground projects and monitor habitat treatments, address rangeland fire and 

broader wildland fire prevention, suppression and restoration efforts, and support 

the partnership and science necessary for effective conservation. The BLM is facing 

perhaps the single most challenging effort in its history in conserving key sagebrush 

habitat, addressing identified threats to sage-grouse and promoting sustainable economic development across some 165 million acres in coordination with State and 

local managers and private land owners. Additional resources for the FWS will be 

used, inter alia, for developing voluntary prelisting conservation agreements with 

private landowners who are ready and willing to undertake critical conservation 

work for the sagebrush steppe ecosystem on large blocks of private lands. 

BLM Landscape Approaches to Land Management and Renewable Energy Development.—The Conservancy supports the administration’s recommended fiscal year 

2017 funding for BLM’s initiatives to implement landscape approaches to land management which include Rapid Ecoregional Assessments, Resource Management 

Planning and the Planning 2.0 initiative, Regional Mitigation Planning, coordination 

with LCCs, and the Assessment, Inventory, and Monitoring (AIM) Strategy. Many 

BLM programs contribute to these cross-cutting initiatives including: National 

Landscape Conservation System—($50.65 million); Resource Management Planning 

program ($65.2 million); Wildlife and Fisheries management ($108.7 million request); and Threatened & Endangered species management ($21.6 million request). 

Additionally, the Conservancy supports continued funding for BLM’s renewable energy development program at $29 million which includes implementation of the 

Western Solar Energy Program. Collectively, these efforts will help BLM manage its 

lands efficiently and effectively for energy development, species and habitat conservation, recreation, and other uses to maximize the public benefit from these 

lands. 

Environmental Protection Agency.—EPA’s ‘‘geographic’’ programs including the 

Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Gulf of Mexico, Puget Sound and Mississippi River 

programs make a significant contribution to protecting habitat and water quality in 

the large landscapes where they work. The Conservancy urges the subcommittee to 

continue strong funding for these programs. 

Colorado River Basin Recovery Programs.—The Upper Colorado River Endangered 

Fish Recovery Program and San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program take a balanced approach to recovering four endangered fish species in the 

Colorado River basin. The Upper Colorado and San Juan recovery programs are 

highly successful collaborative conservation partnerships involving the States of 

New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming, as well as Indian tribes, Federal agencies, and water, power and environmental interests. These programs provide critically important Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance for over 2,450 Federal, 

tribal, State, and private water projects across the Upper Colorado River Basin. 

Through these efforts, water use and development has continued in growing western 

communities in full compliance with the ESA, State water and wildlife law, and 

interstate compacts. Implementation of the ESA has been greatly streamlined for 

Federal agencies, tribes and water users. The Conservancy supports the President’s 

fiscal year 2017 Budget request of $1.532 million for FWS for the Colorado River 

Basin recovery programs, including recovery funds for both the Upper Colorado 

River Endangered Fish Recovery Program and San Juan River Basin Recovery Implementation Program, as well as fish hatchery needs associated with the recovery 

plans. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit the Nature Conservancy’s recommendations for the fiscal year 2017 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. 
207 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

USDA FOREST SERVICE

Thank you Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and members of the 

subcommittee for the opportunity to submit recommendations for fiscal year 2017 

appropriations. The Nature Conservancy is an international non-profit conservation 

organization whose mission is to conserve the lands and waters upon which all life 

depends. 

America’s public forests have tremendous national importance but their health 

puts them at severe risk unless we invest in proper stewardship and forestry. America’s forests store and filter more than half of our Nation’s water supply, provide 

jobs to nearly 1 million forest product workers, generate $13.6 billion in recreation 

based economic activity, are habitat to thousands of forest-dependent wildlife and 

plant species, offer a million square miles to sportsmen and families for outdoor 

recreation, and are a major carbon sink that sequester 15 percent of all fossil fuel 

emissions in the United States. 

However megafires, pests, drought, and sprawl place forests at great risk; approximately 62 million acres are in immediate need of urgent restoration to return 

forests to healthier conditions—and that is on national forests alone. Unfortunately, 

forest restoration is significantly obstructed by ballooning fire suppression costs. 

Again in fiscal year 2015, the 10-year average was not enough to meet Forest 

Service suppression needs, forcing the agency to transfer $700 million from non-suppression accounts to make up for the shortfall. The current wildfire suppression 

funding model and cycle of transfers and repayments has negatively impacted the 

ability to implement forest management, among many other activities. Additionally, 

the increasing 10-year average continues to constrain the agency’s relatively flat 

budget, which is why we are thankful to the subcommittee for both the full fiscal 

year 2015 transfer repayment and increased suppression funding in fiscal year 

2016. 

The Conservancy understands this increased suppression funding level is not 

guaranteed every year. The Department of the Interior and Forest Service need a 

long-term fire funding solution that would result in stable and predictable budgets. 

We respectfully request a bipartisan fire funding solution be included in an appropriations package that would (1) access disaster funding, (2) minimize transfers, and 

(3) address the continued erosion of agency budgets over time, with the goal of reinvesting in key programs that would restore forests to healthier conditions. 

Investing in the following USDA Forest Service programs is critical to meeting 

forest restoration goals: 

Increase funding for Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration (CFLR) to $60 

million.—The CFLR program is demonstrating that collaboratively developed forest 

restoration plans can be implemented at a large scale with benefits for people and 

the forest. This is a model approach that brings citizens, local government and Federal staff together to determine effective management that is locally appropriate and 

provides jobs, sustains rural economies, reduces the risk of damaging fires, addresses invasive species, improves wildlife habitat, and decommissions unused, eroding 

roads. The funding increase will guarantee the existing 23 successful projects can 

continue, and additional critical projects across America can begin. 

Fund the Hazardous Fuels programs at no less than $479 million (and $178 million for Fuels Treatment under the Department of the Interior).—Strategic, proactive 

hazardous fuels treatments have proven safer and more cost-effective in reducing 

risks to communities and forests by removing overgrown brush and trees, leaving 

forests in a more natural condition resilient to wildfires. Drought conditions increase 

the need for investments in this program to restore and maintain fire adapted landscapes and habitats. 

The Conservancy additionally recommends funding levels that support critical restoration programs on national forests. Effective and durable restoration requires integrated approaches that address threats and improve forest health and habitat values while supporting forest-dependent communities: 

—Wildlife & Fisheries Habitat Management maintained at a $140 million funding 

level to restore, recover, and maintain wildlife and fish and their habitats on 

all national forests and grasslands. 

—Vegetation & Watershed Management funded at $185 million to promote restoration through watershed treatment activities, invasive plant species control, 

and reforestation of areas impacted by wildfire and other natural events. 

—Legacy Road and Trail Remediation (LRT) maintained at $50 million to restore 

river and stream water quality by fixing or removing eroding roads, while pro-
208 

viding construction jobs, supporting vital sportsmen opportunities, and reducing 

flooding risks from future extreme water flow events. —Land Management Planning, Inventory and Monitoring funded at $201 million, 

including consolidating the two previously separate budget items. Consolidation 

will be more efficient for land managers, while supporting the collaborative, 

community and science based planning featured by the Forest Service 2012 Forest Planning regulation. 

Fund Forest Health programs at a total of $111 million ($63 million for Federal 

and $48 million for Cooperative).—Forest health programs work to protect forests 

by minimizing the impacts caused by invasive species. Across the Nation large-scale, 

non-native insect, disease, and invasive plant outbreaks are damaging forest health. 

These programs help reduce invasions of non-native pests that destroy iconic American trees such as ash, hemlock, and California oaks. 

Fund State Fire Assistance (SFA) at $86 million.—SFA provides aid to communities for fuels treatments, firefighter capacity building, fire prevention education, 

and pre-fire planning. The SFA program is an important complement to the Hazardous Fuels program for Federal lands. 

Fund Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR) at $24 million.—Through LSR, non-Federal lands have access for competitively selected projects that leverage State funding, restore forests of national importance, and, whenever possible, complement 

CFLR and other landscape scale restoration efforts. 

Fund Forest & Rangeland Research at $293 million.—Forest and Rangeland Research offers scientific basis for policies that improve the health and quality of 

urban and rural communities. This program is vital for the long-term health and 

utility of our American forests and rivers, particularly as we face an uncertain climatic future. 

Maintain funding for the Joint Fire Science Program at $7 million and maintain 

funding under Wildland Fire Management (and $6 million under the Department of 

the Interior).—This small, yet key, program has proven a great success in supporting practical science that reduces fire risk and enhances economic, ecological, 

and social outcomes nationwide. 

Fund Forest Legacy at a minimum of $62 million for the Forest Legacy Program 

in current discretionary funding and $38 million in permanent, mandatory totaling 

$100 million.—The Forest Legacy program, in partnership with States, supports efforts to acquire conservation easements and fee simple interests on privately owned 

forest lands from willing sellers. These acquisitions leverage non-Federal dollars 

and support long-term sustainable forestry while protecting other ecological, watershed and recreational values for local communities at risk of development or conversation to other uses. 

[This statement was submitted by Cecilia Clavet, Senior Policy Advisor.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NEZ PERCE TRIBE

Honorable Chairman and members of the subcommittee, as a member of the Nez 

Perce Tribal Executive Committee, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to 

provide testimony on behalf of the Nez Perce Tribe to this subcommittee as it evaluates and prioritizes the appropriations for IHS, BIA, EPA, the Forest Service and 

the Fish and Wildlife Service in relation to the needs of tribal nations for fiscal year 

2017. 

First, on behalf of the Nez Perce Tribe, I want to acknowledge and thank this subcommittee for your efforts on a longstanding bipartisan basis to understand the 

needs of Indian Country and advocate for increased appropriations to the many programs in your jurisdiction that benefit our citizens, our tribal governments and all 

members of our communities. 

As with any government, the Nez Perce Tribe does a wide array of work and provides a multitude of services to its tribal membership as well as the community at 

large. The Nez Perce Tribe has a health clinic with a satellite office, a tribal police 

force, a social services department, a comprehensive natural resource program that 

does work in forestry, wildlife management, land services and land management, 

habitat restoration, air quality and smoke management, water quality and sewer 

service, and also one of the largest fisheries departments of any tribe in the Nation 

working on recovery of listed species under the Endangered Species Act. The Nez 

Perce Tribe conducts its extensive governmental functions and obligations through 

a comprehensive administrative framework, which is necessary for a sovereign nation that preserves and protects the treaty rights of the Nez Perce People in addition to providing the day to day governmental services to its members and the sur-
209 

rounding communities. The Nez Perce Tribe has long been a proponent of self determination for tribes and believes our primary obligation is to protect the treaty-reserved rights of the Nez Perce Tribe and our members. All of the work of the tribe 

is guided by this principle. As a result, the tribe works extensively with many Federal agencies and proper funding for those agencies and their work with, for and 

through tribes is of vital importance. This work cannot be accomplished unless the 

United States continues to affirm and follow through on its trust responsibility to 

Indian tribes and properly fund programs. 

INDIAN HEALTH SERVICES

The Nez Perce Tribe currently operates a healthcare clinic on the Nez Perce Reservation, Nimiipuu Health. The main clinic facility is located in Lapwai, Idaho with 

a satellite facility located 65 miles away in Kamiah, Idaho. Nimiipuu Health provided annually services at least 3,000 patients each year. These patients annually 

compute into 40,000 visits which does not include pharmacy and laboratory visits 

but only medical provider visits. This workload is quite expensive to maintain. Our 

expenditure total for fiscal year 2014 was $13,942,622. Our Purchased/Referred 

Care costs for outpatient services for fiscal year 2014 was $4,125,475. The Nez Perce Tribe supports the $248.7 million increase in funding over the fiscal year 2016 enacted levels proposed in the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget. The 

tribe appreciates that the budget request includes an increase of $159 million for 

current services, so that the IHS, tribal and urban programs and facilities can keep 

up with medical and non-medical inflation, population growth and pay costs. Also, 

the tribe supports the recommendation of a $48.2 million increase in funding proposed for purchased and referred care, which will help to meet the purchased and 

referred care spending needs of the Nez Perce clinic and others like ours. 

The tribe supports $800 million to be allocated for contract support costs so that 

they are fully funded. In addition, because full funding of these obligations is so important to Indian Country, the tribe supports the administration’s innovative proposal to reclassify contract support costs for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the 

Indian Health Service as mandatory and not discretionary beginning in fiscal year 

2018. The tribe believes this reclassification should be permanent. Also, such a 

change in funding should not be accomplished or be off-set by reducing other funding for these agencies that would adversely affect services or programs. Also, this 

funding should not be unnecessarily reduced by excessive set-asides for administration. 

The tribe also supports the administration’s legislative proposal for permanent 

mandatory funding of the Special Diabetes Program at $150 million. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

The tribe supports the total of $278 million requested for contract support costs 

proposed in the President’s budget, and as stated above, the reclassification of these 

costs from discretionary to mandatory as well as the 5 percent increase in overall 

funding for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The tribe also supports the Presidential 

budget request to include a ‘‘Carcieri fix’’ to address legal issues that have arisen 

related to the transfer of land into trust which has created uncertainty over the status of lands. This uncertainty only stifles and impedes economic development in Indian Country. A legislative amendment to clarify the sovereign status of these lands 

is needed now. 

In relation to the Bureau of Indian Affairs Public Safety and Justice account, the 

tribe advocates for at least the $348 million in funding for Law Enforcement that 

was provided in fiscal year 2016. The Nez Perce Reservation spans 1,200 square 

miles and covers five counties and has a mixture of tribal and non-tribal residents. 

The tribe provides a full service law and justice program. The Tribe has a fully 

trained and staffed police force of 26, a fully staffed tribal court, a prosecutor and 

public defender, and other personnel to perform related administrative functions. 

Currently, the Nez Perce Tribe contributes over $1,682,998 annually to cover the 

shortfall in BIA funding for the tribe’s law enforcement, $383,019 for judicial services/probation, $319,360 for prosecutorial services, $163,107 for public defender services and $325,000 for prisoner boarding. This funding comes from tribal taxes and 

tribal gaming revenues that would otherwise be used for other governmental services. The funding for these programs needs to be increased to account for the shortfalls in funding the tribe has to absorb to continue the operation of these vital services on the reservation. The tribe supports the administration’s requested increase 

of $2.6 million for base funding for tribal courts. 

In relation to education, the tribe supports the proposed fiscal year 2017 increase 

of $3.8 million for the Johnson O’Malley program, and the proposed increases total-
210 

ing $7 million for Scholarships and Adult Education and Special Higher Education 

Scholarships. These latter increases will help address the rising costs of attending 

college. The tribe also supports continued level funding (if not increases) for Tribal 

Education Departments and for Tribal Colleges and Universities that would support 

institutions such as the Northwest Indian College that operates a satellite campus 

on the Nez Perce Reservation. 

The tribe also relies on the BIA for funding for our work related to endangered 

species and protection of the tribe’s treaty resources including Chinook and 

steelhead salmon. The funding has also been used to supplement the research efforts of the tribe relative to other sensitive species. We are very appreciative that 

the administration’s fiscal year 2017 budget request proposes increases for ALL 

Natural Resources Management accounts except Resource Management Program 

Oversight for the Central Office. Particularly helpful and important to the Nez 

Perce Tribes is the proposed $1 million increase over fiscal year 2016 for the BIA 

Endangered Species Program. This account provides tribes, like Nez Perce, with the 

technical and financial assistance to protect endangered species on trust lands, and 

this proposed increase is most welcome. Also, the proposed increase of $2.8 million 

for BIA Natural Resource Tribal Priority Allocations will help increase tribal land 

and management capabilities. 

In addition, the funding provided under the BIA Rights Protection implementation monies are critical to support the exercise of treaty reserved off-reservation 

hunting and fishing for tribes like the Nez Perce, so we support the proposed $2.5 

million increase in fiscal year 2017 for a total of $40.1 million. The BIA single-line 

dollars do provide the foundation for core program administration and treaty rights 

protection activities, such as harvest monitoring. And of course, these efforts are 

central to the tribe’s fisheries management responsibilities as established in the 

treaties and further delineated in litigation regarding implementation of hunting 

and fishing treaty rights. It is important to understand that this funding is not for 

equipment but is used for job creation. 

The tribe also supports continued funding for the BIA Wildlife and Parks Tribal 

Priority Allocations. As stated earlier, the tribe has invested a large amount of our 

personnel and resources in the restoration of salmon through our fisheries programs. The States of Oregon, Washington and Idaho directly benefit from this work 

as well through sports fisheries. These programs have been successful with funding 

under the Tribal Management and Development Program which is critical for fish 

and wildlife management of the tribe. We support the proposed fiscal year 2017 increase of $5 million to the Tribal Management and Development Program. 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE AND FOREST SERVICE

The tribe relies heavily on funding sources within the Fish and Wildlife Service 

and the Forest Service. First, the Tribal Wildlife Grants program administered by 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is a cost effective expenditure for the Government. This small pot of money has resulted in huge returns from the tribe’s perspective. Since 2005, we have received five such grants that have allowed us to work 

on such diverse issues as gray wolf monitoring, bighorn sheep research, and rare 

plant conservation. Continued funding for the Tribal Wildlife Grant program will 

allow recipient tribes to build capacity and maintain involvement in key conservation issues. It should be noted that this competitive grant does not simply dole out 

funds for projects but awards grants based on the quality of the proposal. The tribe 

strongly urges this subcommittee to support the administration’s $6 million increase 

of funding for the Tribal Wildlife Grant program as it provides a large return in 

work for a small investment. It is also one of the few sources of funds tribes can 

tap into for wildlife research. 

Related to forest management, the tribe supports wildfire disaster funding legislation that treats wildfires like other natural disasters and emergencies to help prevent funds from having to be diverted from forest management. 

The Nez Perce Reservation and its usual and accustomed areas are rich in natural resources and encompass eleven different national forests. The tribe works 

closely with each forest administration to properly manage its resources on behalf 

of the tribe. These range from protecting and properly managing the products of the 

forest to managing the vast wildlife in each one such as elk, deer, bighorn sheep 

and wolves. Increased funding is necessary so that the Forest Service can meet 

these trust obligations and continue to work with tribes such as the Nez Perce on 

a government to government basis. With regard to management of bighorn sheep, 

the tribe would like to note the subcommittee has included report language over the 

last several years that encourages research related to disease transmission between 

domestic sheep and bighorn sheep. The tribe encourages this type of research man-
211 

1 United States v. Washington, Boldt Decision (1974) reaffirmed Western Washington Tribes’ 

treaty fishing rights. 

date to be restricted to laboratory settings and not be allowed to occur in the field 

where impact and harm would be harder to control. The bighorn sheep populations 

within the tribe’s aboriginal territories are too fragile and too important to be put 

at risk. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

On behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Nez Perce Tribe currently 

implements the Federal Air Rules for Reservations program (FARR) and receives 

funding from the State and Tribal Assistance Grants Program and Tribal General 

Assistance Grants. The tribe supports the proposed increase of $30.9 million for 

these grants because of the importance of these funds for tribal governance. The 

FARR program monitors air quality and regulates field burning throughout the Nez 

Perce Reservation. The tribe is located in Region 10 of the EPA and this increase 

in funding is needed for tribes to meet their air quality needs and operate programs 

under the delegation of the EPA. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. As you can see, the Nez Perce 

Tribe does a tremendous amount of work in a variety of areas. It is important that 

the United States continue to fund this work and uphold and honor its trust obligations to tribes. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NORTHWEST INDIAN FISHERIES COMMISSION

The Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission (NWIFC) is comprised of the 20 

tribes that are party to the United States v. Washington.1 We are pleased with the 

President’s fiscal year 2017 budget request, which includes and builds on the support of the subcommittee. It contains funding to support the tribal treaty right, including research and analysis for critical and sustainable management of our natural resources. Our treaty-reserved rights are at risk today as the resources they 

are dependent on are disappearing and the reason our tribes brought to the Federal 

Government our Treaty Rights at Risk Initiative. 

On behalf of our member tribes, I am providing testimony for the record in support of our fiscal year 2017 natural resources and environmental program funding 

requests for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To meet the many natural resources management responsibilities required 

of the tribes, I submit the following requests for the BIA and EPA. 

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2017 APPROPRIATIONS REQUESTS

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

—Provide $56.5 million for Rights Protection Implementation (collective request) 

—Provide $17.146 million for Western Washington Fisheries Management 

—Provide $3.082 million for Washington State Timber-Fish-Wildlife 

—Provide $4.844 million for U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty 

—Provide $2.4 million for Salmon Marking 

—Provide $4.5 million for Climate Change 

—Provide $10.38 million for BIA Fish, Wildlife & Parks Projects 

—Provide $273.0 million for Contract Support 

—Provide $30.355 million for Tribal Climate Resilience 

—Provide $830,000 for Watershed Restoration 

Environmental Protection Agency 

—Provide $96.4 million for General Assistance Program 

—Provide $50.0 million for Puget Sound 

—Provide $5.0 million for Beyond GAP 

JUSTIFICATION OF REQUESTS

Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Rights Protection Implementation Subactivity 

The 41 tribes in the Great Lakes and Pacific Northwest with similar treaty-reserved rights have collectively identified that no less than $52.0 million for Rights 

Protection Implementation (RPI) is necessary for essential tribal treaty rights management. The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget includes $40.161 million for RPI, 

an increase of $2.523 million over the fiscal year 2016 enacted level of $37.638 mil-
212 

lion. The NWIFC has identified an addition need of $4.5 million for RPI Climate 

Change, bringing our total request for RPI to $56.5 million. A summary of the accounts of interest to us within RPI are further identified below. A breakdown of 

these accounts in the BIA’s Greenbook is not provided for fiscal year 2017. 

Provide $17.146 million for BIA Western Washington Fisheries Management.—We 

respectfully request $17.146 million, an increase of $8.614 million over the fiscal 

year 2016 enacted level of $8.532 million. Funding for this program allows for continued treaty harvest management, population assessment, habitat protection and 

data gathering for finfish, shellfish, groundfish, wildlife and other natural resource 

management needs. Funds provide the necessary capacity for the treaty tribes to 

co-manage the resources with the State of Washington and to continue to meet court 

mandates and legal responsibilities. 

Provide $3.082 million for BIA Washington State Timber-Fish-Wildlife.—We respectfully request $3.082 million, an increase of $346,000 over the fiscal year 2016 

enacted level of $2.736 million. Funding for this program is provided to improve forest practices on State and private lands while providing protection for fish, wildlife 

and water quality. This will provide the necessary funding for tribal TFW programs 

to fully participate in the TFW process. 

Provide $4.844 million for BIA U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty.—We respectfully request $4.844 million, an increase of $564,000 over the fiscal year 2016 enacted level of $4.28 million. The Pacific Salmon Treaty (PST) Act of 1985 charges 

the United States Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission with the responsibility 

for implementation of the PST, a bilateral treaty with Canada. Tribes assist in 

meeting the Federal Government’s obligations in implementing the treaty by participating in cooperative research and data gathering activities. This will provide sufficient funding to ensure that the tribes can continue to participate effectively in the 

bilateral PST process. 

Provide $2.4 million for BIA Salmon Marking.—We respectfully request $2.4 million, an increase of $1.332 million over the fiscal year 2016 enacted level of $1.068 

million. Funding for this program was mandated in 2003 by Congress that required 

all salmon released from federally funded hatcheries be marked so they could be 

identified for conservation purposes. This allows tribes to mark salmon at tribal 

hatcheries and to use these marked fish to scientifically monitor salmon populations 

and watersheds in western Washington. 

Provide $4.5 million for BIA Climate Change.—We respectfully request $4.5 million for Climate Change for our member tribes, an increase of $2.118 million over 

our fiscal year 2016 allocation. The fiscal year 2016 appropriations provided a collective (Great Lakes and Pacific Northwest) total of $5.442 million, of which our member tribes received $2.382 million. Funding for this program will provide tribes the 

capacity to identify, respond and adapt to the impacts of our changing climate. 

There is a glaring need to assess the potential impacts to resources in the face of 

climate change, which brings different challenges for every tribal community. It is 

important that tribes be provided the maximum flexibility to develop specific 

science-based activities to meet their particular needs. 

Fish, Wildlife & Parks Projects/Fish, Wildlife and Parks Subactivity 

Provide $10.38 million for BIA Fish, Wildlife & Parks Projects.—We support the 

President’s request of $10.38 million, an increase of $2.002 million over the fiscal 

year 2016 enacted level of $8.378 million. Funding for this program is for Fish 

Hatchery Operations and Fish Hatchery Maintenance. Funding is provided to tribal 

hatcheries to support the rearing and releasing of salmon and steelhead for harvest 

by Indian and non-Indian fisheries in the U.S. and Canada. Tribal fish hatcheries 

in western Washington are part of the largest fish hatchery system in the world. 

Hatcheries are a necessary component of fisheries management because of the lack 

of wild salmon production due to habitat degradation. A critical component to fisheries management is the hatchery production, which play a vital and necessary role 

in supporting tribal fisheries. They are now essential for maintaining the treaty 

right to harvest fish. Without hatcheries tribes would lose their most basic ceremonial and subsistence fisheries that are central to our tribal culture. Hatcheries also 

play a large role in recovering pacific salmon, many of which are listed under the 

Endangered Species Act. 

Funding for Fish Hatchery Maintenance is provided to tribes nationwide based on 

the ranking of annual maintenance project proposals. A comprehensive needs assessment study for our Western Washington tribes was conducted in fiscal year 

2006 by the BIA at the request of Congress, which identified a need of over $48.0 

million in necessary hatchery maintenance and rehabilitation costs. 
213 

Other Subactivities and Accounts 

Provide $273.0 million for BIA Contract Support.—We support the President’s re- quest of $273.0 million, an increase of $1.0 million over the fiscal year 2016 enacted 

level of $272.0 million. We also support the President’s legislative proposal to reclassify CSC as mandatory funding beginning in fiscal year 2018. Funding for this function is provided to tribal organizations to ensure they have the capacity to manage 

Federal programs under self-determination contracts and self-governance compacts. 

These funds are critical as they directly support our governmental functions, which 

allow us to fully exercise our right to self-govern. Provide $30.355 million for BIA Tribal Climate Resilience.—We respectfully re- quest $30.355 million, an increase of $20.4 million over the fiscal year 2016 enacted 

level of $9.955 million. Funding for this program will contribute to the tribal capacity needed to participate and provide input on climate change issues. It will assist 

tribes in being able to provide their perspective on climate change adaptation in the 

form of traditional ecological knowledge necessary to protect their treaty rights. Provide $830,000 for BIA Watershed Restoration.—We respectfully request $830,000, an increase of $455,000 over the fiscal year 2016 operating plan. The fiscal year 2016 operating plan provided a total of $375,000 to the western Washington 

treaty tribes. Funding is contained in the Forestry Subactivity—Forestry Projects— 

Watershed Restoration account and supports our Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Inventory and Assessment Program. This provides environmental data management, 

analysis, and reporting support and maintains on-going efforts to develop information sharing and exchange tools. It also supports our tribes’ ability to adequately 

participate in watershed resource assessments and salmon recovery work. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Provide $96.4 million for EPA General Assistance Program.—We support the President’s request of $96.4 million, an increase of $30.924 million over the fiscal 

year 2016 enacted level of $65.476 million. This funding has built essential tribal 

capacities and remains critical to the tribes’ ability to sustain important environmental protection programs central to the protection of treaty-reserved resources 

and healthy communities. Funding for this program continues to provide the base 

capacity for tribal environmental protection programs nationwide. Provide $50.0 million for EPA Puget Sound.—We respectfully request $50.0 mil- lion, an increase of $19.966 million over the President’s request of $30.034 million. 

The Puget Sound Geographic Program provides essential funding that will help protect, restore and enhance Puget Sound, an estuary of national significance. Funding 

for this program will allow the tribes to participate in the necessary scientific work, 

implementation measures, and policy discussions on issues that affect our treaty 

rights. It allows the tribes to participate in implementing the Puget Sound Action 

Agenda. 

Provide $5.0 million for EPA Beyond GAP.—We respectfully request $5.0 million. 

The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget did not include any proposed funding for 

this new initiative. We request that legislative language be incorporated into the appropriations bill to specifically allow for implementation of tribal programs. We further request an increase to the tribal allocations of program funding in EPA CWA 

104, 106 and 319, and CAA 103 and 105 budgets to allow for media-specific implementation priorities. Increasing tribal allocations will allow for an immediate expansion and response to specific implementation needs identified in our Beyond GAP 

request. The Beyond GAP initiative would advance the EPA/tribal partnership from 

capacity building and limited programmatic support to more comprehensive and 

consistent funding supportive of tribal environmental programs capable of implementing a broad range of necessary environmental activities while improving both 

efficiency and accountability. 

CONCLUSION

We respectfully urge the subcommittee to continue to support our efforts to protect and restore our treaty-reserved rights that in turn will provide for thriving communities, cultures and economies. Thank you. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NORTHWEST PORTLAND AREA INDIAN HEALTH BOARD

The Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board (NPAIHB) is a Public Law 93– 

638 tribal organization that advocates on healthcare issues of 43 federally recognized tribes in the States of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington. Our member tribes operate healthcare programs that provide healthcare to over 100,000 American Indian 

and Alaska Natives (AI/AN) people. NPAIHB appreciates the opportunity to offer 
214 

the following testimony on the Indian Health Service (IHS) budget in the Department of Health and Human Services. 

The Federal trust responsibility for healthcare and the government-to-government 

relationship between tribes and the Federal Government, by definition, requires a 

partnership in the development of the budget. The President’s fiscal year 2017 IHS 

budget continues a positive maintenance of effort for a budget that has suffered a 

heavy burden of neglect over the past 20 years. Following a fiscal year 2001 increase 

of 10 percent, from fiscal year 2002 to fiscal year 2008 the average IHS budget increase was less than 2.5 percent. A growing population and medical inflation eroded 

the purchasing power of Indian health programs. There is no denying that budget 

shortfalls resulted in greater healthcare disparities between Indian people and the 

general population over the past 15 years. This gap was addressed in the budget 

increases of this administration, however, additional funding is needed to improve 

the health status of AI/AN. 

OVERALL

While the President’s budget provides a $377 million increase, a 7.9 percent increase above fiscal year 2016 enacted budget, it is not adequate to cover inflation 

and population growth. In addition, the distribution of the increase within the IHS 

accounts will not maintain current services as presented. Purchased and Referred 

Care (PRC), in particular, has lost purchasing power over the last 2 years and this 

year’s funding increase following flat funding in 2016 is inadequate despite the reasonable overall increase in the 2017 budget request. 

The NPAIHB requests $482.7 million or a 10 percent increase over the fiscal year 

2016 enacted budget. NPAIHB estimates it will take a $296.7 million increase in 

the fiscal year 2017 budget to fund pay increases, inflation, and population growth 

in order to maintain current services. In addition, the fiscal year 2016 increase to 

PRC of $46 million that was eliminated in the enacted budget needs to be restored. 

Finally, the NPAIHB recommends an additional $140 million in program increases 

to the PRC Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund (CHEF) ($30 million), dental 

health ($20 million), mental health ($15 million), alcohol and substance abuse ($20 

million), sanitation facilities construction ($10 million), maintenance and improvement ($10 million), small ambulatory facilities ($25 million) and urban Indian 

health programs ($10 million). 

The NPAIHB also makes a plea to fully exempt the IHS budget from sequestrations. Because of the Federal trust responsibility and the chronic and severe underfunding of the Indian health systems, along with the significant health disparities 

of Indian people, the Congress and administration must exempt the IHS appropriation from discretionary funding budget reductions, and; enact an amendment to the 

Budget Control Act of 2011 to fully exempt the IHS budget from future sequestrations. 

HEALTH SERVICES ACCOUNT

Hospitals & Health Clinics: The Hospitals and Clinics (H&C) item would receive 

$1.98 billion under the administration’s request, a proposed increase of $122.7 million or 6.6 percent over the enacted fiscal year 2017 budget. Staffing costs and program increases will reduce the increase to $63.6 million for current services, $95.8 

million is needed, and the President’s request will fall short by over $32.1 million. 

NPAIHB agrees with the $20 million for health information technology (HIT) associated with electronic health records (EHR) and in order to meet Stage 3 meaningful 

use. The NPAIHB also recommends permanent funding for Tribal Epidemiology 

Centers at a level that will enable them to be fully functional epidemiological and 

surveillance centers. The $4.9 million request, a $194,000 increase, for Tribal 

Epicenters in fiscal year 2017 ignores the fact that funding over the last 10 years 

has remained flat. 

Dental Services: The President’s increase for Dental Health services is $8.5 million, a 4.8 percent increase over last year’s level. Staffing costs of $2.6 million for 

new facilities will reduce the overall increase down to $5.9 million. NPAIHB estimates it will take at least $9.2 million to maintain current services. The President’s 

request is $3.3 million less than needed to fund a maintenance budget. Northwest 

Tribes further recommend an additional $20 million to address the significant oral 

health disparities in tribal communities. 

Mental Health: The President requests $111 million, an increase of $29 million 

(35.4 percent) over last year’s budget, to cover the mental health needs of IHS and 

tribal health programs. The President’s request is close to maintaining current services. The budget leaves only $2.8 million to maintain current services when the $1.2 

million required to staff new facilities and $25 million for program increases are 
215 

considered. NPAIHB estimates that it will take $4.2 million to fund mandatory cost 

increases for inflation and population growth. Program increases proposed by the 

President means the request is adequate to meet current service needs and to address some unmet need and is supported by the NPAIHB. The Northwest Tribes 

further recommend an additional $15 million to address the significant mental 

health issues in tribal communities. 

Alcohol & Substance Abuse: The President’s budget requests an increase of 13.6 

percent for Alcohol and Substance abuse programs. This is one of the larger increases in the history of the alcohol and substance abuse program. It includes $16.8 

million for program increases to fund significant new initiatives, including the General Indigenous Initiative ($15 million) and Pilot Project for Youth ($1.8 million). In 

fiscal year 2017, NPAIHB estimates that it will take $10.6 million to fund current 

services. The President proposed increase of $28 million is $3 million less than 

needed to fund current services since, in addition to new initiatives, $3.6 million is 

needed to fund staffing at new facilities. The Northwest Tribes further recommends 

an additional $20 million to address alcohol and substance abuse issues in tribal 

communities. 

Purchased and Referred Care: PRC is the most important budget line item for Northwest Tribes. The President’s requested 2017 increase of $48 million is not sufficient to address inflation and population growth of $62.3 so the President’s budget 

falls short by $60. $60 million in additional funding is needed to maintain the purchasing power of the PRC budget and to restore 2016 current services and maintain 

that level in fiscal year 2017. 

The PRC budget includes a Catastrophic Health Emergency Fund (CHEF) that 

funds catastrophic healthcare cases with large expenses. Northwest Tribes have always urged the Congress to consider fully funding CHEF since these cases are all 

well-documented and critical to the financial stability of the small programs that 

exist in the Portland Area and many other IHS Areas. In fiscal year 2012, the 

CHEF was increased to $51 million. Following the administration budget sequester 

it fell to $48.9 million. This year’s President’s request for CHEF is $53 million, a 

$1.5 million increase over fiscal year 2016. The NPAIHB supports this proposed increase and requests an additional increase of $30 million to ensure CHEF funding 

remains available. 

Public Health Nursing: The President’s request for Public Health Nurses (PHNs) is $82 million, an increase of 7.1 percent over last year’s amount. With $1.7 million 

for staffing new facilities, the balance is not sufficient to fund current services and 

falls short by $226k. 

Health Education: The President’s request of $19.5 for fiscal year 2017 is adequate to fund inflation and population growth and is supported by the Northwest 

Tribes. 

Community Health Representatives: The President’s request for $62.4 million for 

fiscal year 2017 is adequate to maintain the current levels of care provided by CHRs 

and is supported by the Northwest Tribes. 

Urban Indian Health Program: The President proposes $48.1 million for the 

Urban Indian Health Program (UIHP). NPAIHB estimates that it will take $3 million to maintain current services in the UIHP; thus, for this year alone, funding is 

adequate to maintain the current program, unfortunately more is needed to amend 

for past years of neglect. The UIHPs provide over 1 million health services to an 

eligible population of over 650,000 urban Indian people living in 34 locations across 

the United States. In addition, the NPAIHB recommends additional funding of $10 

million for UIHPs. 

Indian Health Professions: The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget requests an increase that is $351,000 less than needed to maintain the current level of funding 

for the health professions program. The Indian health system has high vacancies 

in many of its health professions and will need to begin to grow and train its work 

force to keep pace with the rest of the Nation. Otherwise, vacancy rates will become 

even higher. 

Tribal Management: The President requests $2.5 million for Tribal Management, 

which is nearly the same amount that was funded last year. It is less than is needed 

by $22,000 to maintain current service funding. NPAIHB believes the funding for 

this program could easily be doubled and the scope of its funded activities expanded. 

Direct Operation: The Direct Operations line item funds the cost of management 

at IHS headquarters and the 12 Area Offices. This year the President’s request proposes a decrease in Direct Operations funding by $2.7 million. NPAIHB estimates 

that $2 million will be needed to maintain current services. Thus, the President’s 

request falls short by $4.7 million. 

Self-Governance: The President’s request for the Self-Governance item is $5.8 million, a 1.8 percent increase. NPAIHB estimates that it will take at least an addi-
216 

tional $243,000 to maintain current services in fiscal year 2017. This will result in 

a shortfall in unfunded mandatory costs of $141,000. While this may not seem like 

much, 7 years ago, Congress reduced the Self Governance line item by $4.7 million, 

a loss of over 43 percent from the previous year. 

CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

NPAIHB supports the President’s request in fiscal year 2017 is $800 million, an 

increase of $82 million above fiscal year 2016 enacted level. This is an estimate of 

additional funds needed to ensure the full CSC need is funded for each tribe. The 

estimate will be adjusted to reflect the amount necessary to fund the full CSC need 

when updated information is available. NPAIHB supports the President’s request 

that Congress establish a mandatory appropriation for CSC in fiscal year 2018 with 

sufficient increases year over year to fully fund the estimated need of the program. 

HEALTH FACILITIES

Maintenance and Improvement: The President’s request for M&I is $77 million, 

an increase of $3.3 million over last year’s enacted budget. Recognizing the serious 

need for M&I funds in Indian Country, NPAIHB supports the President’s request. 

The Northwest Tribes also request an additional $10 million for M&I. 

Sanitation Facilities Construction: The fiscal year 2017 budget requests $103 million for the Sanitation facilities program. The increase, following last year’s $20 million increase, falls short of maintaining the purchasing power of the program by 

$593,000. Approximately 7.5 percent of all AI/AN homes lack safe water in the home 

compared to less than 1 percent average nationally. Sanitation is an integral component of disease management. 

Health Care Facilities Construction: Northwest Tribes continue to support a moratorium on facilities construction until an equitable funding methodology can be implemented by the IHS. This position has been recommended for the past 8 years 

so that savings from facilities construction can be redirected to the health services 

accounts. In addition, Northwest Tribes recommend that the IHS and Congress include appropriation language in the fiscal year 2017 appropriation bill to allow staffing and equipment funding for the small ambulatory construction authorities (Public Law 102–573). In addition, $25 million is requested by the Northwest Tribes for 

small ambulatory facilities grants. 

Facilities & Environmental Support: The President’s request of $233.9 million provides a $11 million increase over the fiscal year 2017 level that is adequate to maintain current services and is supported by the NPAIHB. 

Equipment: The President’s request of $23.6 million is adequate to maintain current services in fiscal year 2017 after last year’s $20 million increase and is supported by the NPAIHB. 

MANDATORY PROPOSALS

NPAIHB requests an increase in fiscal year 2017 of $50 million for the Special 

Diabetes Program for Indians and supports funding for the proposed behavioral 

health initiatives—Tribal Crisis Response Fund at $15 million and Behavioral 

Health Professions Expansion Fund at $10 million. 

CONCLUSION

The NPAIHB requests a 10 percent increase over the fiscal year 2016 enacted 

level, or $482.7 million, to maintain current services, and funding of mandatory proposals for diabetes and behavioral health. Thank you for the opportunity to provide 

testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE NORTON SOUND HEALTH CORPORATION

The requests of the Norton Sound Health Corporation (NSHC) for the fiscal year 

2017 Indian Health Service (IHS) budget are as follows: 

—Direct the IHS to fully fund the Village Built Clinic (VBC) leases and allocate 

an additional $12.5 million to VBC leases, for a total of $17 million. 

—Place contract support costs on a permanent indefinite funding basis and eliminate any provisos on the funding that conflicts with the carryover funding authority in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 

(ISDEAA). 
217 

1We serve the communities of: Brevig Mission, Council, Diomede, Elim, Gambell, Golovin, 

King Island, Koyuk, Mary’s Igloo, Nome, St. Michael, Savoonga, Shaktoolik, Shishmaref, Solomon, Stebbins, Teller, Unalakleet, Wales, and White Mountain. 

—Remove restrictions on the Joint Venture Program to allow staffing packages 

for clinics that are in the process of construction and also to allow behavioral 

health service agencies to be eligible for the Program. 

—Support at a minimum the administration’s request of $10 million for the small 

ambulatory clinics program. 

—Provide the requested $25 million increase for behavioral health. 

—Shield the IHS from sequestration and provide advance appropriations. 

NSHC is the only regional health system serving northwestern Alaska. It is on 

the edge of the Bering Sea, just miles from the Russian border. We are not connected by road with any part of the State and are 500 air miles from Anchorage— 

about the distance from Washington, DC to Portland, Maine. Our service area encompasses 44,000 square miles, approximately the size of Indiana. We are proud 

that our system includes a tribally owned regional hospital which is operated pursuant to an ISDEAA agreement, and 15 Village Built Clinics (VBCs).1

End Chronic Underfunding of Village Built Clinics. The NSHC has testified in 

prior years about the chronic underfunding of our VBCs. We thank Congress for 

providing in fiscal year 2016 $2 million in supplemental funding (supplemental to 

the $4.5 million already being provided) for these clinic leases and for the Administration’s request of $11 million in supplemental funds for tribal clinic leases in fiscal 

year 2017. The bill language provides that these are supplemental funds, while the 

explanatory language lists the bill funding as a total amount. 

The NSHC healthcare system includes 15 VBCs that are essential for us to maintain the Community Health Aide Program (CHAP) in Alaska. As you know, CHAP 

is mandated by Congress as the instrument for providing basic health services in 

remote Alaska Native villages and often provides the only local source of healthcare 

for Alaska Native people in rural areas. We cannot overstate the importance of village built clinics in Alaska. Lease rental amounts for the VBCs have failed to keep 

pace with costs—the majority of the leases for VBCs have not increased since 1989 

and the IHS until this year resisted proposals to increase their funding. As a result, 

many of the VBCs are unsafe or have had to be closed, leaving some villages in 

Alaska without a local healthcare facility. 

In addition, the President’s proposed fiscal year 2017 clinic lease bill language 

may need some clarification, depending on IHS’s interpretation, concerning the references that healthcare be delivered in a space acquired through a ‘‘full service 

lease’’. In some cases tribes receive VBC funding as part of their recurring base, and 

so the IHS no longer has ‘‘full service leases’’ in place for those clinics. We know 

that the appropriations committees do not intend to limit VBC eligibility based on 

unclear terminology. 

In sum, these amounts are a step in the right direction but the 2015 ANHB study 

that analyzed the funding deficiency statewide for these facilities identified an increased need of $12.5 million. We urge that the full amount needed be appropriated. 

We also support maintaining this funding as a line item in the bill. 

Remove Restrictions on the Joint Venture Construction Program (JVCP) to Support 

Projects Already in Progress. NSHC has completed the final designs to replace the 

Village Built Clinics in Gambell and Savoonga on St. Lawrence Island. The total 

project cost is $12.5 million and NSHC has raised 50 percent of the necessary funds 

to date. A Notice to Proceed was issued in January 2016 to start construction this 

summer. Both clinics will be 5200 square feet, doubling the size of the existing clinics. Both sites are shovel-ready. NSHC already contributed $1,900,000 to complete 

the foundation and $279,521 to complete the final design. The Denali Commission 

contributed $120,479 toward the final design. NSHC has $600,000 in hand from 

grant awards secured as of January 4, 2016, and another $3,350,000 in hand as approved by the Board of Directors during 2015 for a total amount of $6,250,000 secured. 

NSHC is still fundraising for the other half of the project. Under JVCP regulations, we are not eligible to apply for the next round of JVCP funding for staffing 

because a Notice to Proceed has been issued. We had no choice but to move the clinic construction forward and could not wait for the next round of JCVP applications 

to be released. In the Bering Strait Region of Alaska, construction projects must be 

planned in advance to meet the seasonally limited construction window. 

NSHC Request: Allow Tribal Health Organizations to apply for JVCP funding 

even though a Notice to Proceed has been issued. 
218 

Fund the Small Ambulatory Clinic Program to Help with Construction of Replacement Clinic. The Small Ambulatory Clinic Fund has not been funded in years and we appreciate the administration’s request of $10 million for this purpose. It would 

give tribes an option to competitively compete for construction funds. As noted above 

NSHC has two shovel-ready projects on St. Lawrence Island, with site work and piling installation completed. NSHC has raised 50 percent of the necessary funds to 

date, with another $6,250,000 needed to finish construction. 

NSHC Wellness and Training Center: Remove the Restriction on Behavioral 

Health Service Agencies’ JVCP Eligibility. The cost of substance abuse remains exorbitant in all aspects of service in the Norton Sound region. The region’s law enforcement, correctional centers (prison and a halfway house), women’s shelter, and protective services all report 95–100 percent of its cases involve substance abuse. 

Healthcare costs related to substance abuse and substance-related diagnoses, school 

and vocational drop-outs, loss of productivity, and loss of life continue to skyrocket 

as addiction numbers rise. 

From 2006 through 2014, 5,008 people presented at the Norton Sound Regional 

Hospital emergency room for alcohol-related encounters. Of those people, 169 of 

them returned anywhere for 6–65 visits. Of those 169, more than 55 percent of them 

also presented as suicidal. Suicides in the region are approximately six times higher 

than the national average per 100,000 people (74.5 vs. 12.6, respectively) and almost 

four times higher than the State average (74.5 vs. 19.6, respectively). Unfortunately, 

the Norton Sound Region also has the highest suicide completion rate in the State. 

Between 2005 and July 2015, the Norton Sound region (9,400 people (2010 Census) 

had 76 suicide completions, an average of almost 7 per year. Of those, 67 were male 

and 9 were female; and 74 of the 76 were Alaska Natives. In all but three cases, 

substance abuse was a factor. 

Treatment services require people within the region to leave their homes and families, and often their treatment is delayed while a bed is secured. The waiting list 

for treatment averages 6 to 9 months and there is often no other place to refer people. Residents of the Norton Sound Region are often referred to treatment facilities 

in the lower 48. These facilities are not culturally relevant and the distance is 

counter-productive to the healing process given the absence of familial and environmental supports. To best support the treatment needs of the people of the region, 

NSHC has developed a Wellness and Training Center to be located across from the 

Norton Sound Regional Hospital. This Center has been designed by a local cultural 

committee and uses an intensive behavioral health outpatient model with a full continuum of care including a sober housing component. It provides for social detox, 

long-term rehabilitation, and vocational rehabilitation. NSHC has committed over $600,000 towards planning and designing of the 

Wellness and Training Center and is committed to seeing this through. Additionally, 

the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority has awarded NSHC $400,000 over the 

last 4 years for a Wellness and Training Center planner to facilitate the facility’s 

programmatic development. Current concept and architectural plans estimate the 

final cost for the facility at $18,000,000. 

In addition to requesting capital funding to complete construction of the Center, 

NSHC submitted a Joint Venture Construction Program pre-application last year to 

support the staffing component for Center operations. Unfortunately, the current 

IHS appropriation for this program does not allow for Behavioral Health Services 

agencies to apply for the funding. 

NSHC would like to see IHS support the full spectrum of Behavioral and Mental 

Health Program needs. The Joint Venture Construction Program would help us fund 

the additional 10 personnel essential to making the Wellness and Training Center 

a reality in our region, which will keep people near their home, offer culturally relevant services, and, ultimately, save lives. 

NSHC Request: For fiscal year 2017, we ask for advocacy to change regulations 

for the Joint Venture Construction Program so Behavioral Health Service Projects 

administered by Tribal Health Organizations can apply. 

Contract Support Costs Mandatory Funding. We wish to thank Congress for fully 

funding Contract Support Costs (CSC) in fiscal year 2016. For fiscal year 2017, we 

support the President’s request for an appropriation of ‘‘such sums as may be necessary,’’ with an estimated $800 million for CSC for the IHS in a separate account 

in the IHS’s discretionary budget. However, we disagree with the proviso that was 

included in the fiscal year 2016 appropriations language and which is also included 

in the administration’s proposed fiscal year 2017 budget, which states: ‘‘amounts obligated but not expended by a tribe or tribal organization for contract support costs 

for such agreements for the current fiscal year shall be applied to contract support 

costs otherwise due for such agreements for subsequent fiscal years.’’ This proviso 

is concerning to us because it could be misread to effectively deny the carryover au-
219 

thority granted by the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act. We 

thus ask that the proviso be removed for fiscal year 2017 and not included in future 

appropriations for CSC. We also support the administration’s proposal to fully fund 

CSC on a mandatory basis in fiscal years 2018–2020, though we would prefer that 

it begin in fiscal year 2017 and, of course, that it be a permanent, indefinite appropriation. We ask for your active help in working with the Budget Committee and 

any others on this proposal for mandatory CSC funding. 

Funding for Behavioral Health. We appreciate and support the administration’s 

much-needed request of a $25 million increase for a Behavioral Health Integration 

Initiative. The goal is to integrate behavioral health services into the primary health 

systems and also to collaborate with services that may be provided outside the primary healthcare delivery system such as substance abuse and mental health services. A portion of the funds ($3.6 million) are to be used for tribes and tribal organizations to establish Zero Suicide programs focusing on the role of medical and behavioral health systems in the prevention of suicide. We know all too well of the 

high rate of suicides among Native people in Alaska, and young Native people in 

particular. 

Conclusion. Due to page limit constraints we will not repeat our testimony from 

the last few years in support of protecting the IHS budget from sequestration and 

also placing the IHS budget on an advance appropriations basis. We hope, however, 

that these two issues will be addressed in this Congress. Thank you for your consideration of the concerns and requests of the Norton Sound Health Corporation. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE OREGON COALITION SUPPORTING USGS NATIONAL

STREAMGAGE NETWORK

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY NATIONAL STREAMFLOW INFORMATION PROGRAM

As a collection of water stakeholders in Oregon we are concerned about ongoing 

lack of available data on water in our State and we urge your support of the U.S. 

Geological Survey’s (USGS) National Streamflow Network (formerly known as the 

National Streamflow Information Program (NSIP) and Cooperative Water Program). 

We are a diverse group of water stakeholders with a common goal: to advocate for 

common sense water policies that move Oregon’s economy, communities, and environment toward a secure water future. In order to achieve our goal, the members 

we represent need consistent, accurate and real time data on streams in our State. 

While we are encouraged by the $150 million increase in the President’s request 

over 2015 enacted levels, and specifically the $1.3 million increase for stream flow 

information, it is not enough of an increase to fully fund, even with cost-share partners, this immensely important program. 

FISCAL YEAR 2017 APPROPRIATIONS

We recognize that our country continues to face difficult economic times and that 

we must make strategic investments with scarce resources. However, that statement rings true not just in regards to funding, but also our natural resources and 

more precisely, water. In 2015 the American west suffered from a severe drought 

and like many other Western States, the conditions in 2015 have deeply impacted 

Oregon communities, (25 of 36 counties had formal drought declarations). For Oregon, the drought stems from a lack of snowpack that serves as the natural water 

storage throughout the year for many farms, communities, and fish and wildlife. 

The impacts may take longer to show, but drought can be as devastating as earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters. And like other natural disasters, 

the best way to survive and help communities recover is through coordinated planning and developing diverse tools to use when these crises occur. However, our communities cannot adequately plan for any water year without accurate streamflow 

data. While we all have different ideas about the best paths forward, we agree on 

one thing: the need for increased accurate streamflow data. 

The funding for the National Streamflow Network could be leveraged with the 

current proposal from the Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) to reestablish OWRD’s engagement in the Cooperative Water Program with USGS. Within the 

water advocate community in Oregon the need for additional gauges and more readily available data is an issue that is on the forefront of discussions regarding how 

to best manage our waterways. The funding dollars spent on the National 

Streamflow Network are dollars that will work toward better data and provide valuable information needed as we work toward a secure water future for Oregon and 

the Nation. 
220 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we applaud the administration on their willingness to increase 

funding for the USGS National Streamflow Network and we would like to see even 

more funding allocated to this important program. As we continue to navigate in 

an uncertain climate, we need the valuable streamflow data this program provides 

to aid in all our work in developing water management solutions. We respectfully 

request adequate funding to fully implement the USGS National Streamflow Network for fiscal year 2017. 

Sincerely, 

Michael Freese 

Associated Oregon Industries 

Rob Kirschner 

The Freshwater Trust 

Tracy Rutten 

League of Oregon Cities 

Jeff Stone 

Oregon Association of Nurseries 

JR Cook 

Northeast Oregon Water Association 

Mark Landauer 

Special Districts Association of Oregon 

April Snell 

Oregon Water Resources Congress 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE OREGON WATER RESOURCES CONGRESS

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY’S CLEAN WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND

LOAN PROGRAM

The Oregon Water Resources Congress (OWRC) is concerned about continued reductions to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Clean Water State 

Revolving Fund Loan Program (CWSRF) and is requesting that appropriations for 

this program be increased to at least $2 billion in fiscal year 2017. The CWSRF is 

an effective loan program that addresses critical water infrastructure needs while 

benefitting the environment, local communities, and the economy. However, OWRC 

is concerned by the recent exclusion of irrigation districts from receiving principal 

forgiveness under the CWSRF and we urge the subcommittee to address this terminology issue and allow irrigation districts to utilize this valuable tool under the program so that they are able to execute projects that are beneficial to both the environment and the local economy. 

OWRC was established in 1912 as a trade association to support the protection 

of water rights and promote the wise stewardship of water resources statewide. 

OWRC members are local governmental entities, which include irrigation districts, 

water control districts, drainage districts, water improvement districts, and other 

agricultural water suppliers that deliver water to roughly 1/3 of all irrigated land 

in Oregon. These water stewards operate complex water management systems, including water supply reservoirs, canals, pipelines, and hydropower production. 

FISCAL YEAR 2017 APPROPRIATIONS

We recognize that our country is facing difficult economic times and that we must 

make strategic investments with scarce resources. The CWSRF is a perfect example 

of the type of program that should have funding increased because it creates jobs 

while benefitting the environment, and is an efficient return on taxpayer investment. Oregon is facing record levels of unemployment and the CWSRF funded 

projects provide much needed construction and professional services jobs. Moreover, 

as a loan program, it is a wise investment that allows local communities to leverage 

their limited resources and address critical infrastructure needs that would otherwise be unmet. 

Nationally, there are large and growing critical water infrastructure needs. In 

EPA’s most recent needs surveys, The Clean Watersheds Needs Survey 2008: Report 

to Congress and Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment: 

Fourth Report to Congress, the estimated funding need for drinking water infrastructure totaled $335 billion (in 2007 dollars) and wastewater infrastructure needs 

totaled $298 billion (in 2008 dollars). Appropriations for water infrastructure, specifically CWSRF, should not be declining but remaining strong in order to meet 

these critical needs. In 2015 appropriations for the CWSRF program was approximately $1.448 billion and declined to $1.394 billion in fiscal year 2016. The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget proposes only $979.5 million for the CWRSF program; 
221 

a $414.5 million reduction from fiscal year 2016 levels. We are concerned as we see 

this negative downward trend continuing while the infrastructure needs only become more critical. 

OWRC is supportive of the President’s Climate Action Plan and related efforts to 

support actions that help address, mitigate, and adapt to severe weather events, like 

drought, that are related to climate change. It is important that climate issues are 

addressed through programs like the CWSRF, and to date, despite a direct connection to water infrastructure the CWSRF funding continues to diminish. In fact, 

there has not been an increase in funding for CWSRF since 2009; meanwhile, both 

infrastructure needs and the costs to address those needs continue to grow each 

year. Continued funding reductions has led to delaying repairs or upgrades which 

in turn increase the potential for catastrophic failure and is counterproductive to the 

administration’s desire to encourage asset management and sustainable water infrastructure. To the extent practicable, funding for climate change should be incorporated into existing programs with proven successes like the CWSRF. 

We also continue to be highly supportive of the administration’s desire to expand 

‘‘green infrastructure,’’ in fact, irrigation districts and other water suppliers in Oregon are on the forefront of ‘‘green infrastructure’’ through innovative piping 

projects that provide multiple environmental benefits, which is discussed in greater 

detail below. However, continually reducing the amount of funds available for these 

types of worthwhile projects is counterproductive to the administration’s desire and 

has created increased uncertainty for potential borrowers about whether adequate 

funding will be available in future years. CWSRF is often an integral part of an 

overall package of State, Federal and local funding that necessitates a stronger level 

of assurance that loan funds will be available for planned water infrastructure 

projects. Reductions in the CWSRF could lead to loss of grant funding and delay 

or derail beneficial projects that irrigation districts have been developing for years. 

Additionally, OWRC is pleased to see that EPA will continue ‘‘strategic partnerships’’ with the USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Services (NRCS) and other 

Federal agencies to improve water quality and address nonpoint source pollution. 

Oregon had two priority watersheds eligible for funding through the National Water 

Quality Initiative in 2014 and anticipates that additional watersheds will be included in the future. As Oregon is a delegated State, OWRC also feels strongly that 

the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is best situated to develop 

and implement activities to improve these and other impaired waterways in the 

State. DEQ and its administration of the CWSRF has been an extremely valuable 

tool in Oregon for improving water quality and efficiently addressing infrastructure 

challenges that are otherwise cost-prohibitive. 

CWSRF NEEDS

What is being proposed for fiscal year 2017 is far short of what is needed to address critical water infrastructure needs in Oregon and across the Nation. This will 

lead to fewer water infrastructure projects, and therefore a reduction in improvements to water quality. DEQ’s most recent ‘‘Proposed Intended Use Plan Update 

#1—State Fiscal Year 2016,’’ lists 22 projects in need of a total of $182,066,339 in 

Oregon alone. The Federal capitalization grant funding awarded fiscal year 2015 

will total $15,758,000, which is wholly inadequate to address and complete these 

much needed projects. 

Unfortunately, due to recent cutbacks and lack of availability of funds, only one 

water improvement district submitted an application for funding in 2016, Rock 

Creek District Improvement Company. Rock Creek requested $270,786 for the design and construction of HDPE piping along 1.76 miles of main canal, and qualifies 

for water efficiency green project reserve funding. OWRC is hopeful that with an 

increase in money available, more districts will apply for funding to complete 

projects that will not only benefit the environment and the patrons served by the 

water delivery system, but also benefit the economy. 

CWSRF EXCLUSION OF IRRIGATION DISTRICTS FROM PRINCIPAL FORGIVENESS

OWRC and our members are highly supportive of the CWSRF, including promoting the program to our members and annually submitting Federal appropriations testimony to support increased funding for the CWSRF. We are supportive because it is important funding tool that irrigation districts and other water suppliers 

are using for innovative piping projects that provide multiple environmental benefits. However, the CWSRF is often an integral part of an overall package of State, 

Federal and local funding that necessitates a stronger level of assurance that loan 

funds will be available for planned water infrastructure projects. Irrigation districts 

are often located in rural communities and have a small number of farmers with 
222 

limited capacity to take on loan debt. Even a small reduction in the principal repayment obligations can make the difference in whether or not a district can move forward with a project. Reductions in eligibility for principal forgiveness in the CWSRF 

could lead to loss of grant funding and delay or derail beneficial projects that irrigation districts have been developing for years. 

Six OWRC member districts have successfully received loans from the CWSRF 

over the last several years and many more will apply if eligible to receive some principal forgiveness. Numerous irrigation districts and other water suppliers need to 

pipe currently open canals, which reduces sediment and water temperature and provides other water quality improvements as well as increasing water availability for 

fish and irrigators by reducing water loss from the delivery system. In 2009, four 

irrigation districts received over $11 million funding in Oregon from the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) through the CWSRF for projects which created valuable jobs while improving water quality. These four projects were essential 

to DEQ not only meeting but exceeding the minimum requirement that 20 percent 

of the total ARRA funding for the CWSRF be used for ‘‘green’’ projects. Without the 

irrigation district projects, it is likely that Oregon’s CWSRF would not have qualified for ARRA funding. 

By excluding irrigation districts from principal forgiveness under the CWSRF, the 

loan funds become another expensive piece to the funding puzzle and will simply 

cost too much for districts to take on. If DEQ eliminates the ability of irrigation districts to fund water quality improvement projects, our State will fall short of what 

is needed to address critical water infrastructure needs in Oregon and across the 

Nation. It will lead to fewer innovative water infrastructure projects, and therefore 

a reduction in improvements to water quality. OWRC is hopeful that this terminology issue can be resolved at the Federal level, and allow irrigation districts to 

apply for funding with principal forgiveness to complete projects that will not only 

benefit the environment and the patrons served by the water delivery system, but 

also benefit the economy. 

THE IMPORTANCE AND SUCCESS OF LOCAL WATERSHED PLANNING

Oregon’s success in watershed planning illustrates that planning efforts work best 

when diverse interests develop and implement plans at the local watershed level 

with support from State government. Oregon has recently revised their CWSRF 

rules; thus making conservation easier and its benefits to be better achieved in the 

State. As the national model for watershed planning, Oregon does not need a new 

Federal agency or executive branch office to oversee conservation and restoration efforts. Planning activities are conducted through local watershed councils, volunteerdriven organizations that work with local, State and Federal agencies, economic and 

environmental interests, agricultural, industrial and municipal water users, local 

landowners, tribes, and other members of the community. There are over 60 individual watershed councils in Oregon that are already deeply engaged in watershed 

planning and restoration activities. Watershed planning in Oregon formally began 

in 1995 with the development of the Oregon Plan for Salmon Recovery and Watershed Enhancement, a statewide strategy developed in response to the Federal listing of several fish species. This strategy led to the creation of the Oregon Watershed 

Enhancement Board (OWEB), a State agency and policy oversight board that funds 

and promotes voluntary and collaborative efforts that ‘‘help create and maintain 

healthy watersheds and natural habitats that support thriving communities and 

strong economies’’ in 1999. 

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, we applaud the CWSRF program for allowing Oregon’s DEQ to 

make targeted loans that address Clean Water Act issues and improve water quality 

but also help incentivize innovative water management solutions that benefit local 

communities, agricultural economies, and the environment. This voluntary approach 

creates and promotes cooperation and collaborative solutions to complex water resources challenges. Conversely, exclusion of irrigation districts from principal forgiveness under the CWSRF program has a very negative effect on jobs and local 

economies. We respectfully request the appropriation of at least $2 billion for the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund 

for fiscal year 2017. 
223 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE OUTDOORS ALLIANCE FOR KIDS

Chairmen Murkowski and Calvert, Ranking Members Udall and McCollum, and 

Members of the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee: 

We, the undersigned members of the Outdoors Alliance for Kids (OAK), thank you 

for your past support of programs to connect children and youth with the outdoors, 

and we urge you to sustain funding for fiscal year 2017 programs at the U.S. Department of the Interior, Environmental Protection Agency, and U.S. Forest Service 

that increase engagement in the outdoors. We also urge you to maintain sufficient 

funding for agencies to adequately manage our public lands and waters. 

OAK is a national strategic partnership of businesses and organizations representing more than 30 million individuals from diverse sectors of the economy with 

the common interest in expanding the number and quality of opportunities for children, youth, and families to connect with the outdoors. OAK supports public policies 

and investments that expand outdoor and environmental education opportunities, 

promote community health and wellness, and engage more youth in environmental 

stewardship. 

We understand that we are in difficult fiscal times, but balancing the budget at 

the expense of programs and initiatives that ensure children and youth have opportunities to learn, get physically active, and increase their volunteerism in the outdoors will be a detriment to our Nation. Environmental education provides critical 

tools for a 21st century workforce by giving students the skills to understand complex environmental systems and issues, and prepares students to compete globally 

and address environmental challenges and opportunities that impact our economy, 

health, and national security. Community health and wellness investments are critical for the local economy, as well. The prevention of chronic diseases can save lives, 

as well as promote the physical and mental well-being of all Americans. 

Environmental stewardship programs provide young people with opportunities to 

spend more time outdoors while obtaining job skills at a time when youth unemployment rates are skyrocketing. In addition to contributing to our Nation’s robust outdoor recreation economy, youth national service and work programs help address 

the backlog of maintenance needs piling up on our public lands, address record 

youth unemployment, and prepare a diverse group of youth to be the next generation of natural resource stewards. 

These areas are vital to the success of the United States in the global economy, 

and to our ability to create a 21st century workforce that is healthy, skilled, and 

prepared to be the next generation of leaders. The outdoor industry alone provides 

6.1 million jobs and $646 billion in direct consumer spending each year. Outdoor 

recreation, as enjoyed in national, State, and local parks and public lands, provides 

millions of America’s children, youth, and families an opportunity to hike, bike, 

swim, paddle or simply connect with nature. The outdoor recreation economy generates $39.9 billion in Federal revenue and another $39.7 billion in State and local 

revenue annually. 

OAK supports funding and initiatives to increase outdoor and environmental education, promote community health and wellness, and provide young people with 

jobs, training, and service and volunteer opportunities that connect them to the outdoors and recreation. We urge the subcommittee to restore funding to allow land 

management agencies to adequately manage our public lands and waters and to 

provide robust funding for the following programs that get youth outdoors: 

Department of the Interior: OAK supports the Department of the Interior’s goal 

of building the next generation of conservation and community leaders by supporting efforts to get young people to play, learn, serve, and work outdoors. By September 30, 2017, the Department of the Interior hopes to get millions of kids outside 

engaged in environmental education and to have provided 100,000 work and training opportunities for young adults. To this end, we urge you to support the administration’s budget requests of $102.5 million for youth programs across the Department of the Interior, a $37.7 million increase from the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. 

This includes: 

—$38,200,000 for the National Park Service 

—$26,300,000 for the U.S. Geological Survey 

—$19,000,000 for the Fish and Wildlife Service 

—$13,500,000 for the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

—$1,000,000 for the Bureau of Land Management 

—$3,500,000 for the Bureau of Reclamation 

—$1,000,000 for the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement 

Of the $38.2 million for NPS, $20 million is included for the Every Kid in a Park 

initiative. The funding would support transportation to bring more than one million 
224 

students from Title I schools in urban areas to nearby national parks, and support 

park level youth engagement coordinators that would ensure park units have programming tailored for young people and their families, especially at high visitation 

and urban parks. OAK strongly supports this initiative, which will also provide 

every fourth grader in America and their families with free entrance to National 

Parks in the 2015–2016 school year. We urge you to support funding within the National Park Service for transportation grants and for dedicated youth coordinators 

to welcome fourth graders and their families to our National Parks and public 

lands. 

Another key component of the Department’s youth efforts will be partnering with 

Service & Conservation Corps (Corps) and other youth organizations through the 

21st Century Conservation Service Corps (21CSC) initiative. The opportunities provided by 21CSC allow youth and veterans to become stewards of America’s great 

outdoors through conservation service, help them obtain important job skills and 

credentials at a time when youth unemployment is high and young people are missing out on critical job experiences, and improve public health by helping young people develop and maintain active lifestyles. We also urge you to sustain funding for 

the operational, management, and construction-related accounts of the National 

Park Service, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest Service, all of which 

could fund cost-effective public-private partnerships with Corps. 

In addition, we urge support of the National Park Service Centennial Initiative, 

including $35 million requested for the Centennial Challenge, to support thousands 

of veterans, youth, and others to work to upgrade the park system for its 100th anniversary in 2016. The Centennial Challenge is an economically wise program that 

leverages private dollars to match Federal funds, with at least one private dollar 

for each Federal dollar, to support projects to improve the visiting experience to our 

national parks. It is a proven effective program initially launched during the George 

W. Bush administration, when it leveraged nearly $50 million in donations after an 

initial Federal investment of $40 million. The $35 million requested for the Centennial Challenge will reinvest in that initiative, and will be instrumental in garnering 

partner support to prepare park sites across the country for the centennial and the 

second century of NPS. 

OAK also supports permanent reauthorization and full and dedicated funding of 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The Federal land acquisition program and 

the State and local assistance programs supported by LWCF over the years have 

created countless opportunities for youth and families to enjoy the outdoors, both 

in their communities and on Federal public lands. LWCF also supports the new 

Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Program which will create new opportunities for outdoor play as well as development or enhancement of outdoor recreation 

partnerships in our larger urban communities. 

Environmental Protection Agency: OAK urges the subcommittee to fund the National Environmental Education Act (NEEA) programs at the Environmental Protection Agency at $11.1 million. This program implements highly successful, nationwide environmental education programs. These programs support life-long environmental education and stewardship through several highly-leveraged, but underresourced programs, including the National Environmental Education Training Program to provide professional development for teachers, the National Environmental 

Education Foundation to leverage public/private partnerships, and an environmental education grant program to support local environmental education providers. 

OAK also supports the Urban Waters Federal Partnership, a 14 agency collaboration spearheaded by the Environmental Protection Agency, to restore and connect 

youth with their waterways in 19 pilot urban locations. While the EPA has not 

placed a line item in its budget for the UWFP, we commend the EPA for utilizing 

scarce resources to support this important effort to ensure children, youth and families in urban areas have close to home opportunities to experience nature. 

U.S. Forest Service: OAK supports the U.S. Forest Service efforts to engage youth 

with their natural surroundings, whether that be in urbanized or rural areas. The 

U.S. Forest Service’s multiple conservation education initiatives and outreach activities are integrated throughout the agency. In addition to this outreach, it is also important that children have access to nature nearby. Therefore, OAK supports the 

following funding levels for two programs within the U.S. Forest Service that ensure 

children have access to nature: 

—$5,000,000 for the Community Forest and Open Space Program (CFP) 

—$31,300,000 for the Urban and Community Forestry Program (U&CF) 

CFP has made substantial progress in preserving forests by increasing opportunities for Americans to connect with forests in their own communities and fostering 
225 

new public-private partnerships. CFP has supported 27 community forest projects 

in cities and towns across 15 States and Territories. U&CF served more than 200 

million people in over 7,700 communities across the United States through the development and maintenance of local urban forestry programs. Both of these programs ensure that children can experience forests and trees in their communities. 

OAK also supports other programs within the Forest Service that provide opportunities for youth to connect with nature. Conservation Education programs, Children’s Grants programs including More Kids in the Woods and Children’s Forests, 

and the USFS partnership with the 21st Century Conservation Service Corps are 

all important programs that help the next generation connect with and build an appreciation for the outdoors. 

We thank you in advance for your support for these critical programs and look 

forward to working with you and your staff in the coming year. 

Thank you for your consideration of this request. 

This testimony is submitted on behalf of the following members of the Outdoors 

Alliance for Kids: 

Alliance for Childhood 

American Camp Association 

American Forests 

American Hiking Society 

Appalachian Trail Conservancy 

Children & Nature Network 

Choose Outdoors 

Conservation Legacy 

Hipcamp 

IslandWood 

Kids4Trees 

Latino Outdoors 

Montana Conservation Corps 

National Interscholastic Cycling 

Association 

National Recreation and Park 

Association 

National Wildlife Federation 

NatureBridge 

North American Association for 

Environmental Education 

O’Neill Sea Odyssey 

Outdoor Outreach 

Outdoors Empowered Network 

Public Lands Service Coalition 

REI 

Sierra Club 

SOS Outreach 

The Corps Network 

The North Face 

The Wilderness Society 

The Woods Project 

TYO: Transforming Youth Outdoors 

Wilderness Inquiry 

YMCA of the USA 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PARTNERSHIP FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM

Madame Chairwoman and members of the subcommittee: 

The Partnership for the National Trails System appreciates your support over the 

past 20 years, through operations funding and dedicated Challenge Cost Share 

funds, for the national scenic and historic trails administered by the National Park 

Service. We also appreciate your increased allocation of funds to support the trails 

administered and managed by the Forest Service and for the trails in the Bureau 

of Land Management’s National Landscape Conservation System. To continue the 

progress that you have fostered, the Partnership requests that you provide annual 

operations funding for each of the 30 national scenic and historic trails for fiscal 

year 2017 through these appropriations: 

—National Park Service: $16.233 million for administration of 23 trails and for 

coordination of the long-distance trails program by the Washington office. Construction: $357,200 for the Ice Age Trail and $250,000 for the Pacific Crest 

Trail. 

—USDA Forest Service: $85 million for trails construction and maintenance 

(CMTL) with $7.796 million of it to administer 6 trails and $1.3 million to manage parts of 16 trails administered by the NPS or BLM. $600,000 for Iditarod 

Trail construction and maintenance. 

—Bureau of Land Management: $2.812 million to administer three trails and for 

coordination of the National Trails program and $7.14 million to manage portions of 13 trails administered by the Park Service or the Forest Service and 

for operating five National Historic Trail interpretive centers. Construction: 

$300,000 for the Iditarod Trail. Maintenance: $300,000 for the Iditarod Trail 

and $250,000 for the Pacific Crest Trail, 

—We ask that you create a $1.5 million National Trails System Challenge Cost 

Share Program for the National Park Service. 
226 

—We ask that you restore the Bureau of Land Management’s Challenge Cost 

Share Program with $3 million of funding and allocate $500,000 of it for the 

national scenic and historic trails it administers or manages. 

We ask that you appropriate $64,208,000 from the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund for the acquisition of 72 tracts along seven national scenic and six national 

historic trails described in the National Trails System Collaborative Landscape 

Planning proposal and allocate this funding to the: 

—Bureau of Land Management: $9,022,000 

—U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: $7,879,000 

—U.S. Forest Service: $21,523,000 

—National Park Service: $25,784,000. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

The $16.233 million we request for Park Service operations includes increases for 

some of the trails to continue the progress and new initiatives made possible by the 

additional funding Congress provided several years ago. An increase of $570,000 for 

the Old Spanish Trail will enable the Park Service to begin implementing the Trail’s 

new Comprehensive Management Plan working with the Old Spanish Trail Association to increase volunteer participation in signing, interpreting, and educating the 

public about the trail. The Park Service will be better able to collaborate with the 

Bureau of Land Management in administering the trail and to consult with other 

agencies to protect the cultural and natural resources along it from destruction by 

energy projects. 

We request an increase of $660,000 to expand Park Service efforts to protect cultural landscapes at more than 200 sites along the Santa Fe Trail, to develop GIS 

mapping, and to fund public educational and community outreach programs of the 

Santa Fe Trail Association. Increases of $313,224 for the Oregon Trail and $255,192 

for the California Trail will enable the Park Service to work with the Oregon-California Trails Association to develop digital and social media to connect with youth 

in the cities along these trails providing information about their many layers of history and to better protect the historical and cultural heritage sites and landscapes 

along them from destruction by energy development in the West. We request an increase of $300,000 to $833,000 for the Ala Kahakai Trail to enable the Park Service 

to work with E Mau Na Ala Hele, the Ala Kahakai Trail Association, and other community organizations to care for resources on the land and with the University of 

Hawaii to conduct archaeological and cultural landscape studies along this trail. 

The $1,020,000 we request for the 4,200 mile North Country Trail will enable the 

Park Service to provide greater support for the regional GIS mapping, trail building, 

trail management, and training of volunteers led by the North Country Trail Association. The $1,278,000 we request for the Ice Age Trail includes a $443,000 increase to build partner and citizen capacity for building new and maintaining existing trail, protecting the natural and cultural resources on the lands purchased for 

the trail, and to provide the Park Service with a planner to accelerate planning of 

the land protection corridor for the trail. 

Construction: We request that you provide $357,200 for the Ice Age Trail to build 

30 miles of new trail and several trailhead parking lots and $250,000 for the Pacific 

Crest Trail for trail construction projects. 

Challenge Cost Share programs are one of the most effective and efficient ways 

for Federal agencies to accomplish a wide array of projects for public benefit while 

also sustaining partnerships involving countless private citizens in doing public 

service work. We request that you restore the Bureau of Land Management Challenge Cost Share program, appropriate $3 million to fund it, and allocate $.5 million 

of that to fund projects along the national scenic and historic trails. We ask you to 

create a National Park Service National Trails System Challenge Cost Share program with $1.5 million funding to continue the steady progress toward making 

these trails fully available for public enjoyment as a wise investment of public 

money that will generate public benefits many times greater than its sum. 

USDA—FOREST SERVICE

We ask you to appropriate $85 million for trails construction and maintenance 

(CMTL) to begin to address the considerable maintenance backlog on the trails in 

the National Forest System. Within this appropriation we request that you provide 

$7.796 million as a separate budgetary item specifically for the Arizona, Continental 

Divide, Florida, Pacific Crest, and Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trails and the 

Nez Perce National Historic Trail within the over-all appropriation for Capital Improvements and Maintenance for Trails. Recognizing the on-the-ground manage-
227 

ment responsibility the Forest Service has for 1024 miles of the Appalachian Trail, 

more than 650 miles of the North Country Trail, and sections of the Ice Age, Anza, 

Caminos Real de Tierra Adentro and de Tejas, Lewis & Clark, California, Iditarod, 

Mormon Pioneer, Old Spanish, Oregon, Overmountain Victory, Pony Express, Trail 

of Tears and Santa Fe Trails, we ask you to appropriate $1.3 million specifically for 

these trails. 

The Partnership’s request of $7.796 million includes $1.5 million to enable the 

Forest Service and Florida Trail Association to continue trail maintenance, to control invasive species, do ecosystem restoration, and otherwise manage 4,625 acres 

of new Florida Trail land. The $7.996 million request also includes $2.1 million for 

the Pacific Crest Trail, $2 million for the Continental Divide Trail, $1 million for 

the Pacific Northwest Trail, $826,000 for the Nez Perce Trail, and $570,000 for the 

Arizona Trail. Some of the additional funds requested will enable the Forest Service 

to develop Comprehensive Management Plans for the latter three trails. We also request $600,000 of additional funding for construction and for maintenance of sections of the Iditarod Trail. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Although considerably more money is needed to fully administer the National 

Conservation Lands System and protect its resources, we request that you appropriate $83.099 million in base funding for the System. We ask that you appropriate 

as new permanent base funding $250,000 for National Trails System Program Coordination, $1,000,000 for the Iditarod Trail, $230,000 for El Camino Real de Tierra 

Adentro Trail, $1,332,000 for the Old Spanish Trail, and $4,000,000 for the Bureau 

to manage 4,645 miles of 13 other national scenic and historic trails. We request 

$300,000 to construct new sections of the Iditarod Trail and to maintain these trails: 

Iditarod Trail—$300,000 and Pacific Crest Trail—$250,000. We also request 

$3,140,000 to operate five historic trails interpretive centers. 

We ask you to restore the Bureau’s Challenge Cost Share program, provide $3 

million for it and, direct $500,000 for National Trails System projects. 

To promote greater management transparency and accountability for the National 

Trails and the whole National Landscape Conservation System, we urge you to request expenditure and accomplishment reports for each of the NLCS Units for fiscal 

year 2016 and fiscal year 2017 and to direct the Bureau to include unit-level allocations within major sub-activities for each of the scenic and historic trails, and wild 

and scenic rivers—as the Bureau has done for the national monuments, wilderness, 

and conservation areas—within a new activity account for the National Landscape 

Conservation System in fiscal year 2018. The Bureau’s lack of a unified budget account for National Trails prevents the agency from efficiently planning, implementing, reporting, and taking advantage of cost-saving and leveraging partnerships and volunteer contributions for every activity related to these national resources. 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

The Partnership strongly supports the President’s budget proposal to fully fund 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund at the authorized $900 million, with $475 

million from discretionary sources and $425 million in mandatory funds for the component programs funded under LWCF. Within this amount we request that you appropriate $64,208,000 for the National Trails System Collaborative Landscape Planning proposal to acquire 72 parcels along 13 national scenic and historic trails detailed here: 

Bureau of Land Management 

$9,022,000 

12 parcels 

7,409 acres 

Lewis and Clark National Historic Trail (Montana): $1,750,000 for preservation 

of pristine trail, landscape, and habitat and to provide recreation access along the 

Upper Missouri National Wild and Scenic River. 

Nez Perce National Historic Trail (Idaho): $3,100,000 for trail and resource conservation of sage grouse and pronghorn habitat at one of the last remaining working 

ranches at Henry’s Lake. 

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (Oregon, California): $3,172,000 for trail and 

resource protection within the Cascade Siskiyou National Monument in Southern 

Oregon and in the Mojave Desert in Southern California. 
228 

Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail (Maryland): $1,000,000 

for preservation of threatened and endangered species habitat, increased recreation 

access and watershed connectivity. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

$7,879,000 

13 parcels 

6,510 acres 

Appalachian National Scenic Trail (Pennsylvania): $4,000,000 to connect conservation habitats for bog turtles, black bear, Indiana bats, flying squirrels, and 

bald eagles along the Kittatinny Ridge. 

California National Historic Trail (Idaho): $2,500,000 to protect the largest breeding concentration of Sandhill Cranes, as well as, a haven for other waterfowl from 

a current farming threat. 

Lewis & Clark National Historic Trail (Washington): $1,379,000 to preserve 

unique ecosystems while increasing public recreational access near Julia Butler 

Hansen, Ridgefield, Franz Lake, Lewis and Clark, and Ridgefield National Wildlife 

Refuges. 

U.S. Forest Service 

$21,523,000 

29 parcels 

7,930 acres 

Appalachian National Scenic Trail (Georgia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia): 

$4,588,000 to relocate trail, preserve trail view sheds, provide ecological 

connectivity, and protect watersheds near or adjacent to the Pond Mountain Wilderness, the Roan Highlands, Rice Creek Valley, and George Washington and Jefferson 

NFs. 

Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (Montana): $2,400,000 to protect pristine 

riparian habitat within the Gila National Forest and increase public recreational access via multi-user trails. 

Florida National Scenic Trail (Florida): $42,000 to close a trail gap and provide 

connectivity and public access between protected areas along the Withlacoochee 

River adjacent to Suwanee River State Park. 

Pacific Crest National Scenic Trail (California, Washington): $14,493,000 to provide critical scenic protection to the hiker experience, improve trail location and protect wildlife habitats in the Shasta-Trinity National Forest and provide recreational 

access adjacent to the Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area. 

National Park Service 

$25,784,000 

18 parcels 

6,398 acres 

Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail (Hawaii): $6,000,000 to protect 444 archaeological sites at an ancient coastal indigenous gathering area that hosts a wealth 

of native plants and wildlife both above and below ground in lava tubes. 

Appalachian National Scenic Trail (New York, Massachusetts): $2,982,000 to support connectivity of riparian and forest habitats in the Hinsdale Flats of the Berkshire-Taconic landscape and to preserve iconic scenic viewsheds. 

Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail (Virginia): $4,250,000 to 

provide public access to the site of a major encounter between John Smith and indigenous peoples and protect a major migratory bird stopover habitat. 

Ice Age National Scenic Trail (Wisconsin): $1,200,000 to close gaps in the trail and 

provide urban access in the City of St. Croix and preserve pristine northern hardwood forest and riparian habitat along tributaries to the St. Croix National Scenic 

River. 

North Country National Scenic Trail (Michigan, Pennsylvania): $6,722,000 to protect over 2,500 acres along the Sturgeon River downstream from the Ottawa National Forest in Upper Michigan and to connect Moraine and McConnell’s Mill State 

Parks in Pennsylvania providing recreational access via the NCNST. 

Overmountain Victory National Historic Trail (Tennessee): $1,430,000 to protect 

the historically significant Shelving Rock Encampment site, preserve the original 

roadbed, and facilitate interpretation of the site. 

Potomac Heritage National Scenic Trail (New York): $3,000,000 to protect the Potomac and Shenandoah River corridors, provide connectivity of wetland and forest 

habitats, and optimal location for new trail. 
229 

PRIVATE SECTOR SUPPORT FOR THE NATIONAL TRAILS SYSTEM

Public-spirited partnerships between private citizens and public agencies have 

been a hallmark of the National Trails System since its inception. These partnerships create the enduring strength of the Trails System and the trail communities 

that sustain it by combining the local, grass-roots energy and responsiveness of volunteers with the responsible continuity of public agencies. They also provide private 

financial support for public projects, often resulting in a greater than equal match 

of funds. 

The private trail organizations’ commitment to the success of these trail-sustaining partnerships grows even as Congress’ support for the trails has grown. In 

2015 the trail organizations fostered 1,073,026 hours of documented volunteer labor 

valued at $24,754,710 to help sustain the national scenic and historic trails. The organizations also raised private sector contributions of $12,396,728 for the trails. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PERFORMING ARTS ALLIANCE

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, we thank you for 

the opportunity to submit this testimony on behalf of the Performing Arts Alliance 

(PAA). We urge the subcommittee to appropriate $155 million to the National Endowment for the Arts for fiscal year 2017. PAA member organizations include: 

• Alternate ROOTS 

• American Composers Forum 

• Association of Performing Arts Presenters 

• Chamber Music America 

• Chorus America 

• Dance/USA 

• Fractured Atlas 

• League of American Orchestras 

• National Alliance for Musical Theatre 

• National Association of Latino Arts and Cultures 

• National Performance Network 

• Network of Ensemble Theaters 

• New Music USA 

• OPERA America 

• Theatre Communications Group 

The Performing Arts Alliance is a national network of more than 33,000 organizational and individual members comprising the professional, nonprofit performing 

arts fields. We submit this testimony to highlight the importance of Federal investment in the arts. 

For 50 years, the National Endowment for the Arts has held a significant Federal 

leadership role for the arts and culture in America. Its grants reach every congressional district and support arts organizations serving their communities in a variety 

of ways. Through the support of direct NEA grants and NEA partnerships with 

State arts agencies, arts organizations are helping people experience high-quality 

artistic presentations, access arts education and opportunities for artistic development, find their voices and share their stories, and have critical dialogue about important social issues. 

The following examples of recent NEA grantees within the PAA network are a 

sample of the significant ways performing arts organizations are able to serve their 

communities with the support of the NEA. 

—NEA grants support arts education projects that offer professional development to 

educators and arts learning opportunities for students. 

Chamber Music America member Community Music Works in Providence, Rhode 

Island received fiscal year 2015 Art Works support to provide free lessons in instrumental music, music theory, and improvisation to local at-risk children and youth. 

The organization also provided a leadership development program for advanced students as well as performance opportunities. 

AXIS Dance Company in Oakland, California, recently received Art Works support for its Dance Access Education and Outreach programs to be offered in the Bay 

Area and in cities nationwide as the company tours. AXIS’ events—such as dance 

classes, teacher trainings and youth dance camps—will be offered to youth and 

adults with and without disabilities. Included in the offerings are a dance apprentice program for students with spinal cord injuries and movement experiences for 

veterans. AXIS is a member of Dance/USA. 

The Integration of the Arts and Literacy Academy was developed by the Kentucky 

Center for the Performing Arts in Louisville, Kentucky to offer professional development programs for arts teachers and teachers of literacy, reading, and English language arts. Supported by fiscal year 2016 Art Works funding, this project will help 

teachers from rural, urban, and suburban Kentucky schools learn to integrate 

music, dance, drama, and visual arts with creative writing and interactive story-
230 

telling based on children’s books. The Center for the Performing Arts is a member 

of the Association of Performing Arts Presenters. 

—With the support of NEA funds, arts organizations are developing works that address current affairs and create safe spaces for community dialogue on social 

Issues. 

Metro Theater Company in St. Louis, Missouri, a member of Theatre Communications Group, is addressing issues of race and social justice in its production of ‘‘And 

in This Corner.... Cassius Clay’’ by Idris Goodwin. The presentation is supported 

by fiscal year 2016 Art Works funding. Set in Louisville, Kentucky, during the 1950s 

and early 1960s, the play portrays prize-fighter Cassius Clay’s boyhood through his 

mid-20s, during the Jim Crow era in the South. As contemporary St. Louis communities process the aftermath of the present-day shooting events in Ferguson, aspects 

of the play may resonate, such as the police officer who mentors Clay and introduces 

him to boxing. Outreach activities associated with this production will encourage 

civic engagement and youth empowerment. 

Sandglass Theatre in Putney, Vermont received fiscal year 2015 Art Works support for its biannual International Puppets in the Green Mountains Festival, which 

will feature performances by international puppet artists around the theme of immigration and humanization, as well as the Voices of Community Series, a theater series exploring issues of diversity with residencies by visiting artists. Sandglass is 

a member of the National Performance Network. 

—NEA funds benefit every congressional district, expanding access to exemplary artistry to all people in all U.S. communities. 

With the support of fiscal year 2016 Challenge America funding, Pro Musica in 

Joplin, Missouri is able to offer free public performances and outreach activities by 

artists such as Project Trio and the Harlem Quartet, intended to serve rural communities. This organization is a member of Chamber Music America. The Quartet’s 

outreach activities include audience talk-backs about the music, instrumentation, 

and composers whose work is being performed. 

The St. Louis Children’s Choir—a member of Chorus America—has used fiscal 

year 2016 Art Works funding to support its Serving St. Louis through Song community engagement project. The choir will bring its music to St. Louis Area elementary, middle, and language-immersion schools, the St. Louis Juvenile Detention 

Center, the St. Louis Children’s Hospital, and residential care facilities for senior 

citizens. 

Manship Theatre in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, a member of Dance/USA, received 

fiscal year 2016 Challenge America support for residency projects with tap dance 

artists Savion Glover, Marshall Davis, Jr., and jazz drummer Jack Dejohnette. Glover and Davis will give a lecture and demonstration at Family Youth Services Center, in partnership with the East Baton Rouge Department of Juvenile Services. Together, all three artists will perform at a public concert at Manship Theatre. 

Great Falls Symphony in Great Falls, Montana, is able to offer outreach concerts 

and lead master classes for rural high school students with the support of an fiscal 

year 2016 Challenge America Fast Track grant. The Symphony, a member of the 

League of American Orchestras, will also perform in a concert preview that will be 

aired on Montana’s public radio station and perform during an open rehearsal for 

local piano students and piano teachers. 

—NEA grants support projects that help people from different communities share 

their stories and histories, helping audiences make connections across cultures. 

Knoxville Opera, a member of OPERA America, received an fiscal year 2016 Challenge America Fast Track Grant to support OPERAtion Outreach!, a series of free 

public performances, in-school productions, and education programs intended to engage underserved audiences of East Tennessee. In addition to presentations of classic works such as Puccini’s ‘‘Tosca,’’ Knoxville Opera will present its African-American Voices Series, highlighting the importance of diversifying the opera field. The 

series will feature African-American opera artists discussing their careers, achievements, and experiences as minorities within the field. 

Miracle Theatre Group (Milagro), in Portland, Oregon, received fiscal year 2016 

Art Works support for the West Coast premiere of ‘‘Contigo Pan y Cebolla’’ by Hector Quintero. The tragic comedy is set in Havana during the late 1950s just prior 

to the Cuban revolution. It centers on a poor family struggling to make ends meet 

as costs increase but wages remain stagnant. The play is a popular work of Cuban 

realism and will be produced in its original Spanish. The theater will host a series 

of bilingual post-play conversations with community members and local scholars to 
231 

illuminate Cuban history. Milagro is a member of the National Association for 

Latino Arts and Cultures. 

Portland Playhouse, in Portland, Oregon (a member of Theatre Communications 

Group), received Artworks Support for the development and West Coast premiere 

of ‘‘You for Me for You’’ by Mia Chung. The play tells the story of two North Korean 

sisters facing starvation at the hands of a corrupt regime who are separated when 

they decide to flee the country. The work invites audiences to rethink perceptions 

of North Korea and the immigrant experience. In partnership with the Korean 

American Coalition and Asian American Network of Oregon, the theater plans to 

stimulate public dialogue around the themes of the play by hosting talkback discussions with artists. 

—NEA grants support projects that provide valuable opportunities for artistic development for young and emerging artists. 

The NOCCA Institute (New Orleans Center for Creative Arts), a member of 

Chamber Music America, received fiscal year 2016 Art Works funding for its Artistsin-Residence Program. Visiting artists convened for master classes, concerts, and 

other activities with youth, emerging and mid-career artists, and the general public. 

With the support of fiscal year 2016 Art Works funds, Dorset Theatre Festival in 

Dorset, Vermont—a member of Theatre Communications Group (TCG) —administered its New Play Development Program. Via a new works incubator to nurture 

new voices in theatre, the program will mentor playwrights in the development of 

new plays from conception to production. A similar effort to support new voices is 

underway at the Nashville Repertory Theatre due in part to support from Art 

Works funding. The Theatre’s Ingram New Works Project will aid the creation of 

new plays by participating playwrights who will write plays of their choice, rather 

than a play chosen by the institution. This theatre is also a member of TCG. 

The artistic programming of the arts organizations supported by the National Endowment for the Arts gives vitality to their communities in numerous ways beyond 

the examples provided here. The Federal investment in the NEA places value on 

the role of arts and culture in our society, and it realizes significant returns that 

are both measurable and intangible. We celebrate the NEA’s fiscal year 2016 budget 

increase—the first since fiscal year 2011—and urge you to please support no less 

than $155 million to the National Endowment for the Arts in fiscal year 2017. 

Thank you for considering our request. 

[This statement was submitted by Mario Garcia Durham, Chair, and Cristine 

Davis, General Manager.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS TO CONSERVE AND

IMPROVE AMERICA’S FORESTS

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall: 

The President’s fiscal year 17 budget reflects the difficult budget decisions that 

the ever increasing costs of wildfires and budget constraints present. Even in this 

tight budget climate, the undersigned organizations believe that investments in key 

Federal programs to conserve and improve America’s forests—rural and urban, private and public—are critically important. These investments create jobs, mitigate 

pollution and carbon emissions, enhance and protect our drinking water, contribute 

to healthy, livable communities, and encourage forest product innovation and utilization, helping the Nation to foster strong economic growth in rural areas. 

The U.S. Forest Service State and Private Forestry Deputy Area (S&PF) serves 

as a lynchpin for the conservation of America’s forests. S&PF supports a broad 

range of programs in partnerships with State and national forestry and conservation 

organizations interested in America’s forests. Providing this important technical and 

financial assistance to private landowners and the resource managers responsible 

for managing more than 60 percent of America’s forests helps to increase the pace 

and scale of landscape scale restoration work, improve the resilience of the Nation’s 

forests, and protect communities and the environment from forest pests, invasive 

species and wildland fires. 

Fiscal year 2017 funding for the following S&PF programs will help improve the 

health of the Nation’s forests and encourage economic growth in a sector that sustains more than one million jobs in the United States. Our funding level requests 

include: 

—$29 million for the Forest Stewardship Program: Administered in cooperation 

with State forestry agencies, this program plays a fundamental role in keeping 

forests as forests. Forest Insects, diseases and wild fire know no bounds be-
232 

tween Federal and non-Federal forests. Assisting some of the 22 million private 

landowners in managing non-Federal forests can help minimize the impacts to 

Federal lands saving the Federal taxpayer millions of dollars. Almost 90 percent 

of those who have stewardship plans are actively implementing them to manage 

for wildlife, clean water, climate mitigation, and forest products. —$100 million for the Forest Health Management Programs—$52 million Federal 

Lands and $48 million Cooperative Lands: Pests and disease area national 

problem affecting private and public lands. The USFS Forest Health Management Program supports efforts to prevent, contain, and eradicate these costly 

and dangerous pests and pathogens affecting trees and forests. 

—$31 million for the Urban and Community Forestry Program: Benefiting more 

than 220 million people, this program provides assistance to communities managing local, urban, and community forestry resources to keep trees and forests 

in our communities healthy. These urban forests provide quantifiable energy 

savings, stormwater impact reduction, and human health benefits in return. 

—$87 million for State and $15 million for Volunteer Fire Assistance Programs: 

Initial attack is the key to reducing large fire costs and these programs are critical to these suppression efforts. State and volunteer fire crews are deployed to 

assist on Federal fires and other emergency or disaster situations, in compliance 

with national safety and training standards. 

—$23.5 million for Landscape Scale Restoration: S&PF works collaboratively with 

States and other partners using State Forest Action Plans to target resources 

to the highest priority forest needs across ownerships to achieve results with 

meaningful local, regional, and national impacts. 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

American Forests 

American Forest Foundation 

CarbonVerde 

Forest Business Network 

National Association of Conservation 

Districts 

National Association of Forest Service 

Retirees 

National Association of State Foresters 

National Wild Turkey Federation 

National Woodland Owners Association 

The National Wildfire Institute 

The Nature Conservancy 

The Pinchot Institute for Conservation 

Society of American Foresters 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PUYALLUP TRIBE OF INDIANS

Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony concerning the fiscal 

year 2017 appropriations for American Indian and Alaskan Native programs within 

the BIA and IHS. My name is David Z. Bean, Tribal Council Member for the Puyallup Tribe of Indians. 

The Puyallup Tribe is an independent sovereign nation having historically negotiated with several foreign nations including the United States in the Medicine 

Creek Treaty of 1854. This relationship is rooted in Article I, Section 8, of the 

United States Constitution, Federal laws and numerous Executive orders. The governing body of the Puyallup Tribe of Indians is the Puyallup Tribal Council which 

upholds the Tribe’s sovereign responsibility of self-determination and self-governance for the benefit of the 5,006 Puyallup tribal members and the 25,000 plus members from approximately 355 federally recognized tribes who utilize our services. 

The Puyallup Reservation is located in the urbanized Seattle-Tacoma area of the 

State of Washington. The 18,061 acre reservation is a ‘‘checkerboard’’ of tribal lands, 

Indian-owned fee land and non-Indian owned fee land. Our reservation land includes parts of six different municipalities (Tacoma, Fife, Milton, Puyallup, Edgewood and Federal Way). 

The following written testimony being submitted to the Senate Appropriations 

Subcommittee documents the Puyallup Tribe’s views on the President’s fiscal year 

2017 Federal budget. The focus of the written testimony will be on the President’s 

proposed budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Indian Health Service (IHS). Within the BIA budget, $2.9 billion is proposed for fiscal year 2017, an 

increase of $138 million above the fiscal year 2016 levels. For the IHS, $5.2 billion 

is proposed, an increase of $378 million over the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. Included in both budgets the President proposes to fully fund Contract Support Costs 

(CSC) in fiscal year 2017. The budget provides $278 million for BIA CSCs and $800 

million for IHS CSCs. We appreciate the increased funding being proposed for the 
233 

BIA and IHS and funding CSCs at 100 percent. However, years of inadequate funding and the effects of inflation have impacted the tribe’s ability to fully exercise selfdetermination and self-governance. As negotiations proceed on the fiscal year 2017 

budget and future appropriations, it is paramount that Congress fully fund Indian 

program needs. 

DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR—BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

Public Safety & Justice: The fiscal year 2017 budget request includes $373.5 million for BIA Public Safety & Justice. This represents a $4 million decrease over the 

fiscal year 2016 enacted level. Funding for detention facilities is of great importance 

to the Puyallup Tribe. In fiscal year 2009, we received a Department of Justice 

ARRA grant, in the amount of $7.9 million to construct a 28 bed adult corrections 

facility. Construction on the facility was completed in February 2014 and came online in May 2014. Over the past years the Puyallup Tribe has worked closely with 

the BIA Office of Justice Services to identify the operating and staffing costs associated this facility. The agreed upon estimated cost of operating the facility was set 

at $2.6 million annually. The BIA base funding offered to the tribe in fiscal year 

2015 was $704,198 or 27 percent of actual need, with no increases to base funding 

in fiscal year 2016 or fiscal year 2017. Thus, while we support the $1.0 million increase in the President’s proposed fiscal year 2017 funding for Detention & Corrections, this increase is not sufficient to fund the staffing and operating needs of Indian Country detention facilities, some of which lie vacant due to lack of funds. We 

are requesting support from the subcommittee to include Committee report language that would direct Office of Justice Services to submit a plan for funding the 

staffing and operating needs of the detention facilities in Indian country. 

In addition, we operate a tribal court program through a Public Law 93–638 contract with the BIA. In fiscal year 2015, our base funding was increased from $45,000 

to $194,996 and remains this amount for fiscal year 2017. While the increase to our 

tribal court base funding was appreciated, it does not equal the amount of tribal 

funds necessary to fully operate the tribal court program. In fiscal year 2016, the 

tribe has allocated $1.172 million of tribal funds for the tribal court budget. Again, 

while the Puyallup Tribe supports the $2.5 million increase for tribal court funding 

for fiscal year 2017, we agree with the National Congress of American Indian’s request that an additional $82.0 million be allocated to BIA to increase base funding 

for tribal courts. This increase would assist with the implementation of the Tribal 

Law and Order Act and the Violence Against Women Act. Further, we are strongly 

opposed to the $8.2 million decrease proposed for the tribal courts initiative to better support tribal courts in Public Law 280 States. 

Natural Resources Management: The Puyallup Tribe has treaty and governmental 

obligations and responsibilities to manage its natural resources for uses beneficial 

to the tribal membership and the regional communities. Despite our diligent program efforts, the fisheries resource is degrading and economic losses are incurred 

by Native and Non-native fishermen and surrounding communities. Our resource 

management responsibilities cover thousands of square miles in the Puget Sound region of the State of Washington. 

For fiscal year 2017, a minimum funding level of $8.5 million is necessary for the 

Rights Protection Implementation—BIA Western Washington (Bolts) Fisheries Management program. However, we agree with the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission and the National Congress of American Indians that an overall $52 million increase for the Rights Protection Implementation funding is necessary to ensure compliance with Federal court orders through effective tribal self-regulatory and comanagement systems. This increase in funding would provide new monies for harvest management, habitat protection, stock enhancement, shellfish, enforcement, 

wildlife and other natural resource management needs. As the aboriginal owners 

and guardians of our lands and waters it is essential that adequate funding is provided to allow tribes to carry-out our inherent stewardship of these resources. 

The Puyallup Tribe continues to operate a number of salmon hatcheries that benefit Indian and non-Indian commercial and sport fisheries in the Pacific Northwest/ 

Puget Sound. We work cooperatively with the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission, neighboring tribes, Federal agencies and State fishery managers to insure the 

success and sustainability of our hatchery programs. The tribe supports the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget request of $10.38 million for Fish Hatcheries Operations and Fish Hatchery Maintenance. 

The Timber, Fish and Wildlife (TFW) Supplemental and U.S./Canada Pacific 

Salmon Treaty programs has allowed for the expansion of tribal participation in the 

State forest practice rules and regulations and participation in inter-tribal organizations to address specific treaties and legal cases which relate to multi-national fish-
234 

ing rights, harvest allocations and resource management practices. We request subcommittee support the funding recommendations of the NWIFC for the fiscal year 

2017 TFW Supplemental program and the U.S./Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty program. 

The Puyallup Wildlife Management program has been the lead agency in management activities to benefit the South Rainier elk herd since 2004. The South Rainier 

elk herd is the primary stock of elk harvested by the Puyallup Tribe. The tribe has 

not only established more reliable methods for population monitoring, but has also 

been proactive in initiating habitat enhancement projects, research and land acquisition to ensure sustainable populations of elk for future generations. Funds that 

are available to the tribe have been on a very competitive basis with a limited 

amount per program via USFWS Tribal Wildlife grants and the BIA Unresolved 

Hunting and Fishing Rights grant program. We request subcommittee support to 

provide base funding to the tribes’ Wildlife Management Program in the amount of 

$150,000 through the BIA Unresolved Hunting and Fishing Rights program in fiscal 

year 2017 appropriations. 

Education: The Puyallup Tribe operates the pre–K to 12 Chief Leschi Schools 

which included a verified 2014–2015 School student enrollment of 910∂ students, 

including ECEAP and FACE programs. With an increasing number of pre-kindergarten enrollment, Chief Leschi Schools will exceed design capacity in the near future. Additional space will be necessary to provide quality educational services to 

the students and tribal community. Additionally, the cost of operation and maintenance of the Chief Leschi School facilities continues to increase in the areas of supplies, energy and student transportation costs. The fiscal year 2017 budget request 

for the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) is $912 million, an increase of $60 million 

over the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. While this increase is appreciated, once 

again the funding level does not meet the actual operational needs of tribal education programs. The tribe will continue to work with Congress, BIE and the National Congress of American Indians to increase funding in fiscal year 2017, including: Tribal Grant Support Cost for Tribally Operated Schools—$78 million; Student 

Transportation—$73 million; School Facilities Accounts—$109 million in facilities 

operations and $109 million in facilities maintenance, Indian School Equalization 

Program (ISEP)—$431 million and Construction/Repair of BIE Schools—$263.4 million. 

Operations of Indian Programs & Tribal Priority Allocations: The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget is in drastic need for increased funding for the BIA Operations 

of Indian Programs. Within the Operations of Indian Programs is the Tribal Priority 

Allocations (TPA). The TPA budget functions include the majority of funding used 

to support on-going services at the ‘‘local tribal’’ level, including: natural resources 

management, child welfare, other education, housing and other tribal government 

services. These functions have not received adequate and consistent funding to allow 

tribes the resources to fully exercise self-determination and self-governance. Further, the small increases that ‘‘TPA’’ has received over the past few years has not 

been adequate to keep pace with inflation. Specifically we support the $3.4 million 

requested increase for Indian Child Welfare funding; the $12.3 million requested increase for social services; and finally we support the $3 million requested increase 

for natural resource programs within TPA. 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES—INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

The Inadequate funding of the Indian Health Service (IHS) is the most substantial impediment to the current Indian Health system. The Puyallup Tribe has been 

operating healthcare programs since 1976 through the Indian Self-determination 

Act, Public Law 93–638. The Puyallup Tribal Health Authority (PTHA) operates a 

comprehensive ambulatory care program to the Native American population in 

Pierce County, Washington. The current patient load exceeds 9,000, of which approximately 1,700 are tribal members. There are no IHS hospitals in the Portland 

Area so all specialties and hospital care have been paid for out of our contract care 

allocation. The Purchased/Referred Care (PRC) allocation to PTHA remains inadequate to meet the actual need. In fiscal year 2004, the Puyallup Tribe subsidized 

PRC with a $2.8 million dollar contribution. In fiscal year 2016, the tribal PRC subsidy has grown to $6.2 million. Given that the PTHA service population is only comprised of 17 percent Puyallup tribal members, tribal budget priorities in fiscal year 

2011 through fiscal year 2016 have made continued subsidies to the PTHA financially difficult for the Puyallup Tribe. The fiscal year 2017 budget requests $5.2 billion in discretionary budget authority for the Indian Health Service. This represents 

a $378 million increase over the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. For Health Services 

programs the fiscal year 2017 budget requests funding for Clinical Services ($3.47 
235 

billion), Purchased/Referred Care ($962 million), Facilities Maintenance & Improvement ($77 million) and Contract Support ($800 million). The Puyallup Tribe fully 

supports funding increases for existing IHS programs and will work with Congress 

to continue efforts to increase funding for IHS and the critical programs administered by the agency which so many Indian tribes perform under Indian Self-Determination Act contracts and agreements. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE PVC PIPE ASSOCIATION

The Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association is a not-for-profit organization representing 95 

percent of the manufacturing capacity of the North American PVC pipe industry. 

Our pipe producing members operate over 90 facilities in the U.S. and our associate 

members (suppliers) hundreds more. PVC pipe extrusion facilities are found in 32 

States across the United States: California has the most plants (9), followed by 

Texas (6), Arizona (5) and Pennsylvania (5). 

The PVC pipe industry serves a vast and complex market including 54,000 drinking water systems, 10,000 wastewater facilities and 15,000 sewer and wastewater 

contracting firms. PVC water and sewer pipe producers contribute in excess of $14 

billion annually to the U.S. economy and support over 25,000 jobs. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) manages taxpayer dollars under the 

State Revolving Fund’s (SRF’s) for water and wastewater projects in every State. 

It is important for all States and municipalities receiving Federal funding to use 

open and free bidding processes and to consider all approved piping materials so 

that the most cost effective, longest lasting and best performing piping is used. 

According to the U.S. Conference of Mayors, underground pipes represent 60 percent ($2.28 trillion) of the $3.8 trillion needed in investments for water and wastewater infrastructure over the next 20 years. As a result, it is here that open procurement policies and practices should be focused. 

Since the 1970s the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Rural Development 

Program has required that the funding it provides rural municipalities for water 

and sewer projects be spent in an open and competitive manner. It is time for the 

EPA to have similar requirements. 

Richard Anderson, Ph.D., Senior Advisor to U.S. Conference of Mayors Water 

Council, who is also a proponent of procurement reform for underground infrastructure, reports that water and sewer pipelines are deteriorating faster than the rate 

at which they can be replaced because of corrosion, which is the leading cause of 

the water main break epidemic in North America (estimated at some 300,000 breaks 

annually). According to a 2002 congressional study, corrosion is also a drag on the 

economy, costing U.S. drinking water and wastewater systems over $50.7 billion annually. As a result, any comprehensive and truly sustainable underground infrastructure strategy must address corrosion. 

Today’s corrosion crisis is due to the materials used in America’s piping networks 

over the last hundred years. At first, cast iron was used, with ductile iron gradually 

replacing it as the material of choice. Both now suffer from corrosion. In fact, studies have shown that newer iron pipes do not last as long as older versions because 

of their thinner walls. 

The burden of old technology materials is not limited to the cost of repairing and 

replacing failed pipelines. It includes the cost of losing treated water from leaking 

systems. Leaking pipes made from old technology materials lose an estimated 2.6 

trillion gallons of drinking water annually, or 17 percent of all treated water 

pumped in the United States. 

The solution to these problems begins with sustainability, durability and corrosion 

resistance, and this is why more utilities must actively consider all approved piping 

materials like PVC in their bidding processes. Increased durability means fewer 

leaks, better water conservation and lower costs. As a result, any comprehensive action plan for water and wastewater infrastructure renewal must also include reform 

of municipal procurement practices that limit competition, shackle innovation and 

increase costs. 

We believe that to get the most efficient and sustainable use of Federal money 

for water and wastewater projects, free and open competition must be the operating 

standard. Federal grants provided to municipalities should have open competition 

stipulations similar to those required by the USDA Rural Development Program for 

water and sewer projects. In this way Federal dollars obtain maximum value for 

taxpayers. When products are excluded from bidding, taxpayers suffer as does the 

efficiency of our infrastructure. 

With over 2 million miles in service, PVC pipe has been celebrated by Engineering 

News Record as one of the top 20 engineering advancements of the last 125 years. 
236 

A study by the American Water Works Research Foundation recently quantified the 

life expectancy of PVC pipe at more than 110 years—making it excellent for longterm asset management and sustainability. Furthermore, PVC pipe is more efficient 

to manufacture, taking four times less energy to make than concrete pressure pipe, 

and half that used for iron pipe. 

As well, PVC pipe is cost effective, has watertight joints and its lightweight reduces transportation and installation costs, yielding additional greenhouse gas reductions. It is also totally recyclable, though most of it has yet to enter the recycling 

stream given its great durability. 

The PVC pipe industry has published the first North American industry-wide environmental product declaration (EPD) for PVC water and sewer piping, which has 

been verified by NSF Sustainability, a division of global public health organization 

NSF International. PVC pipe is designed to minimize environmental impacts due 

to its corrosion resistance, enabling long-term durability. This third-party verified, 

ISO 14025 compliant EPD was the next step in validating the safety and sustainability of PVC piping products. With the completion of this EPD, the PVC pipe industry has demonstrated its continued commitment to product safety and transparency. 

—Environmental Product Declaration for PVC Water and Sewer Piping—NSF 

international 

http://www.uni-bell.org/communication/images/environmentallproductl 

declarationlforlwaterlandlsewerlpiping.pdf 

Numerous organizations have published studies on the need to update procurement practices to more cost effectively finance our underground infrastructure. 

Below are links to some of these reports: 

—Procurement Process Improvements Yield Cost-Effective Public Benefits 

http://www.uni-bell.org/communication/images/uscmlmuncipalprocurementl 

onepage.pdf 

—Reforming Our Nation’s Approach to the Infrastructure Crisis: How Competition, 

Oversight, and Innovation Can Lower Water and Sewer Rates in the United 

States 

http://www.uni-bell.org/kcfinder/upload/files/NTU%20Report%281%29.pdf 

—Lowering Costs in Water Infrastructure through Procurement Reform: A Strategy 

for State Governments 

http://www.uni-bell.org/resources/Lowering%20Costs%20in%20Water%20 

InfrastructurelALEC%20FINAL.pdf 

—Fixing America’s Crumbling Underground Water Infrastructure: Competitive 

Bidding Offers a Way Out 

http://www.uni-bell.org/resources/FixingAmericasWaterInfrastructure.pdf 

Also please find links to water main break rate and pipe longevity studies by 

Utah State University’s Buried Structures Laboratory, which determined that PVC 

has the lowest break rate of all water piping materials and the longest lifespan: 

—Water Main Break Rates in the USA and Canada: A Comprehensive Study 

http://www.uni-bell.org/kcfinder/upload/files/UtahStateWaterBreakRatesl 

FINALlTHlVer5lowrez.pdf 

—PVC Pipe Longevity Report: A Comprehensive Study on PVC Pipe Excavations, 

Testing, & Life Cycle Analysis 

http://www.uni-bell.org/communication/images/unibelll24lpagellowl 

res1.pdf 

The PVC pipe industry thanks you for letting us submit a statement for this important hearing and we will be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 

[This statement was submitted by Bruce Hollands, Executive Director.] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE RED CLIFF BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA

Testimony Addresses: Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Lake Superior Co-Management Program Write-up for the Tribal Management/Development Program (TMDP) Funding 

This write-up was developed in conjunction with BIA Central Office staff 
237 

Of the proposed increase to TMDP, $750,000 will be provided to support Lake Superior Co-Management (LSCM) tribes (Red Cliff, Bad River). The LSCM tribes are 

experiencing the effects of climate change disproportionately due to their cultural 

and functional reliance on Lake Superior, as well as their inability to relocate treaty-defined reservations. The reservations of the LSCM tribes border Lake Superior 

coastal shoreline, and the tribes actively participate in commercial and subsistence 

fish harvest across six management units and 7,051,090 surface acres of Lake Superior. The reservations’ economies are fundamentally based and inextricably linked 

to the continued sustainable harvest of wild, native fish stocks in the 1842 ceded 

waters of Lake Superior. 

Tribal commercial fishing on Lake Superior under the Treaty of 1842 (7 Stat. 591) 

and Treaty of 1854 (10 Stat.1109) with the Chippewa was affirmed in State v. 

Gurnoe, 53 Wis. 2d 390 (1972), which dismissed State prosecution against tribal 

fishermen and initiated the current system of self-regulation. The U.S. District 

Court for the Western District of Wisconsin also dismissed allegations against tribal 

fishermen in U.S. v. Peterson, 82CR7OU (1984), in light of the regulatory provisions 

contained in the Lake Superior Fishing Agreement, first adopted in 1981, between 

the Red Cliff and Bad River Tribes and State of Wisconsin. While the rights of these 

tribes to manage the Lake Superior fishery was made clear in court decisions, the 

exact jurisdictional boundaries and roles of each tribe in cooperation with the State 

was determined through negotiated efforts. Prior to, and since the Federal court’s 

decision in U.S. v. Peterson, the tribes have maintained sovereign rights to regulate 

Treaty harvest and to cooperatively manage the shared fishery resource in Lake Superior through subsequent negotiated renditions of the Lake Superior Fishing 

Agreement in coordination with the State of Wisconsin in 1991, 1995, and 2005. 

LSCM tribes (Red Cliff and Bad River) each currently receive base TMDP funding 

for on-reservation management of fish and wildlife resources. Funding of LSCM will 

provide the funding required for Red Cliff and Bad River to co-manage tribal resources in compliance with the Lake Superior Fishing Agreement within the jurisdictions also managed by the State. This increase to LSCM (Red Cliff and Bad 

River) is needed to improve conservation enforcement, commercial monitoring, and 

data-driven fishery management activities within the co-managed jurisdictions of 

Lake Superior in cooperation with the State. 

Since the Gurnoe Decision (1972) reaffirmed the rights of the Chippewa tribes to 

engage in reservation-based fish harvest, LSCM tribes have developed natural resource programs to demonstrate their co-management authority on Lake Superior 

and ensure sustainable fishery management. The core functions of these programs, 

namely fish stock assessments, conservation enforcement and harvest monitoring, 

have resulted in the most spatially and temporally comprehensive database to quantify climate change impacts. The LSCM has regional and national benefit as vulnerability assessments and climate resiliency strategies are developed for the world’s 

greatest freshwater ecosystem. 

Justification 

—A major funding shortfall of Tribal Management and Development funding to 

the Bad River and Red Cliff Tribes has resulted in an unmet obligation by BIA 

to support treaty harvest and management responsibilities by the tribes across 

7,000,000 surface acres of ceded territory on Lake Superior. 

—Red Cliff and Bad River operate exclusively in Wisconsin waters of Lake Superior and directly negotiate terms under the Lake Superior Fishing Agreement, 

first signed in 1981, with the State of Wisconsin. Subsequent renditions of the 

Agreement occurred in 1991, 1995, and 2005; a 2016 Agreement is currently 

being negotiated. 

—U.S. District Court dismissed allegations on Red Cliff commercial fishermen in 

U.S. v. Peterson, 82CR7OU (1984),4 in light of the regulatory provisions contained in the 1981 Lake Superior Fishing Agreement. The Federal decision relied upon the standing Agreement with the State in dismissing the case. 

—Fish stock assessments, on-board harvest monitoring and conservation enforcement are the foundation of the Lake Superior Co-Management program. These 

activities are not supported through the assistance of an intertribal agency in 

Wisconsin waters. 

—History and tradition are important to us: 

The Red Cliff Reservation, A third member of the La Pointe Agency Group, 

is about 24 miles by rail from Ashland. It contains 191 Indians, a particularly 

industrious and deserving lot of people. A good many of the Red Cliff Indians 

obtain their chief employment at the Bayfield sawmills, and many others have 

until recently earned a fair subsistence by fishing with nets in the bay along 

the border of the reservation. Their fish they would pack and ship in kegs to 
238 

the market, working on a cooperative system. Now the State of Wisconsin has 

adopted laws which forbid their net fishery, although the Treaty of 1854 between the Tribe and the United States Government guarantees them this privilege. They cannot understand the conflict of State laws with Federal treaties, 

and still consider themselves entitled to fish, though they have made no attempt to assert their rights aggressively since some of the fishermen were arrested by the State authorities. 

— 28th Annual Report of the Board of Indian commissioners, 1896. 

But modern tribal fisheries require conscientious, data-driven management. 

Please support us. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RESTORE AMERICA’S ESTUARIES

Restore America’s Estuaries is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that has 

been working since 1995 to restore our Nation’s greatest estuaries. Our mission is 

to restore and protect estuaries as essential resources for our Nation. Restore America’s Estuaries is an alliance of community-based coastal conservation organizations 

across the Nation that protect and restore coastal and estuarine habitat. Our member organizations include: American Littoral Society, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 

Coalition to Restore Coastal Louisiana, Save the Sound—a program of the Connecticut Fund for the Environment, Galveston Bay Foundation, North Carolina 

Coastal Federation, EarthCorps, Save The Bay—San Francisco, Save the Bay—Narragansett Bay, and Tampa Bay Watch. Collectively, we represent over 250,000 

members nationwide. 

As you develop the fiscal year 2017 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies 

appropriations bill, Restore America’s Estuaries and our members encourage you to 

provide the following funding levels within the Department of Interior, U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA) for core programs that significantly support coastal community and ecosystem resilience and local economies: 

—$15 million for USFWS Coastal Program 

(Interior: USFWS: Resource Management: Habitat Conservation: Coastal Program) 

—$27.2 million for USEPA National Estuary Program 

(USEPA: Water: Ecosystems: National Estuary Program/Coastal Waterways) 

These non-regulatory investments strengthen and revitalize America’s coastal 

communities by protecting and restoring habitat, improving local water quality, and 

enhancing resilience. Healthy coastlines protect communities from flood damage and 

extreme weather, improve commercial fisheries, safeguard vital infrastructure, and 

support tourism and recreational opportunities. 

USFWS COASTAL PROGRAM

The Coastal Program (CP) is a voluntary, incentive-based program that provides 

technical and financial assistance to coastal communities and landowners to protect 

and restore fish and wildlife habitat on public and private lands in 24 priority coastal ecosystems throughout the United States, including the Great Lakes. The Coastal 

Program works collaboratively within the USFWS to coordinate strategic priorities 

and make landscape-scale progress with other Federal, State, local, and non-governmental partners and private landowners. Since 1985, the Coastal Program has: 

—Partnered with more than 5,000 Federal, tribal, State, and local agencies, nongovernmental organizations, corporations, and private landowners. 

—Restored 546,390 acres of wetland and upland habitat and 2,590 miles of stream 

habitat. 

—Protected more than 2.1 million acres of coastal habitat. 

—Provided technical assistance to a diverse range of conservation partners. 

Our coastal communities and ecosystems are on the front lines of changing coastal 

conditions and increasing extreme weather. Support for the USFWS Coastal Program helps interested communities and partners address the new set of challenges 

facing coastal communities. The Coastal Program is the USFWS’s key conservation 

tool delivering on-the-ground habitat restoration and technical assistance. Despite 

the Program’s relatively small cost, it has a tremendous impact. In 2015 alone, the 

Coastal Program, along with 455 local partners, completed 266 projects restoring or 

protecting more than 90,000 acres of wetlands and uplands and 194 miles of stream 

habitat. A recent estimate by USFWS Coastal Program staff shows that the pro-
239 

gram leverages, on average, $8 non-Federal dollars for every Federal dollar spent. 

This makes the Coastal Program one of the most cost-effective habitat restoration 

programs within the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

The Coastal Program stimulates local economies by supporting jobs necessary to 

deliver habitat conservation projects, including environmental consultants, engineers, construction workers, surveyors, assessors, and nursery and landscape workers. These jobs generate indirect economic activities that benefit local hotels, restaurants, stores, and gas stations. In total, the Coastal Program estimates that the 

average project supports 60 jobs and stimulates 40 businesses resulting in nearly 

13 dollars in economic returns for each dollar of Federal investment. Additionally, 

restoration jobs cannot be outsourced and $0.90 of every dollar spent on restoration 

stays within the State. In Puget Sound, Washington, the Coastal Program invested $20,000 to support a 

project to clean up and remove old and abandoned fishing gear from the water, resulting in a direct economic impact to the local economy of $51,000. Lost and abandoned fishing gear like nets, lines, crab and shrimp traps pose many problems for 

people, fish and marine animals. Each year, derelict crab pots are estimated to trap 

and kill 372,000 Dungeness crabs, resulting in losses to the fishery of $1.2 million— 

30–40 percent of the value of the annual commercial catch of Dungeness crab in 

Puget Sound. This project removed 84 gillnets—preventing the loss of approximately 

370,000 crabs and returning an estimated value of well over $1.5 million to the crab 

fishery alone. 

In San Diego Bay, California, the Coastal Program provided funding and technical 

assistance to project partners to restore 300 acres of wetland, mudflat, and upland 

habitat to benefit more than 90 species of resident and migratory birds. Project 

partners transformed highly degraded salt ponds into lush habitat by breaching levees, regrading soils, and planting native vegetation. Just days after the completion 

of the project, tens of thousands of birds descended on the newly-restored habitat 

to rest, roost, and feed. Not only did this project restore a ‘‘Globally Important Bird 

Area,’’ as designated by the American Bird Conservancy, but it also created 130 jobs 

and generated $13.4 million for the local economy. At recent funding levels of approximately $13.3 million, the Coastal Program is 

able to provide technical assistance and support to partners, but can only provide 

limited project dollars. A modest increase over the President’s budget request would 

help the Coastal Program increase their capacity to leverage willing and interested 

partners to deliver highly-effective habitat conservation and restoration programs 

that prevent Federal listing of species, promote species recovery, enhance coastal resilience, and boost local economies. 

Restore America’s Estuaries urges your continued support and funding for the USFWS Coastal Program and asks that you provide $15 million for fiscal year 2017. 

USEPA NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM

The National Estuary Program (NEP) is a non-regulatory network of voluntary 

community-based programs that safeguards the health of important coastal ecosystems across the country. The program utilizes a consensus-building process to 

identify goals, objectives, and actions that reflect local environmental and economic 

priorities. 

Currently there are 28 estuaries located along the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific 

coasts and in Puerto Rico that have been designated as estuaries of national significance. Each NEP focuses its work within a particular place or boundary, called a 

study area, which includes the estuary and surrounding watershed. 

Each National Estuary Program demonstrates real environmental results through 

on-the-ground habitat restoration and protection. Their efforts reflect local environmental and economic priorities and involve the community as equal partners 

throughout the decisionmaking process. Collectively, NEPs have restored and protected more than 1.5 million acres of land since 2000. 

Restore America’s Estuaries urges your continued support of the National Estuary 

Program and asks that you provide $27.2 million for USEPA National Estuary Program/Coastal Waterways. Within this amount for fiscal year 2017, no less than 

$600,000 should be directed to each of the 28 NEPs in the field. 

CONCLUSION

Restore America’s Estuaries greatly appreciates the support this subcommittee 

has provided in the past for these important programs. These programs effectively 

accomplish on-the-ground restoration work which results in major benefits: 

1. Economic Growth and Jobs.—Coastal habitat restoration creates between 17 

and 33 direct jobs for each million dollars invested, depending on the type of 
240 

restoration. That is more than twice as many jobs as the oil and gas sector and 

road construction industries combined. The restored area supports increased 

tourism and valuable ecosystem services, including flood mitigation, shoreline 

protection, and enhanced fisheries, among others. 

2. Leveraging Private Funding.—In 2015, Federal investment in the USFWS 

Coastal Program leveraged non-Federal dollars at a ratio of 34 to 1. The NEPs 

leveraged non-Federal dollars at a ratio of 15 to 1. In a time of shrinking resources, these are rates of return we cannot afford to ignore. 

3. Resiliency.—Restoring coastal wetlands knocks down storm waves and reduces 

devastating storm surges before they reach the shore, protecting lives, property, and vital infrastructure for the nearly 40 percent of Americans that live 

in coastal communities. 

We greatly appreciate you taking our requests into consideration as you move forward in the fiscal year 2017 appropriations process. We stand ready to work with 

you and your staff to ensure the health of our Nation’s estuaries and coasts. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE RIVERSIDE-SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY INDIAN HEALTH, 

INC. 

My name is Brandie Miranda Greany and I am a member of the Pechanga Band 

of Luiseno Indians and the Treasurer of Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian 

Health, Inc. Thank you for the opportunity to submit outside written testimony concerning the 2017 appropriations for the Indian Health Service. 

Riverside-San Bernardino County Indian Health is a consortium of nine tribes located in Riverside and San Bernardino counties. Our member tribes are the 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians, the Cahuilla Band of Indians, the Santa Rosa 

Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Ramona Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Soboba Band 

of Luiseno Indians, the Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians, the Agua-Caliente 

Band of Cahuilla Indians, the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, and the San 

Manuel Band of Mission Indians. We operate several health centers under a selfgovernance compact with the Indian Health Service and we are very proud of the 

vast array of services offered at our clinics, including medical, dental, optical, behavioral health, pharmacy, laboratory, environmental health, community health representative, and nutrition services. 

We serve over 15,000 Native Americans and 3,000 related family members, and 

experience over 100,000 patient visits each year. Our service area includes two of 

the largest counties in the contiguous United States, so our member tribes have 

joined together to develop a way to economically and efficiently provide healthcare 

services for our people. We also provide healthcare for three other local tribes: the 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians, the Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, 

and the Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians. Almost two-thirds of our patients come 

either from these three local tribes or from members of other non-consortium tribes 

who reside in our two-county service area. 

Given the number of patients we treat, our IHS dollars can only go so far. But 

we are thankful for the support of Congress and the funding provided to ensure our 

people are healthy. We were very appreciative that Congress heard our voices last 

year, and we hope that the subcommittee will continue to pressure IHS to honor 

the Government’s trust responsibility to provide culturally competent and high-quality healthcare for Native Americans. 

MANDATORY CSC APPROPRIATIONS

I want to take this opportunity to express my sincerest gratitude for this subcommittee’s heroic work to achieve full funding for our compact with IHS. We were 

only able to find a path forward on this contentious issue because of the subcommittee’s unrelenting determination to make full funding of Contract Support Costs 

(CSCs) a key priority in its work to uphold the trust responsibility and contractual 

obligations of the United States to our Native Nations. 

The subcommittee heard our request and included critical language moving CSC 

to a separate account and providing uncapped appropriations to ensure that our contracts would be fully honored. The subcommittee’s action eliminates the threat from 

IHS—a threat realized in fiscal year 2015—to cut direct care services in order to 

fully honor our contracts. Fortunately, this subcommittee took the steps necessary 

to protect tribal programs and services from this threat, and we agree with the subcommittee’s approach for dealing with this issue. 

There is one aspect of the administration’s new CSC language which we hope will 

be changed moving forward. At the agency’s insistence, a proviso was included 
241 

which addresses the tracking of unspent CSC funds. Unintentionally, this proviso 

will lead to serious problems, and it should be removed. First, it creates an extremely complicated accounting for those funds, with no value to the Federal Government, the taxpayer, or the tribes. Second, existing law (namely, the Indian SelfDetermination Act of 1975) already addresses how to account for unspent funds and 

commands that such funds must be spent in the next year to carry out the compact 

or contract. Existing law has worked well for over 40 years, and we therefore strongly urge that the subcommittee remove this provision in fiscal year 2017 and future 

years. 

Lastly we respectfully request that the Committee direct the Secretary of Health 

and Human Services to promptly file her annual CSC shortfall reports. Reports 

have not been filed for fiscal year 2012–2015, and the last data published for fiscal 

year 2011 is over 5 years old. 

RPMS COMPUTER SYSTEM

For decades, the Indian Health Service has utilized the Resource and Patient 

Management System (RPMS) computer system as both a practice management software and an electronic health record (EHR). It serves as the patient registration, 

scheduling, healthcare record, and population management tool, and also as the 

third party billing system. Although IT technology has rapidly transformed 

healthcare in the United States, the IHS RPMS system has failed to keep up. The 

Federal Government has invested billions to incentivize hospitals and providers to 

digitize health records, but IHS’s RPMS computer system struggles to develop and 

make products available that are functional. The roll out to the users and the utility 

of the RPMS system lags far behind systems found in the private sector. 

In short, IHS’s RPMS system is falling far behind standard healthcare industry 

requirements. It has always been cumbersome, but now is so difficult to use that 

our doctors are unable to document their services accurately, timely, or completely. 

This is a red flag that the patients and providers who depend on the IHS system 

of care are in serious jeopardy. 

IHS leadership insists that the RPMS shortcomings are caused by a lack of resources. This may be true. After all, the IHS budget for research and development 

is zero, while only $20 million was requested for IHS IT upgrades in 2017. The VA 

has 2,000 computer programmers, or more than 16 times the number of IHS programmers, compared to IHS’s 120 computer programmers. Worse yet, IHS has a 3- 

year backlog for user requests which grows every year. Simply stated, IHS has not 

invested adequate resources into the RPMS system and this failure is adversely impacting the ability of the tribes to provide healthcare services to Native Americans. 

The most recent disaster related to this issue was the failed implementation of 

the new ICD–10 codes that were to be in place last October 1, 2015. IHS was unprepared with the RPMS computer system and its roll out to tribes. Even more frustrating for the tribes is that IHS seems to be unable to correct these problems for 

many years to come. IHS states that it does not have the resources to make these 

changes within the next few years, yet it doesn’t ask Congress for the necessary 

help to remedy the problem. This leaves the tribes in an untenable position. 

Today, tribes are left to their own solutions, which includes considering outside 

vendors to purchase an Electronic Health Record system that includes Patient 

Records, Dental, Optical, Pharmacy, Behavioral Health Services, Registration, Coding, and Billing. But these EHR software systems are very expensive, and most 

Tribes simply do not have the financial resources needed to purchase them. Most 

tribes have therefore been left with no choice but to keep the IHS RPMS computer 

system, despite its failure to properly transition to the required ICD–10 conversion. 

Overall, the impact to patient care is unacceptable, and the impact to program 

operations and the distribution of costs is untenable. Rather than invest in software 

solutions that would allow the programs to operate efficiently, the poorly designed 

RPMS system multiplies the cost of delivering healthcare. While America’s 

healthcare industry is massively improving the functionality of EHR systems, IHS 

lags far behind and patient care is suffering. 

We recommend that this subcommittee direct IHS to purchase an outside Electronic Health Record (EHR) system that will bring the tribes into the 21st Century 

for medical recordkeeping. IHS must stop throwing good money into an old, outdated RPMS system. IHS could spend millions to try to upgrade the RPMS over the 

next few years, but that effort is doomed to fail because the RPMS platform is simply ill-suited to today’s demands. The far less costly option is to direct IHS to do 

an open market purchase of a modern-day EHR system. We recommend that the 

subcommittee direct that IHS provide an estimate and a spending plan for what it 

would cost to purchase and install such an EHR system within 90 days of enact-
242 

ment of the fiscal year 2017 appropriations measure and to include a funding request in the fiscal year 2018 budget for the agency. 

Thank you for affording us the opportunity to submit written testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY C. ROBINSON

Dear Senators: 

As an American citizen and taxpayer, I strongly oppose the BLM’s proposal to 

conduct dangerous sterilization experiments on wild mares at the Wild Horse Corral 

Facility in Hines. According to the Environmental Assessment (EA), the BLM is deciding whether or not to proceed with one or more of the proposed sterilization procedures. The weight of scientific evidence and public opinion clearly supports a BLM 

decision NOT to proceed with any of these sterilization procedures. 

The sterilization procedures that BLM is proposing to conduct on federally protected wild mares are dangerous, costly and impractical for use in the field, due to 

the serious health risks they pose to the horses and their unborn foals, and also 

due to the great expense of purchasing the equipment and training the number of 

veterinarians necessary to implement these procedures on the range. 

It makes no sense to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on these risky invasive 

experiments when proven, humane, and relatively inexpensive fertility control technology in the form of the PZP vaccine is readily available but vastly underutilized 

by the BLM. 

The EA is completely inadequate in analyzing the impacts of these experimental 

procedures on mares. In addition, the BLM has deliberately avoided public opposition to this controversial and grotesque research proposal by skipping the scoping 

stage of the environmental analysis process. As a result, the public has been deprived of the opportunity to provide input into the impacts of and alternatives to 

these procedures that must be analyzed under the rules of the National Environmental Policy Act. 

1. Ovariectomy via Colposcopy 

This is an outdated and archaic procedure that has been supplanted by more modern laparoscopic surgery. The EA fails to analyze the impacts of and alternatives 

to this procedure to mares and never once mentions the availability of more modern 

techniques! This proposed sterilization experiment is an intra-vaginal complex surgical procedure, which is hardly ever performed in domestic horses (never mind in 

wild ones), due to its inherently dangerous risks. 

—The blind nature of this surgery increases the risk of intra-abdominal hemorrhage, but the EA never even addresses this issue or the availability of more 

modern laparoscopic techniques that allow the surgeon to visualize the abdominal structures. 

—The lack of a sterile environment subjects the mares to a high risk of infection, 

something that is ignored by the EA. 

—The procedure carries with it a significant risk of hemorrhage and evisceration 

(protrusion of the intestines through the surgical incision), which is why it requires strict follow-up care when used in domestic horses, including pain relief 

and 4-7 days of stall rest, the first 48 hours of which is spent in crossties to 

prevent the mare from lying down. It is not possible to provide this required 

post-operative care to wild mares, yet the EA minimizes the impacts of this fact, 

citing the opinion of an un-named veterinarian, instead of the published science 

and National Research Council review, which clearly indicate the risks and impacts of this outdated procedure on wild mares. 

—The procedure will cause mares in early stages of pregnancy to abort their 

fetuses and may cause loss of pregnancy for mares in the mid-stage of pregnancy as well. This is unacceptable. 

This pursuit of ovariectomy research is directly counter to the recommendations 

of the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council (NRC) in its 2013 

report, ‘‘Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way 

Forward.’’ That NRC report concluded that: ‘‘The possibility that ovariectomy may 

be followed by prolonged bleeding or peritoneal infection makes it inadvisable for 

field application.’’ 

2. Minimally Invasive Sterilization Techniques 

The other sterilization procedures that BLM proposes to research, while less 

invasive than ovariectomy, should also be abandoned due to the inability to provide 

post-operative care and the impracticality of implementing these procedures—which 

have never before been done in wild or domestic horses—on a broad scale in a field 
243 

setting. The EA fails to analyze the impacts of precedent-setting procedures that 

have never before been performed in horses, and as well as the inability to provide 

required post-operative care. The EA also omits analysis of the economic impacts 

and practicalities of implementing these procedures on the range. 

In proceeding with these experiments, the BLM has ignored the NRC recommendation that these techniques should first be perfected in domestic mares, who 

can be easily handled and will be accessible for close monitoring and post-operative 

care, before attempting them in wild horses. 

It is unconscionable that the BLM is proceeding with these draconian experiments 

that endanger the lives of the un-consenting equine subjects and their unborn foals, 

particularly when a proven non-invasive and safe fertility control method exists in 

the readily available PZP birth control vaccine. Instead of wasting millions of tax 

dollars to fund experiments on inhumane and impractical sterilization experiments, 

the agency should instead focus resources on vaccinating sufficient numbers of 

mares with the PZP fertility control vaccine, which is documented through 30 years 

of experience and published science, to be safe, effective, cost-effective and successful in managing wild horse populations. 

Again, as a taxpayer and wild horse lover, I am outraged that the BLM is even 

considering pursuing such inhumane, barbaric and wasteful experimentation on 

wild horses and I find the BLM’s Environmental Analysis of its impacts to be woefully inadequate. As a result, I strongly urge the BLM to abandon these proposed 

experiments in favor of using proven, more cost-effective and humane fertility control methods. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SAC AND FOX NATION

On behalf of the Sac and Fox Nation thank you for the opportunity to present 

our requests for the fiscal year 2017 budgets for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), 

the Indian Health Service (IHS), and for Tribal Environmental Funding. The Sac 

and Fox Nation is home of Jim Thorpe, one of the most versatile athletes of modern 

sports who earned Olympic gold medals for the 1912 pentathlon and decathlon. 

The Nation supports and appreciates the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget proposal for an overall increase of 5 percent for BIA over the fiscal year 2016 enacted 

level to provide for a total of $2.9 billion dollars. In turn, the Indian Health Service 

(IHS) would receive a little more than a 13 percent increase bringing the total IHS 

budget up to $5.2 billion dollars. 

Moreover, It is extremely important to express our support of the President’s 

treatment of Contract Support Costs (CSC) as it relates to tribal nations. The President’s budget provides for a total of $278 million for the BIA and $800 million for 

the IHS to fully fund the contract support costs incurred by government contacts. 

This is a good step in the right direction and provides a substantial increase of $87 

million in total over the 2016 appropriations. This increase is critical to meet the 

demand for the full payment of contract support costs for all of the Nations who 

are owed a trust responsibility by the United States. 

In general, all tribal programs including BIA and IHS line items should be exempt from any budget recessions and discretionary funding budget reductions. Further, the Nation is extremely concerned about the consequences of the 2013 sequestration and similar future reductions to tribal program funding. We strongly urge 

Congress to fully restore sequestration cuts from fiscal year 2013 since it threatens 

the trust responsibility and reduces portions of the budget that are not major contributors to the deficit. 

TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUESTS 

I. NATIONAL REQUESTS—BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

1. Authorize mandatory funding and fully fund Contract Support Costs (CSC).— 

The President’s budget request for contract support costs is $278.0 million, providing a dramatic increase from the fiscal year 2017 enacted level. This 

amount is similar to the $277 million recommended in fiscal year 2016 President’s budget which was not fully enacted. The second piece of this ongoing 

budget proposal is to request that strong consideration and support be given 

to the long term proposal made by the President’s budget which would, beginning in 2018, reclassify contract support costs as mandatory funding separated 

from the rest of the appropriations. This proposal was also included in the fiscal year 2016 proposal but has not yet been approved. We strongly urge you 

to consider that proposal and approve what has been presented by the President on this particular issue because Contract Support Costs has been a major 
244 

and ongoing issue for the better part of a decade. It is time to put the issue 

to rest by providing enough funding and creating the mandatory funding classification. 

2. Public Safety and Justice—Law and Order—Detention/Corrections: Fully fund 

all provisions of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 and the Tribal Provisions in the Violence against Women Act Reauthorization.—The Tribal Law and 

Order Act of 2010 and the Violence Against Women Act Reauthorization of 

2014 were substantial and effective pieces of legislations which changed the 

face of tribal courts, tribal justice and tribal jurisdiction. The Sac and Fox Nation is proud to have embraced these significant changes to provide a better 

quality of justice to our jurisdiction. Accordingly, we have enacted the expanded jurisdiction and penalty enhancement provisions into our own laws and 

started a campaign for awareness to help promote reporting of crimes that may 

have a serious effect on our Native Women and Children. However, the funding 

levels for these significant advances have consistently fallen short of the needs. 

Each year, we have an approximate incarceration budget of $12,000. This 

budget is eaten up time and again when a person is convicted because we do 

not have our own facilities or access to Bureau of Prison Facilities to house the 

inmates. Instead, we rely on our county facilities who charge us a rate of $33– 

$78 dollars per day to house a prisoner. At these costs, our annual budget is 

eaten up in a flash. With a lack of funding, we are in the same position we 

were before our abilities were expanded because we cannot house those persons 

we convict. 

Moreover, in putting the provisions of the Violence Against Women Reauthorization of 2014 in place, we now have serious burdens on the tribal justice 

programs which were not originally present. We must provide for bar licensed 

public defenders in any case where a non-indian has come under our jurisdiction. This is both costly and, on occasion, prohibitive to our process because 

we are not funded enough to have a full time public defender on call whenever 

there is a need. A serious increase in funding is required in this arena to help 

ensure that the intent expressed by Congress in enacting these provisions is 

met. Without an increase in funding, there is no hope of these programs succeeding and taking the burden of these prosecutions off the State or U.S. Attorneys. 

3. Restore 2013 Sequestered Cuts ($119 million) to Tribal Program Funding 

4. Office of Self-Governance (OSG)—Provide increased funding to the OSG to fully 

staff the office for the increase in the number of tribes entering Self-Governance. 

II. NATIONAL REQUESTS—INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE 

1. Authorize mandatory funding and fully fund Contract Support Costs (CSC).— 

The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget proposal fully funds the estimated need 

for CSC at $800 million, a significant increase over the levels of funding from 

fiscal year 2016. The estimated increase includes funding for new and expanded contracts and compacts. The budget also requests that CSC be reclassified to a mandatory appropriation beginning in fiscal year 2018. We at the Sac 

and Fox Nation strongly urge you to consider allocating all the requested funds 

in this area and making these appropriations mandatory and separate in the 

future. Our health and the access of our Native People to healthcare is a serious and major concern all around Indian Country. It is always prominent for 

us because we have so many people in rural communities who need greater access to medical care. Fully funding contract support costs and making them 

mandatory serves to take pressure off tribal nations who have a lack of certainty in their medical services when they are not sure if the funding will be 

there or not. When there is certainty, it allows programs like ours to expand 

both services and locations to provide better care within reach of our people. 

2. Restore 2013 Sequestered Cuts ($220 Million) to Tribal Health Services; 

3. ∂$377 million over the fiscal year 2016 President’s proposal budget for IHS 

Mandatory Funding (maintain current services and improve access to 

healthcare).—Mandatories are unavoidable and include medical and general inflation, pay costs, contract support costs, phasing in staff for recently constructed facilities, and population growth. Providing the increase in funding in 

this area is critical to the provision of preventive care and addressing the growing issues tribal nations are having with aging populations and diabetes. We 

also strongly encourage you to consider and approve this increase to provide 

tribal nations with a level of funding that is necessary to maintain care of the 

millions of members who come to our clinics. It is critical to remember that 

we care for the medical needs of these patients from start to finish. Their vision, dental and medical services are seen to with our funds. If they need a 
245 

specialist or surgery for a critical issues, we contract out those services and 

make sure that they are getting what they need and have a continuity of care 

that will give them certainty and improve their quality of life. Funding is critical to meet all the demands in this area; 

4. Restore $6 million to the Office of Tribal Self-Governance (OTSG) to fulfill legal 

requirements under Title V of Public Law 106–260 which increased the responsibilities of OTSG. 

III. NATIONAL REQUEST—ENVIRONMENT ISSUES 

1. Tribal General Assistance Program (GAP).—The Presidents fiscal year 2017 

budget provides for the much needed increase in the GAP Funding. It sets the 

level of funding for this program at $96.4 million from the EPA which is a dramatic increase of $31 million over the fiscal year 2016 funding levels. The EPA 

has decided to enforce a new interpretation of the General Assistance Program 

(GAP) which prohibits tribal nations from using any GAP money from being 

used for labor, handling, sorting, weighting and transportation of waste and 

recyclables. This means that the tribal nations recycling programs are in jeopardy because there will no longer be funds to carry out these functions. These 

programs benefit the tribal complexes but also provide for drop off points for 

members and the community along with special community outreach events 

dealing with e waste and other recyclables. Specifically, we would like to ask 

for a reversal of this interpretation or a line item dedicated to funding recycling departments work to allow these programs to continue. $10,000 would be 

sufficient. 

2. Funding for Tribal Capacity to Regulate by Building Sanitation Facilities.— 

The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget proposal provides that $103 million 

dollars be allocated, through the EPA, to assist tribal nations in building out 

their capacity and infrastructure for health and environmental regulation. This 

money is currently being proposed for the construction of sanitation facilities. 

I bring this up on behalf of the Sac and Fox Nation because we are one of the 

tribes that may be directly affected by this funding. It is desperately needed. 

Currently the SFN is not able to receive a large amount of funding because 

there are not houses located on or around our complex. The reason that homes 

have not been located here is the toxic water which was polluted by oil companies. Our land was used for years by oil companies, like Tenneco, in an unsafe 

manner. Their leakage of chemicals in the ground water made it highly toxic. 

A state that is unlikely to be naturally cleared up for another 100 years. Because of that, our entire complex has to run from water pumps on other pieces 

of property which get transmitted to a water tower. Should our pumps go down 

for any reason, our complex would be completely without water. Moreover, In 

order to build homes on our land, we need to have a waste water treatment 

plan that could service our community. However, the SFN is subject the ‘‘midnight rider’’ restrictions which force us to go through the State system and allows the State to monitor all of our environmental issues. We would like to ask 

for action on that midnight rider which is a direct attack on our sovereignty 

and for funding to make this treatment plants construction, operation and 

training possible. 

3. Allowing Tribal Nations to Compact with the EPA Under ISDEAA Title VI.— 

Similar to the new legislation allowing tribal nations to compact and directly 

receive funds for transportation, we need to be able to compact for the EPA 

programs and funding with an appropriate compact that would allow us the 

flexibility to put the monies allocated on environmental issues to the best use 

in our areas without interference from the States or the Federal bureaucracies. 

IV. TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUEST—$4.95 Million to Fully Fund Operations of the 

Sac and Fox Nation Juvenile Detention Center (SFNJDC)—Bureau of Indian Affairs—Public Safety and Justice—Office of Justice Services—Detention/Corrections Account 

In 1996, the Sac and Fox Nation Juvenile Detention Center (SFNJDC) opened its 

doors as the first regional juvenile facility specifically designed for American Indians/Alaska Natives, as well as the first juvenile facility developed under Public Law 

100–472, the Self-Governance Demonstration Project Act. 

At that time, the Bureau of Indian Affairs made a commitment to fully fund the 

SFNJDC operations; however this commitment was never fulfilled. Even though the 

Nation continues to receive and use Federal dollars to address the issue of juvenile 

delinquency and detention for tribes in the Southern Plains Region and Eastern 

Oklahoma Region, it has never received sufficient funds to operate the facility at 

its fullest potential. 
246 

Full funding would allow the Nation to provide full operations including (but not 

limited to): 

—Juvenile detention services to the 46 tribes in Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas; 

—Rescue more of our at-risk youth and unserved youth in need of a facility like 

the SFNJDC; 

—Re-establish programs we have lost due to inadequate funding such as: On-site 

Mental Health Counseling; Transitional Living, Vocational Training, Horticulture, Life Skills, Arts and Crafts, Cultural Education and Activities, Spiritual Growth and Learning; 

—Offer job opportunities in an area that is economically depressed; and, 

—Fully staff and expand staff training to address high volume of staff turnover 

which will allow for continuity in operations and service delivery. 

At the fiscal year 2016 Regional Budget Formulation Session, these tribes continue to support and endorse full funding for operation of the SFNJDC and included 

it as a priority in their ‘‘Top 10 Budget Increases’’ for the fiscal year 2016 BIA Budget. 

The current funding level represents only approximately 10 percent of what is 

needed to fully fund the Juvenile Detention Center operations and maintenance. Additional funding in the amount of $4.95 million, over what Sac and Fox already receives in base funding ($508,000), would fully fund the facility at a level to address 

the need of juvenile delinquency in the tristate area and create opportunities for employment for more tribal members. 

The SFNJDC is a 50,000∂ square foot, full service, 24 hour, 60 bed (expandable 

to 120 beds) juvenile detention facility that provides basic detention services to all 

residents utilizing a classification system based on behavioral needs to include special management, medium and minimal security. Our facility was designed to provide programs including behavioral management, alcohol and substance abuse, spiritual and cultural growth and learning, self-esteem, arts and crafts, health and fitness, horticulture, nutrition, life skills, vocational technical training, counseling, 

educational programs and a Transitional Living Center. 

Through a partnership with the local high school, students are afforded an education at the public school level, including a graduation ceremony and issuance of 

a certificate upon successfully achieving the State requirements. Additionally, the 

Sac and Fox Nation has an on-site Justice Center providing Law Enforcement and 

Tribal Court services and the Nation also operates an on-site health clinic which 

provides outstanding medical services that include contract service capabilities for 

optometry, dental and other health-related services. 

The lack of adequate funding from the BIA and decreases in base funding have 

mushroomed into underutilization and erosion of the programs our facility was built 

to offer. Our current funding levels only allow us to provide an alcohol and substance abuse program, some health and fitness activities and a basic education program. We have lost our programs for vocational training, horticulture, life skills, 

arts and crafts, on-site counseling and transitional living. The passage of the 2010 

Tribal Law and Order Act was applauded by the Sac and Fox Nation because we 

saw this as an opportunity for the Federal Government to finally step up to its 

pledge to fully fund the SFNJDC and honor its treaty and trust obligations to our 

people. However, the lack of funding is also impeding the implementation of TLOA! 

In 1996, the SFNJDC was built as a model facility in Indian Country. And nearly 

20 years later there is still a need for such a facility to help our youth return to 

their traditional healing and spiritual ways. As a Self-Governance Tribe we operate 

our tribal government on the premise that we are the best provider of the services 

and know which services are most needed in our communities. We saw the increasing need in the 1990’s for a facility like the SFNJDC and we acted on our instincts 

to help our youth by giving them a place to turn their lives around and the access 

to programs, services and holistic care they needed to recover and heal. Sadly, the 

number of Native American youth, and juveniles overall requiring detention has not 

decreased. The Sac and Fox Nation Juvenile Detention Center was built with the 

same intentions as the Tribal Law and Order Act Long Term Plan to Build and Enhance Tribal Justice Systems today. The SFNJDC has the facility, staffing, ability, 

commitment and capacity to provide superior detention and rehabilitation services 

to Native American youth, as well as any youth in the tristate area in need of our 

services. We do not understand the Federal Government’s desire to fund the construction of more detention facilities while our beds remain empty. 

Thank you for allowing me to submit these requests on these fiscal year 2017 

budgets. 

[This statement was submitted by Hon. Chief Kay Rhoads, Principal Chief.] 
247 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SHOSHONE-PAIUTE TRIBES OF THE DUCK VALLEY

RESERVATION

My name is Lindsey Manning. I am Chairman of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of 

the Duck Valley Indian Reservation. Thank you for inviting outside witness testimony concerning the fiscal year 2017 budget for the BIA, BLM and IHS. The Shoshone-Paiute Tribes are grateful for the Senate appropriations subcommittee’s long 

standing support of Indian tribes and for sharing its understanding of Indian Country with your Senate colleagues. 

The Duck Valley Reservation is a large, rural and very remote reservation that 

straddles the Idaho-Nevada border. It encompasses 450 square miles in Elko County, Nevada and Owyhee County, Idaho. The reservation is 140 miles from Boise, 

Idaho, and 100 miles from Elko, Nevada. Many of our 2,000 tribal members make 

their living as farmers and ranchers, though a number of them are employed by the 

tribes. We assume most duties of the BIA and IHS under self-governance compacts, 

although the BIA continues to provide law enforcement and detention services on 

our reservation. 

In too many instances, however, our success in these areas is largely dependent 

on Federal appropriations which, in turn, determine whether economic and social 

conditions on the Duck Valley Indian Reservation improve or worsen. While we contribute tribal resources to these endeavors as best we can, we look to our Federal 

partner for support. If we fall short in available funding, our members suffer. For 

this reason, we support the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget request for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Indian Health 

Service (IHS). Without sustained growth in these Federal programs, we cannot meet 

the needs of our reservation. We encourage this subcommittee to build on the proposed increases in the President’s budget for these essential tribal programs. 

Our priorities for fiscal year 2017 include: 

1. Increase BIA Road Maintenance Program funds (Eastern Nevada BIA Roads 

Program of the Western Regional Office).—We respectfully ask for at least a $9 million increase in the BIA Road Maintenance Program from within planned increases 

to the Indian Affairs budget so that the BIA Eastern Nevada Agency Roads Department may purchase a road grader, backhoe and 10-wheel dump truck. The 1980’s 

blade road grader has broken down again and needs replacing. Likewise, the 1980’s 

backhoe is also outdated and parts are a challenge to find. The employees are embarrassed to haul the backhoe in for repairs when needed because it is so old and 

worn (40 years old—like the grader). They need a dump truck because they do not 

have one. A modern 10-wheel dump truck is needed. Our region has the largest percentage of BIA-owned roads at 21 percent. The program increase we request will 

help our region tremendously. 

Even the administration acknowledges in its fiscal year 2017 Budget Justification 

that current Road Maintenance Program appropriations allow the BIA and tribes 

to maintain only 16 percent of BIA-owned roads in ‘‘acceptable’’ (fair or better) condition. That leaves no money to purchase equipment or improve the road condition 

of poor and failing public BIA-owned roads. 

The BIA Eastern Nevada Agency covers the roads maintenance need for the 600 

miles of public roads on the Duck Valley Reservation and the road maintenance 

needs on the Goshute Indian Reservation, the South Fork Reservation, Wells Colony, Battle Mountain Colony and the Elko Colony. All these Indian lands and public 

roads are hundreds of mile apart and cover all the area of north eastern Nevada. 

Increased Road Maintenance funding will improve road safety. 

The BIA Eastern Nevada Agency is responsible for the roads of the colonies and 

reservations. The Colonies and South Fork Reservation receive funds from the Agency for tending to maintenance needs as best as possible (only approx. $70,000 total 

for all annually), which is woefully inadequate. The BIA Roads crew is called upon 

to maintain the roads through asphalt and gravel patch work in the summer and 

snow removal in the winter months. This year the blade broke down and is still in 

need of repairs—which are constant. 

2. Increase funding for the BIA Public Safety and Special Initiatives Program.— 

The BIA struggles to provide adequate law enforcement on our remote reservation. 

For that reason, we don’t understand the administration’s proposal to cut Public 

Safety and Justice funding. We need more police and corrections officers, yet the administration proposes only a $9,000 increase for the Indian Police Academy budget 

of $4.8 million. Nor do we understand how a cut of $4 million to the Public Safety 

and Justice programs advances capacity building among tribes to improve law enforcement and tribal justice. We are one of three tribes in a pilot program funded 

under the BIA’s ‘‘Law Enforcement Special Initiatives’’ program. Under this pro-
248 

gram, we receive $250,000 in additional recurring funding to reduce recidivism on 

the Duck Valley Reservation. The Special Initiatives program is essentially funded 

at the same level for fiscal year 2017 as it was for fiscal year 2016. If we are to 

address public safety, we need more police, tribal courts and adequately staffed and 

operated detention centers. 

We further urge the subcommittee to include statutory language to make clear 

that ‘‘Law Enforcement Special Initiatives’’ funds may be used for the purchase or 

lease of temporary trailers or modular units to house personnel associated with law 

enforcement, corrections, probation, tribal courts and other professionals serving 

tribal offenders. For rural communities like Duck Valley, housing is often the 

linchpin to program success. This request will give us the flexibility we need to use 

Special Initiatives funding for housing law enforcement personnel. 

3. Fund the Owyhee Initiative within the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).— 

The Owyhee Initiative is a joint effort by ranchers, recreationalists, county and 

State officials, and the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes to protect, manage and appropriately 

use public lands in Owyhee County, Idaho. In 2009, Congress passed the Omnibus 

Public Land Management Act, Public Law 111–1. Since 2010, we have worked jointly with BLM to protect cultural resources and increase public understanding and 

appreciation of these resources. Increased recreational use and encroachment by 

Boise residents within the Owyhee River Wilderness Area and other Federal lands, 

however, place these resources under stress. Let us help understaffed BLM officials. 

One-time BLM funding a number of years ago allowed us to purchase two Cessna 

planes and ATV equipment and hire one Chief Ranger and a Cultural Resources Director to patrol public lands and report violations of cultural and religious sites to 

BLM officials. We work closely with BLM and Owyhee County officials to coordinate 

compatible recreation use within BLM lands in Owyhee County, especially within 

the wilderness areas where we seek to protect cultural resource sites important to 

our tribes. The Ranger and Director also spot and report wildfires to BLM officials 

before the fires can do great damage to sensitive, remote public lands. 

We seek recurring BLM funds to continue this important work to protect cultural 

sites and establish a Reserve Ranger Program to engage tribal youth in cultural and 

related activities during the summer. The Chief Ranger and Cultural Resources Director are near retirement and it is essential that we hire and train replacement 

staff, including a pilot, to continue their important work for our tribes. We need 

funds to hire an Assistant Director, one adult Tribal Ranger and two part-time 

Youth Rangers, train a qualified applicant as an additional pilot, purchase two more 

ATVs and two camp trailers to permit tribal personnel to remain in the field and 

overhaul the two Cessna planes per FAA regulations. We are currently constructing 

a hanger at the Owyhee Airport to centralize our operation and increase surveillance flights over Owyhee County. We contribute nearly 50 percent of the required 

budget but cannot sustain this important program without Federal support. Our 

plan requires $600,000 to fully fund the above activities. 

We also support the administration’s $1.0 million increase for BLM Cultural Resources Management and other BLM accounts used to manage and protect archaeological and historic properties on public lands. BLM lands contain the remnants 

of campsites, villages, hunting blinds and rock inscriptions that tell the story of the 

Shoshone-Paiute and other tribes. After speaking with Shoshone-Bannock Tribal officials, together with northern tier Nevada tribes (including the Te-Moak, Battle 

Mountain, South Fork and Goshute tribes), we seek BLM funds to form a tribal 

work group to spread best practices for cultural resources management and protection that we have learned over the last 20 years. We would be a good candidate 

for a BLM grant. It would be a wise investment to fund a multi-tribal task force 

to propose and design strategies for on the ground protection of Native American 

cultural resources for the Upper Great Basin and High Plateau of the tri-State area 

of Nevada, Oregon and Idaho. 

4. Telecommunications (fiber optics).—The tribes continue to need fiber infrastructure over five miles for connectivity among Fish, Wildlife & Parks, Tribal Headquarters, Detention Center, Fire Station and the Owyhee Community Health Facility. The health center serves as the Wide Area Network (WAN) hub for the tribes’ 

and health center’s computer network. Connectivity among these facilities and programs would alleviate the long-term monthly recurring cost we pay to an Ethernet 

Circuit provider ($96,000 annually). We require $500,000 in Federal funding to construct new fiber networks and cover construction inspection fees. We do not have 

BIE-funded schools on Duck Valley so our children will not benefit from the administration’s $16.7 million increase to extend broadband to BIE schools. We urge the 

subcommittee to increase appropriations within the BIA and IHS budgets so that 
249 

Duck Valley can improve our telecommunications networks. Education IT is not the 

only program in need of an upgrade. 

5. East Fork Owyhee Salmon Steelhead Recovery and Reintroduction Project.—We 

seek to permanently return Chinook salmon and steelhead trout to Duck Valley 

through an innovative ‘‘trap-and-haul’’ program. Dam construction along the Columbia and Snake Rivers eliminated salmon from our reservation for 87 years. Duck 

Valley is unique in that it supports two major tributaries to the Snake River. In 

2014, we financed a pilot study that found that habitat in the East Fork of the 

Owyhee River supports a summer rearing capacity of between 3,300 and 43,000 juvenile steelhead trout and from 3,600 to 41,000 Chinook salmon. This summer, we 

returned 200 Chinook salmon to Duck Valley and spear fished nearly all of them. 

It was a joyous event to have salmon return to the reservation. With $210,000 in 

funding for the next 3 years we can complete our habitat surveys of the East Fork 

Owyhee River, including obtaining data on non-summer river conditions, as well as 

an assessment of the Bruneau River habitat. 

We propose to transport adult fish from Lower Granite Dam or Hells Canyon Dam 

and release the fish above China Dam into the East Fort Owyhee River to spawn. 

Emigrating juvenile fish would later be captured and released downstream from 

passage carriers on the Snake River to complete their migration to the Pacific 

Ocean. Adult salmon originating from the East Fork Owyhee River would later be 

captured in the lower Snake River and transported upstream. 

We urge the Senate subcommittee to support the President’s $24 million increase 

to the BIA’s Trust-Natural Resources Management program budget, including the 

Tribal Management/Development Program and Fish, Wildlife & Parks program. 

Tribes contract a significant part of the Natural Resources Management funds. An 

increase to the BIA’s budget can help us with this innovative project to return salmon and steelhead trout to the Duck Valley Reservation. 

6. Native Plant Program/Greenhouse.—In cooperation with BLM, the tribes gather, propagate and make available seed and other native plant materials that are indigenous to the region. Through a series of assistance agreements with BLM, we 

built three greenhouses and are growing seedlings (including sagebrush and 

bitterbrush seedlings) for planting on adjacent public lands. This program assists 

BLM and other agencies in their efforts to restore lands damaged by wildfires and 

helps employ tribal members. For fiscal year 2017, we seek funding to build a facility to house equipment to dry, clean and store seed and hire part-time greenhouse 

staff to focus on marketing and finances. We plan to have 80,000 containerized 

grasses and shrub seedlings available for sale, together with willow and other riparian plant cuttings and local vegetables for sale and distribution through our ‘‘Honor 

Our Elders’’ program. We seek Interior Department appropriations of $205,000 over 

the next 5 years to expand our program and be a reliable supplier of native plants 

and seedlings on BLM-managed public lands. 

7. IHS.—We fully support the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget increase of $377 

million to the Indian Health Service (IHS), especially in the area of clinical services, 

including Purchased/Referred Care, Contract Support Costs (CSC) and facilities construction. We also support the administration’s request to shift CSCs to a ‘‘mandatory’’ appropriation but would want to ensure that the shift is permanent in nature. 

We urge the Senate appropriations subcommittee to build on the President’s fiscal 

year 2017 budget request to meet tribal health and safety needs that strengthen our 

community. Thank you for affording the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes the opportunity to 

submit written testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SKOKOMISH TRIBE OF WASHINGTON STATE

The Skokomish Tribe would like to thank the subcommittee for the opportunity 

to present written testimony on the fiscal year 2017 appropriations for the Interior 

Department, Indian Health Service and Environmental Protection Agency. 

The Skokomish Indian Tribe is responsible for providing essential governmental 

services to the residents of the Skokomish Indian Reservation. We are a rural community located at the base of the Olympic Peninsula with a population of over 2,000 

people, including approximately 700 tribal members. The tribe provides services 

through various departments including Tribal Administration, Community Development, Information Services, Early Childhood Education (including Head Start), Education, Health Clinic, Housing, Legal, Natural Resources, Public Safety, Public 

Works, and Tuwaduq Family Services. Adequate Federal funds are critical to the 

tribe’s ability to address the extensive unmet needs of our community. 
250 

I. BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

Law Enforcement.—The Skokomish Department of Public Safety (SDPS) provides 

24/7 law enforcement services for the tribe. SDPS is responsible for patrolling and 

enforcing justice both within the tribe’s 5,300-acre reservation, and throughout the 

tribe’s 2.2 million-acre treaty area where the tribe has treaty-protected hunting, 

fishing and gathering rights. 

Today, 7 officers are available for day-to-day patrol duties. As a result, individual 

officers are spread far too thin over an 8-hour shift and often work alone. During 

the salmon harvest season, SDPS must post officers simultaneously at several on 

and off reservations sites. Some of these sites require multiple officers. This taxes 

staffing levels dramatically and exposes both community members in need of assistance and SDPS officers to increased risks of harm. Unfortunately, this is a daily 

reality for SDPS officers. To meet mandated responsibilities, we must increase staffing. Vacancies due to illness, training and other leave continue to force the Chief 

of Police to respond to calls for service and to fill patrol shifts. A very active Community Policing program suffers as budget limitations severely restrict overtime and 

officer availability. With the limited amount we receive as a self-governance tribe, 

we have to use tribal funds to hire the 6 officers we use for regular patrol and natural resource enforcement. 

Thus, the tribe urges the subcommittee to appropriate additional funding for 

criminal investigations and police services. The BIA has requested essentially level 

funding in this program when the need throughout Indian Country is far greater. 

Tribal Courts.—We are deeply concerned that the BIA has proposed an $8.2 million cut in tribal court funding for tribes in Public Law 280 States. For too long the 

BIA failed to provide funding to tribes in Public Law 280 States and we suffered 

from a lack judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys and probations officers. Last year, 

Congress recognized this deficiency and provided $10 million for the first time to 

address our need. We urge Congress to maintain this funding level in fiscal year 

2017. With regard to the fiscal year 2016 funding, we are concerned that the BIA 

has yet to engage in consultation with tribes as to how this funding will be allocated. We have heard that one proposal the BIA is considering is to use this funding 

to build capacity within the BIA. We would urge the subcommittee to tell the BIA 

to develop a plan to allocate the fiscal year 2016 funds to a greater number of tribes 

and not keep it for itself. 

The Skokomish Tribal Court handles several different kinds of cases. These include Civil, Criminal and Indian Child Welfare cases. The tribal court distinguishes 

four kinds of criminal cases: Juvenile, Fishing, Traffic and other criminal cases. As 

of January 1, 2015, there were 11 open Juvenile Criminal cases, 51 open Criminal 

Traffic cases, 65 open fishing cases, and 68 open General Criminal cases. Indian 

Child Welfare cases include Child in Need of Care cases and Guardianships (longterm). In February 2016, the tribe passed revisions to the ICW ordinance and 

passed a new School Attendance ordinance. The school attendance ordinance focuses 

on efforts to encourage school attendance and enforce mandatory attendance requirements. The new ordinance includes provisions to bring matters to tribal court 

for enforcement. This means more cases will be filed in tribal court. As of January 

1, 2016, the tribal court has 31 active Child in Need of Care cases and 53 active 

Dependency cases. 

Natural Resources.—We strongly support the President’s proposal for funding 

Trust-Natural Resources Management programs. Increased funding to foster sustainable stewardship and development of natural resources and support fishing, 

hunting and gathering rights on and off-reservation is essential to our people who 

depend on natural resources for their livelihood. 

Fish hatchery maintenance and fish hatchery operations funds are invaluable for 

supporting the Federal Government’s investment in tribal hatcheries. Most tribal 

hatcheries are underfunded and each year brings more decay to the facilities. Adequate funding for hatchery maintenance is imperative to prevent these important 

pieces of the salmon restoration puzzle from crumbling away. Because of habitat destruction, the only reason we continue to have salmon for treaty-harvest activities 

is through the operation of salmon hatcheries. Congress cannot allow the main pillar of this all important treaty right to take a reduction in funding. We urge Congress to increase funding for this critical tribal program. 

A few years ago the tribe was able to cobble together a wildlife program consisting 

of one biologist and one technician. The program is partially funded by Timber, 

Fish, and Wildlife funds of about $41,000, with the tribe scratching to find the remaining $82,000. Wildlife grants are few and far between because the focus is so 

much on salmon. We obviously cannot reduce salmon funding; rather, the United 

States must be less myopic and realize that tribes also need wildlife program funds 
251 

not only to support biologists, but additional funding is required to dedicated wildlife enforcement officers who will not only enforce the tribes’ regulations, but ensure 

that poaching of the wildlife resources does not occur from outside entities who 

sometimes fail to recognize tribal treaty rights. We request additional funds for 

tribes in the Stevens Treaty Areas to have a base wildlife program funding in the 

amount of $240,000. Without a more robust program, the wildlife populations will 

continue to decline. 

The tribe has been under attack by shellfish growers who blatantly steal the treaty-protected oyster and clam resources in Hood Canal. It is imperative that the Federal Government provide monetary support so the tribe may increase its enforcement presence and seek reparations though the courts. As with wildlife, shellfish 

issues are often overlooked because of the popularity of salmon, but the availability 

of this equally important resource to the tribe is dwindling and action must be 

taken now to prevent a further decline. We suggest an increase to allow for each 

‘‘Bolt’’ tribe an additional $250,000 for shellfish management and rights protection 

in fiscal year 2017. This would allow for additional population surveyors, harvest 

monitors, and enforcement officers. 

II. INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE

The Skokomish Tribe supports the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget proposal for an overall funding increase of $402 million for the Indian Health Service. We support the increase of $82 million for contract support costs. This is a major victory 

for tribes and the support of the Congress and administration is greatly appreciated. 

The next step is to adopt a permanent funding policy that is not overly complex and 

burdensome for tribes. 

We operate a small ambulatory health program with a staff of 28 people. As a 

tribally run clinic, we provide direct care services as well as purchased/referred care, 

formerly known as contract healthcare. Our health program integrates medical, dental, and behavioral health services (mental health and substance use disorder) and 

we are therefore very supportive of the $21.4 million request to support the integration of these services. We have identified a need to support the full implementation 

of Electronic Health Records (EHR) as part of this effort and hope these funds will 

support that endeavor. This year we will begin to provide some mental health services using the Indian Health Service’s Tele-Behavioral Health Center of Excellence 

and are glad to see the continued funding for this program. 

We fully support the budget’s request of $48 million increase for Purchased and 

Referred Care. For the current fiscal year, Congress was not able to increase funding for the program and now we are forced to reduce referrals due to medical inflation costs. 

We are pleased to see the funding increase ($15 million) under the Gen-I (Generation Indigenous) initiative with increased funding for youth substance abuse and 

suicide prevention. We continue to see the effects of heroin use and opioid abuse 

in all ages at an alarming rate. The Skokomish Tribe struggles to find the resources 

to adequately address the treatment and long term needs of those members struggling with addiction. We see the need for more long term treatment facilities to address the needs of individuals who can benefit from such treatment programs so 

that they may continue their journey of wellness far beyond the current 30 to 45 

day in-patient treatment process. This short-term stay is often not adequate time 

to be healed from addiction and our tribal members often return to the community 

only to re-establish their old habits and slip back into addiction. If the tribe is to 

reduce recidivism and spare tribal youth from witnessing self-destructive behavior, 

Congress must provide greater resources to programs with a proven track record of 

success. 

We support the small ambulatory facility increase of $10 million since this is the 

only IHS funding that Northwest Tribes have access to due to the current facilities 

priority system that favors larger health programs. 

III. TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROGRAMS

In 1995, Congress began encouraging tribes to assume historic preservation responsibilities as part of self-determination. These programs conserve fragile places, 

objects and traditions crucial to tribal culture, history and sovereignty. As was envisioned by Congress, more tribes qualify for funding every year. Paradoxically, the 

more successful the program becomes, the less each tribe receives to maintain professional services, ultimately crippling individual tribal programs. Interior anticipates there will be 155 tribes operating the program in fiscal year 2017 with each 

tribe receiving less than $55,000. This amount is barely enough to fund one position. 

We support the $2 million proposed increase for this important program. 
252 

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

We concur with the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) and the request to permanently lift the funding cap on the Clean Water State Revolving Fund 

Tribal Set-Aside for wastewater facilities. The Skokomish Tribe needs approximately $12 million to fully build our core reservation wastewater plant which will 

service approximately 85 percent of the on-reservation housing. The tribe has had 

to put on hold design of the Core Reservation Wastewater Treatment plant until we 

can identify possible funding sources. 

V. CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS—BIA AND HIS

We fully support a permanent, indefinite appropriation for contract support costs 

that ensures full funding for contract support costs without the reduction of direct 

services to any tribe. 

VI. GENERATION INDIGENOUS

We have placed a high emphasis on our youth and their education. Through collaborative efforts by our departments and with other tribes, we have been able to 

sponsor culture camps, sports and leadership camps, and other positive activities 

that allow our youth to experience various activities. We are proud that this year 

we have 13 tribal and community members who are working steadfastly to graduate 

from our local high schools while being active in extra-curricular activities. We support the White House initiative to improve the lives of Native Youth who are our 

future. 

In 2008, the National Congress of American Indians, the National Indian Health 

Board, the National Indian Education Association, the National Indian Child Welfare Association, and the National Council of Urban Indian Health created a joint 

policy initiative. The initiative proposed specific recommendations to improve the social, emotional, mental, physical, and economic health of children and youth, allowing them to achieve their learning and developmental potential. Using the First 

Kids 1st strategies and recommendations, the tribe has put together a workgroup 

to identify areas where programs can assist tribal families. The workgroup provides 

data and ideas to the tribe’s grants writers to research possible funding sources to 

implement new programs to help families and youth. Thank you for affording the 

Skokomish Tribe the opportunity to submit written testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS

The Society of American Foresters (SAF), with 12,000 professionals representing 

all disciplines in the forestry profession, promotes science-based, sustainable management and stewardship of the Nation’s public and private forests. SAF appreciates this opportunity to submit written public testimony on fiscal year 2017 appropriations because sufficient funding for the USDA Forest Service (USFS) and the 

Department of Interior (DOI) is vital to conserving and improving the health and 

productivity of our Nation’s forests. 

The American public relies on the 751 million acres of public and private forests 

in the United States to provide clean and abundant air and water, forest products, 

fish and wildlife habitat, recreational opportunities, forage and range resources, energy, and scenic beauty. Managing these legacy resources for multiple uses and important ecosystem services is increasingly difficult with the unprecedented threats 

posed by wildfire, drought, insects, disease, and invasive species. Maintaining a balance demands that land managers and partner organizations work together to identify innovative ways to maximize values and improve the health of our forests. 

SAF’s priorities in the fiscal year 2017 budget process impact a range of programs 

within USFS and DOI. Recognizing fiscal constraints, these requests will assist forest managers in sustaining our Nation’s forests and providing a multitude of benefits for generations to come. 

SAF TOP PRIORITIES

1. Adopt a long-term solution to wildfire suppression funding that: (1) allows access to disaster funding; (2) minimizes budget transfers; and (3) addresses the 

compounding erosion of agency budgets over time, with the goal of reinvesting 

in key programs that would restore forests to healthier conditions. 

2. Increase funding levels for USFS Forest and Rangeland Research to no less 

than $303 million, with no less than $83 million for the Forest Inventory and 

Analysis Program. 
253 

3. Support Bureau of Land Management Public Domain Forestry and Oregon & 

California Railroad Grant Lands funding levels at no less than $10 million and 

$113.7 million, respectively. 

SAF is the premier national scientific and educational organization representing 

forestry and related natural resources professionals in the United States. Founded 

in 1900 by Gifford Pinchot, SAF is the largest professional society for foresters in 

the world. Our members include public and private sector natural resource professionals, researchers, CEOs, administrators, educators, and students. Just as forests 

are fundamental to our Nation, so too are the professionals who study, manage, and 

protect these precious resources. SAF is eager to work with Congress, Federal agencies, and partners to identify reasonable solutions to increase the pace and scale of 

management on Federal lands, find new ways to work with private landowners, 

keep forests as forests, incentivize active management, and deliver practical innovations to meet future challenges and market demands. 

SAF is pleased with the administration’s continued commitment to increasing the 

pace and scale of management on Federal lands with a USFS harvest target of 3.2 

billion board feet for fiscal year 2017. However, with up to 82 million acres in the 

National Forest System (NFS) still in need of restoration, SAF urges this subcommittee to encourage the agency to use all available tools to implement more 

projects on Federal lands. USFS can work with rural communities, partners, and 

industry through collaboratives and other partnerships to meet management goals 

outlined in forest plans and possibly exceed expectations. New authorizations in the 

2014 Farm Bill have the potential to facilitate quicker responses to areas devastated 

by insects and disease, expand the use of Stewardship Contracting, and take advantage of Good Neighbor Authority and other mechanisms that work across boundaries to achieve shared objectives. In addition, increased investments in NFS Forest 

Products, Capital Improvement and Maintenance, and the Collaborative Forest 

Landscape Restoration Program could also help to restore more watersheds and support thriving local communities. 

Likewise, SAF encourages this subcommittee to recognize the importance of USFS 

State and Private Forestry (S&PF) programs. The Urban and Community Forestry, 

Forest Stewardship, Forest Health Management, and Landscape Scale Restoration 

programs provide important technical and financial assistance to private landowners and the resource managers responsible for managing more than 60 percent 

of America’s forests. Investments in these programs are leveraged by landowners 

and local organizations, and help to build healthy and thriving forest resources that 

benefit all citizens and communities across the Nation. 

SAF BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS

While wildfires predominantly threaten western landscapes and communities, the 

financial impacts weigh heavily on our whole Nation. All agencies and programs 

funded through the Interior appropriations bill suffer as wildfire suppression costs 

continue to rise under the current funding model. The rolling 10-year average has 

not met annual suppression cost needs since before fiscal year 2002, and the resulting shortfalls—both anticipated and actual— significantly disrupt important forest 

management projects across the country. We are thankful to the subcommittee for 

full transfer repayment and increased suppression funding in fiscal year 2016. However, agencies and first responders need a long-term solution that results in stable 

and predictable budgets. SAF respectfully requests a solution that: (1) allows access 

to disaster funding; (2) minimizes transfers; and (3) addresses the compounding erosion of agency budgets over time, with the goal of reinvesting in key programs that 

would restore forests to healthier conditions. 

A comprehensive approach to averting wildfire threats and improving forest resilience is imperative. The Hazardous Fuels and Fire Risk Management line items in 

the USFS and DOI budgets are integral to restoring forest health and reducing the 

costs of wildfire suppression. Through restoring and maintaining fire-resilient landscapes and communities, these programs support the goals of the National Cohesive 

Wildland Fire Management Strategy. SAF appreciates this subcommittee’s consistent support for wildfire management and encourages it to allocate funds to address wildfire risks inside and outside the wildland urban interface. While fuels 

treatments in and around communities and infrastructure are important for the protection of life and property, recent research suggests that backcountry treatments 
254 

1 ‘‘The Efficacy of Fuels Treatments: A Rapid Assessment of the Economic and Ecological Consequences of Alternative Hazardous Fuel Treatments’’, Northern Arizona University Ecological 

Restoration Institute, May 2013. 

are equally important to prevent large and destructive wildfires.1 In addition to preventing and mitigating wildfire risks, these programs serve as an important source 

of jobs, especially in rural communities, and expand markets for the use of biomass 

residuals as renewable energy through efforts like the USFS Woody Innovations 

Grant Program. SAF supports funding the USFS Hazardous Fuels Program at $479 

million and DOI Hazardous Fuels and Resilient Landscapes at $178 million. We 

also ask that the subcommittee include report language encouraging Federal agencies 

to coordinate their fuels plans with other planning efforts such as State forestry and 

conservation plans to facilitate cross-boundary activities and increase the effectiveness of this program. 

Investments in forestry research are essential for the future health and sustainability of the Nation’s forests. Although this testimony focuses on USFS Forest and 

Rangeland Research programs, SAF also recognizes and supports the full array of 

forestry research efforts led by the Bureau of Land Management, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Geologic Survey, and others including land-grant institutions and 

other universities. USFS Research and Development (USFS R&D) research conducted at the five USFS research stations, the International Institute of Tropical 

Forestry, and in the Forest Products Laboratory is undeniably important—functioning as an incubator for new products and ideas; exploring forest ecosystem disturbance response and forest resilience; responding to shifting social demands and 

demographic changes; quantifying the contributions of forests to air and water quality; and driving practical innovation. In many cases without USFS leadership, investigation of these critical research needs would be left unfulfilled. Having clear and 

relevant research can also help build consensus on management actions, which allows for more efficient allocation of resources to on-the-ground work if debates over 

scientific uncertainties and litigation of proposed actions can be avoided. 

If forest research capacity in the U.S. continues to decline, SAF is concerned that 

forest managers will not be properly equipped to meet tomorrow’s challenges with 

current science and technical information. Continuing the trend of reductions in the 

USFS R&D budget will result in significant gaps in knowledge and mismanagement 

of resources at a time of unprecedented threats posed by wildfire, drought, insects, 

disease, and invasive species. SAF supports a funding level of $303 million for 

USFS R&D, with particular emphasis on prioritization of research projects uniquely 

suited to R&D expertise furthering agency and partner objectives. 

SAF strongly supports the funding increase suggested for the USFS R&D Forest 

Inventory and Analysis (FIA) program. FIA is the backbone of U.S. forestry—providing the only national census of forests across all ownerships. Through FIA, USFS 

(partnering with State forestry agencies, universities, and the private sector) collects 

and analyzes forest data to assess trends on issues such as forest health and management, fragmentation and parcelization, and forest carbon sequestration. The 

data and information collected by FIA serves as the basis for: identifying trends in 

forest ownership; assessing fish and wildlife habitat; evaluating wildfire, insect, and 

disease risk; predicting the spread of invasive species; determining capital investment in existing forest products facilities and selecting locations for new forest product facilities; and identifying and responding to priorities identified in State Forest 

Action Plans. The critical need for current information about the condition of our 

forests, with greater emphasis on the role of forests in maintaining and improving 

air quality, underlies the need for FIA program capacity to be increased in fiscal 

year 2017 and beyond. SAF requests additional investment in FIA with a funding 

level of at least $83 million and urges the subcommittee to ensure that this increase 

not come at the expense of other research programs, and provide direction for future 

increases to allow the program to keep pace with ever-growing and diverse information needs. 

SAF is concerned with the administration’s restructuring of the Joint Fire Science 

Program (JFSP). As proposed, the JFSP would no longer receive $6.9 million in 

funding from the Wildland Fire Management budget line item, and would instead 

receive $3 million in support from the USFS R&D Inventory and Monitoring line 

item. This shift results in a significant decrease of 3.9 million in program funding. 

The proposed cuts would negatively impact the research done in collaboration with 

over 200 Federal agency, university, and nongovernmental partners. Diverting 

funds from the already constrained USFS R&D budget will reduce JFSP effectiveness, limit cross-deputy area interaction, and hinder exploration of fire research 

questions important to the USDA, DOI, and partner organizations. SAF urges the 
255 

subcommittee to restore the JFSP funding level to $6.9 million under Wildland Fire 

Management. 

In closing, SAF is encouraged by the recognition of the important work of the 

BLM Public Domain Forestry (PD) program with a funding increase in the President’s budget and extension of the Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund authorization through 2020 in the 2015 Omnibus Appropriations Bill. However, SAF 

is concerned with the proposed funding reduction for the Oregon & California Railroad Grant Lands (O&C). Though the resource-intensive management plans for the 

O&C will be released soon, SAF encourages this subcommittee to appropriate robust 

funding to support efficient and effective plan implementation and monitoring, and 

help the agency address the administrative and legal challenges that almost always 

accompany new management plans. SAF supports the funding level of $10 million 

for the PD program and $113.7 million for the O&C program. We also urge this subcommittee to extend authorization of the Forest Ecosystem Health and Recovery Fund 

beyond 2020. 

Thank you for your consideration of these important requests. SAF and its extensive network of forestry and natural resources professionals stand ready to assist 

with further development and implementation of these efforts and ideas. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SOUTHCENTRAL FOUNDATION

My name is Douglas Eby and I am the Vice President of Medical Services at 

Southcentral Foundation (SCF). SCF is a tribal organization that compacts with the 

Secretary of Health and Human Services under Title V of the Indian Self-Determination Act (ISDA) to provide primary care services to Alaska Native patients 

within the Anchorage area and throughout the region. SCF acts pursuant to tribal 

authority granted by Cook Inlet Region, Inc., an Alaska Native regional corporation 

designated by Congress as an Indian tribe for contracting purposes under the ISDA. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of the Southcentral Foundation 

and the 150,000 Native American people we serve. For more than 25 years SCF has 

carried out Indian Health Service (IHS) programs under ISDA agreements. SCF 

provides medical, dental, optometry, behavioral health, and substance abuse treatment services to over 52,000 Alaska Native and American Indian beneficiaries living 

within the Municipality of Anchorage, the Matanuska-Susitna Borough to the north, 

and nearby villages. SCF also provides services to an additional 13,000 residents of 

55 Alaska villages covering an area exceeding 100,000 square miles. Finally, SCF 

provides statewide tertiary OB/GYN and pediatric services for approximately 

150,000 Alaska Native people. To do all this, SCF employs 2,000 people. 

SCF requests that in fiscal year 2017 Congress (1) focus on general IHS program 

increases especially related to Purchased and Referred Care; (2) support increases 

in behavioral health including funding for the Substance Use and Suicide Prevention Program (currently called the Methamphetamine and Suicide Prevention Initiative); (3) clarify these programs are entitled to contract support costs when operated 

by tribes; and (4) support existing language for fully funding contract support costs, 

while removing a disruptive ‘‘proviso’’ from the bill. 

IHS has divided its budget request into two parts: (1) an additional $159 million 

for current services to fully fund medical inflation and pay raises, and to partially 

fund population growth, and (2) $89.7 million to fund specific program increases, including a $48 million increase in purchased and referred care. While we support all 

these increases, Purchased and Referred Care (PRC) is especially important in the 

continuum of services we currently offer. When one of our patients needs specialty 

care outside our capacity, we use PRC funding to contract with outside clinics and 

hospitals to provide the service. Although we strive to provide as many services as 

possible within SCF, we still rely on non-SCF providers. Unfortunately, PRC funding does not keep pace with the rising costs of healthcare in other systems. As a 

result, sometimes we are unable to provide the necessary care. We encourage the 

subcommittee to support the PRC increase. 

SCF also strongly supports the proposed Substance Use and Suicide Prevention 

Program (combining the Methamphetamine and Suicide Prevention Initiative and 

the Domestic Violence Prevention Initiative.) These initiatives provide crucial support for our efforts to combat two blights that disproportionately afflict our community. At SCF we implemented the Family Wellness Warriors Initiative to provide 

a means for organizations and individuals to effectively address the spiritual, emotional, mental and physical effects of domestic violence, abuse and neglect. MSPI 

and DVPI funding has been critical to SCF’s success in this area. 

On a related note, SCF also strongly supports the President’s requested increases 

for behavioral health, especially given our focus on youth. As the subcommittee 
256 

knows, SCF’s Pathway Home is a voluntary, comprehensive, and individualized 

mental health program for adolescents from 13 to 18 years old. Its mission is to create a loving and supportive community environment where Alaska Native children 

can develop into independent, service-minded and productive leaders. Referrals 

come from a variety of sources, including clinicians, case managers, social workers, 

counselors, parents, teens or State agencies. The Pathway Home team of clinicians 

and employees helps youth improve their mental and behavioral health, physical 

and spiritual wellness, and academic and/or vocational skills. Through a combination of individual, group and educational settings, youth learn healthier methods of 

managing their behavior, handling conflict and anger, progressing in their recovery, 

and improving relationships with family members. 

Another youth-focused program is our RAISE Program, which provides opportunities for on-the-job work experience in a setting focused on Alaska Native cultural 

values. RAISE is designed to develop leadership skills in Alaska Native and American Indian youth, and offers summer, winter and graduate sessions. Each session 

exposes participants to health-related careers and workplace expectations, while 

supporting youth in both personal and professional development. The President’s 

proposed behavioral health increases will enable RAISE and Pathway to continue 

making progress with our Alaska Native youth. 

One aspect of the MSPI/DVPI (or new Substance Use and Suicide Prevention Program) that warrants special discussion concerns how these funds are currently handled. Congress first appropriated MSPI funds in 2008, and first appropriated DVPI 

funds in 2009. Congress directed that both of these funds should go to the areas 

that needed them the most, and IHS distributed these funds to contracting and compacting tribes and tribal organizations through amendments to each tribe’s ISDA 

contract or compact. These amendments always occurred late in the fiscal year, long 

after the CSC appropriations had already been spent, so the agency always recognized the tribe’s CSC need associated with these programs but it could never actually pay that need. But 2 years ago, just when full CSC funding became a reality, 

IHS changed course and declared that these programs were ‘‘special initiatives’’ for 

which contract support costs were not available. This cost us hundreds of thousands 

of dollars. Almost as badly, IHS stopped adding these funds to our compact and 

started issuing a separate grant with its own reporting and accounting rules. So 

now the program is more even costly and complicated to run, and still we receive 

no contract support cost dollars. All this is deeply contrary to both the spirit and 

the letter of the Indian Self-Determination Act. We join many other tribes in asking 

the subcommittee to eliminate the ‘‘notwithstanding’’ clause and direct IHS to treat 

these funds just like other IHS program funds operated under the ISDA. 

Finally, SCF wants to specially thank this subcommittee for all the good work you 

have done to make history on fully funding contract support costs. We applaud your 

success in creating a separate CSC account in the 2016 Omnibus, and in providing 

an indefinite appropriation so that CSC will always be fully funded without threatening other programs. These two steps ensure that the Nation will not be jeopardizing other important health services in order to fully pay for CSC, as mandated 

by statute and affirmed by the Supreme Court. Southcentral Foundation deeply appreciates the stance you have taken on CSC to fully honor the United States’ contractual obligations to tribes and organizations like ours. SCF is committed to providing health services on behalf of IHS at a level that far exceeds the quality of 

what the agency provides directly, and we appreciate that the subcommittee is 

equally committed to honoring the Government’s contractual obligations to SCF. 

I do need to point out one accounting problem created by the Appropriations Act’s 

inclusion of a new ‘‘proviso’’ addressing the tracking of unspent contract support cost 

funds. This proviso makes accounting for those funds far more complex than it was, 

without any countervailing benefit to the Federal Government. It is also unnecessary, because existing law already addresses unspent funds and requires that those 

funds must be spent in the following year to carry out the contract. Existing law 

is sufficient, and the proviso about unspent funds should therefore be removed in 

fiscal year 2017. 

On a related note, we also respectfully request that the subcommittee direct the 

Secretary of the Health and Human Services to promptly file all late Contract Support Cost Shortfall Reports. The last report to Congress on this matter covered fiscal 

year 2011 and is more than 5 years old. This information is not only critical; it is 

congressionally mandated by section 106(c) of the Indian Self-Determination Act. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of 

Southcentral Foundation and the 150,000 people we serve. 
257 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SOUTHEAST ALASKA REGIONAL HEALTH CONSORTIUM

My name is Charles Clement and I serve as the President/CEO for the Southeast 

Alaska Regional Health Consortium (SEARHC). I am honored for the opportunity 

to provide testimony about SEARHC’s priorities for the fiscal year 2017 appropriations for the Indian Health Service, and I thank Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking 

Member Udall, and all members of the subcommittee for the opportunity to do so. 

SEARHC is an inter-tribal consortium of 15 federally recognized tribes situated 

along the southeast panhandle of Alaska. Our service area stretches over 35,000 

square miles, and with no roads connecting many of the rural communities we 

serve, we work hard to provide quality health services to our communities. These 

services include medical, dental, mental health, physical therapy, radiology, pharmacy, laboratory, nutritional, audiology, optometry and respiratory therapy services. 

We also provide supplemental social services, substance abuse treatment, health 

promotion services, emergency medical services, environmental health services and 

traditional Native healing. We provide these services through a network of community clinics and the Mt. Edgecumbe Hospital located in Sitka, Alaska. 

The urgent healthcare needs across Indian Country are well known and the challenges in meeting those needs are heightened in areas like southeast Alaska where 

communities are isolated and transportation and facilities costs are high. SEARHC 

applauds the administration for recognizing these needs by increasing the IHS 

budget. It is vital that these increases be preserved. But even these increases will 

not be enough to allow SEARHC and other tribal organizations to meet the 

healthcare needs of the people we serve. We will meet these challenges, but to do 

so we will need your help. 

FACILITIES FUNDING

Our greatest need is for increased facilities funding. We have repeatedly reported 

to this subcommittee on this topic, and another year of use has only increased those 

needs. At 67 years old, the Mt. Edgecumbe Hospital is the oldest facility in Alaska 

and one of the oldest in the Nation. It was constructed toward the end of World 

War II by the War Department and focused largely on tuberculosis treatment 

through the 1950s. The hospital is in poor condition and ill-suited to a 21st century 

model of healthcare dominated by primary and ambulatory care facilities. Replacing 

or repairing Mt. Edgecumbe should be a priority, together with developing a critical 

access hospital to serve the Prince of Wales Island communities (including Craig 

and Klawock). 

According to IHS’s Facilities Engineering Deficiency System, the cost to update 

SEARHC’s facilities alone is $29,600,000. And we are not unique. Estimates place 

IHS facilities funding needs at $8.13 billion, a number that keeps rising because 

IHS lacks sufficient funding to maintain these facilities. We do our best to patch 

the problem, but the bottom line is that without adequate facilities, SEARHC cannot provide adequate services. 

We request the Committee do four things. 

Replace aging IHS facilities. We need a commitment from Congress to start replacing aging IHS facilities. This will require reordering the current facilities priority list, which was created on a first come, first served basis. All rankings should 

be based on true need. 

Increase facilities funding in the current budget proposal. The President’s budget 

contains modest funding increases for facilities needs, totaling $46.7 million. This 

proposed increase, while welcome, would address only a tiny fraction of the $8.13 

billion needed. Similarly, the President’s budget proposal for increasing Maintenance and Improvement funds by $3.4 million for a total of $77 million in M&I 

funding fails to address the overwhelming need. With the critical maintenance backlog of $467 million, this means that $390 million of critical maintenance is not going 

to be addressed. We strongly encourage the subcommittee to increase the facilities 

funding in the IHS budget. 

The Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA) renovation program. We recommend the subcommittee provide funding for tribally renovated IHS buildings, 

pursuant to section 1634 of the IHCIA. The IHCIA allows tribes to renovate IHS 

facilities and authorizes IHS to provide staffing and equipment for the newly renovated structure. However, Congress has never funded this program. We strongly 

urge the subcommittee to realize the promise of this program by providing $10 million to fund it. We would be delighted to do an Alaska demonstration project for 

this new initiative. 

Joint Venture Projects. The JV project provides IHS funds to staff facilities built 

with tribal funds. SEARHC submitted a proposal in the most recent Joint Venture 
258 

project funding round. Despite receiving a very high score, our proposal to build a 

facility on Prince of Wales Island was not selected. And in fact, of the 37 applications submitted, only 13 were put on a list to eventually receive funding. The fact 

that qualified projects were not selected is evidence that the need for such facilities 

far outstrips IHS’s ability to enter into these agreements. 

Our situation is a good example. Currently, our hospital in Sitka serves people 

living as far away as Klawock. Travel to Sitka requires a lengthy combination of 

automobile, ferry, and airplanes and takes at least a day and often is an overnight 

trip. If weather is bad, as it often is in southeast Alaska, it can take even longer. 

The only alternative are costly air ambulance flights. We proposed to construct a 

Critical Access Hospital in Klawock. This would have strengthened the primary care 

service in the area, while for the first time also offering complex diagnostic services 

and acute and emergency care to one of the remotest, most rural areas of the Nation. Despite this substantial need for these services, our project was rejected. 

In order to provide funding for this project, as well as the other JV projects that 

were not selected in the last round, we urge this subcommittee to support IHS’s effort to enter into more Joint Venture Agreements. 

CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

In recent years, much progress has been made on the issue of contract support 

costs, thanks in large part to this subcommittee. Congress’s decision to fully fund 

contract support costs since 2014 recast the issue from one of contention to one of 

cooperation. Further, last year’s work to create a new account for CSC to ensure 

that other critical programs are not impacted by this mandatory obligation only 

strengthens the relationships between tribal organizations and the Federal Government. We know it is because of this subcommittee’s work that this has happened 

and we thank you for it. 

Last year’s contract support cost language creating a new account was ground 

breaking, and we applaud the subcommittee for its foresight, leadership and creativity in finding a workable solution within a difficult budget environment. This 

year, we only ask that the subcommittee not repeat the proviso concerning carryover 

funds because it is counter to existing law. The proviso directs that CSC amounts 

that are not expended by a tribe in the current fiscal year be applied to contract 

support costs otherwise due in subsequent fiscal years. This language should be deleted because the Indian Self-Determination Act already addresses the use and disposition of unexpended contract and compact funds. The proviso conflicts with that 

language and also creates unnecessary and complicated accounting issues. For these 

reasons, the proviso is unnecessary and should be discontinued. 

Finally, we once again urge the subcommittee to include language in the appropriations act making clear that IHS must pay contract support costs on MSPI and 

DVPI program funds. Despite years of acknowledging that CSC are due on these 

program funds, IHS recently reversed course and required tribes to cover CSC costs 

with program funds. This is contrary to Congress’s clear directive in the Indian SelfDetermination Act. There is no reason these programs should be treated any differently than any other program within the Indian Health Service. 

Thank you for the opportunity to present to the Committee on SEARHC’s priorities. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE

On behalf of the Tribal Leadership and citizens of the Squaxin Island Tribe, it 

is an honor to provide our funding priorities and recommendations for the fiscal 

year 2017 budgets for the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and Indian Health Service 

(IHS). Squaxin Island Tribe requests that tribal program funding throughout the 

Federal Government be exempt from future sequestrations, rescissions and disproportionate cuts. 

We applaud the subcommittee for its foresight, leadership and creativity in seeking a long-term resolution to fully fund Contract Support Cost (CSC). Although full 

funding in 2014 and 2015 was risky and did impact some other tribal funding, in 

the fiscal year 2016 enacted spending bill you included an estimated amount to fully 

fund the needs. We support the proposed fiscal year 2017 CSC full funding for both 

BIA and IHS and the inclusion of separate CSC accounts for both. Unfortunately, 

a proviso in the fiscal year 2017 proposed budget regarding the use and disposition 

of unexpended CSC contract and compact funds presents a problem and is contrary 

to current law. The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act 

(ISDEAA) address this issue and we ask that you hear from tribes in advance of 

acting on this proposal. We have made great strides with CSC and it would defeat 
259 

your intentions to resolve this matter without fully realizing how complicated and 

misleading this provision can be to the progress you have made to date. 

THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUESTS: 

1. $500,000 Shellfish Management Program—BIA 

2. $2 Million to Build and Operate an Oyster and Clam Nursery for Southern 

Puget Sound—BIA 

3. $1.5 Million Increase for Northwest Indian Treatment Center (NWITC) Residential Program in IHS 

THE FISCAL YEAR 2016 SQUAXIN ISLAND REGIONAL REQUESTS: 

1. ∂$4.7 million increase for Rights Protection 

2. Fully support the budget requests from the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest 

Washington (ATNI) and the Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board 

(NPAIHB) and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission 

NATIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS—BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

1. ∂$1 million increase over 2016 enacted level of $277 million to fully fund CSC 

2. Authorize reclassification of BIA CSC to Mandatory [Permanent] Funding beginning in fiscal year 2018 

3. ∂$5 million increase Sustainable Stewardship/Natural Resources 

4. ∂$30.9 million increase for Tribal Priority Allocations to be provided via tribal 

base funding agreements 

5. ∂$4 million for Native One-Stop to leverage Federal resources for tribes 

6. Fully fund all the provisions of the Tribal Law and Order Act of 2010 and the 

Violence Against Women Act 

NATIONAL REQUESTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS—INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE 

1. ∂$82 million increase for CSC above fiscal year 2016 enacted level 

2. Authorize reclassification of IHS CSC to Mandatory [Permanent] Funding beginning in fiscal year 2018 

3. ∂$482.4 million IHS Mandatory Funding (maintaining current services) 

4. ∂$42 million increase for Purchased and Referred Care (PRC) 

Squaxin Island Tribes supports the Regional Budget Priorities of the Northwest 

Indian Fisheries Commission, the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians and the 

Northwest Portland Area Indian Health Board. 

Squaxin Island Tribe supports the National Budget Priorities of the National Congress of American Indians and the National Indian Health Board. 

SQUAXIN ISLAND TRIBE BACKGROUND 

We are native people of South Puget Sound and descendants of the maritime people who lived and prospered along these shores for untold centuries. We are known 

as the People of the Water because of our strong cultural connection to the natural 

beauty and bounty of Puget Sound going back hundreds of years. The Squaxin Island Indian Reservation is located in southeastern Mason County, Washington and 

the tribe is a signatory to the 1854 Medicine Creek Treaty. We were one of the first 

30 federally recognized tribes to enter into a Compact of Self-Governance with the 

United States. 

Our treaty-designated reservation, Squaxin Island, is approximately 2.2 square 

miles of uninhabited forested land, surrounded by the bays and inlets of southern 

Puget Sound. Because the Island lacks fresh water, the tribe has built its community on roughly 26 acres at Kamilche, Washington purchased and placed into trust. 

The tribe also owns 6 acres across Pickering Passage from Squaxin Island and a 

plot of 36 acres on Harstine Island, across Peale Passage. The total land area including off-reservation trust lands is 1,715.46 acres. In addition, the tribe manages 

roughly 500 acres of Puget Sound tidelands. 

The tribal government and our economic enterprises constitute the largest employer in Mason County with over 1,250 employees. The tribe has a current enrollment of 1,040 and an on-reservation population of 426 living in 141 homes. Squaxin 

has an estimated service area population of 2,747; a growth rate of about 10 percent, and an unemployment rate of about 30 percent (according to the BIA Labor 

Force Report). 
260 

TRIBAL SPECIFIC REQUESTS JUSTIFICATIONS: 

1. $500,000—Shellfish Management 

The Squaxin Island Tribes faces a budget deficit to maintain and operate the 

shellfish program at the current level. To effectively grow and develop the program, 

an annual minimum increase of $500,000 to address the shortfall and ensure the 

continuance of this program is requested. 

Shellfish have been a mainstay for the Squaxin Island people for thousands of 

years and are important today for subsistence, economic and ceremonial purposes. 

The tribe’s right to harvest shellfish is guaranteed by the 1854 Medicine Creek 

Treaty. It is important to remember that these rights were not granted by the Federal Government. They were retained by the tribe in exchange for thousands of 

acres of tribal lands. On December 20, 1994 U.S. District Court Judge Edward 

Rafeedie reaffirmed the tribe’s treaty right to naturally occurring shellfish. Rafeedie 

ruled that the tribe(s) has the right to take up to 50 percent of the harvestable 

shellfish on Washington beaches. 

The Squaxin Island Natural Resources Department (SINRD) is charged with protecting, managing and enhancing the land and water resources of the tribe, including fish and shellfish habitat and species. In so doing, the Department works cooperatively with State and Federal environmental, natural resources and health agencies. The shellfish management work of the SINRD includes working with private 

tideland owners and commercial growers; surveying beaches; monitoring harvests; 

enhancing supply (prepping, seeding, monitoring beds) and licensing and certifying 

harvesters and geoduck divers. We estimate that 20 percent of treaty-designated 

State lands and 80–90 percent of private tidelands are inaccessible to us due to insufficient funding. 

In fiscal year 2011, the shellfish program represented only $250,000 of the $3.3 

million budget. The result is we are unable to fully exercise our treaty rights due 

to lack of Federal support for shellfish. 

2. $2 Million—Build and Operate an Oyster and Clam Nursery for Southern Puget 

Sound 

In the past few years, problems with seed production have developed in the shellfish industry. These problems have been primarily caused by weather and or other 

environmental factors, and their effects on the industry have resulted in the lack 

of viable and large enough seed for growers. The Squaxin Island Tribe recognizes 

that it is uniquely positioned to develop a new nursery to serve the shellfish growers 

of the South Puget Sound region. A shellfish nursery is a capital project that is both 

proven and a cost effective technology that takes small oyster and clam seeds and 

provides a safe and controlled environment for the seeds to grow to a size that can 

survive integration onto a regular beach placement. We have an ideal location for 

a nursery because it will not be disturbed by residents or recreational boaters. 

Our efforts will be an extension of another project that was created through a 

U.S. Department of Agriculture appropriation nearly two decades ago for the Lummi 

Tribe, which created an oyster and clam hatchery in Northern Puget Sound. The 

Lummi project over years has been very successful and they have supplied not only 

their own beaches but other tribes’ in their region as well. The project would benefit 

not just Squaxin Island Tribe. It would further improve the quality and quantity 

of seed and make the seed process more effective for tribal and non-tribal growers. 

The users of the facility would be the Squaxin Island Tribe, other tribes, and nontribal clam and oyster businesses that have been largely unable to find sites for this 

type of operation. 

The tribe’s project will be a joint venture with the Lummi Nation, in that Lummi 

would be a primary larvae supplier. The project, with the expected grow-out and expansion of the industry attributable to the improved supply of seed, would offer jobs 

in a depressed employment area. Once established, the venture would be fully selfsustaining through sales of the product grown and at the nursery. 

This project would be a capital cost of approximately $2 million. The tribal in-kind 

contribution to the efforts would include land and shoreline and operating costs. 

Comparable land and shoreline, if privately owned, would be easily valued in the 

millions. 

3. $1.5 Million Increase for Northwest Indian Treatment Center (NWITC) Residential 

Program in IHS 

‘‘D3WXbi Palil’’ meaning ‘‘Returning from the Dark, Deep Waters to the 

Light’’—NWITC has not received an adequate increase in its base Indian 

Health Service budget since the original congressional set-aside in 1993. 
261 

The Squaxin Island Tribe has been operating the Northwest Indian Treatment 

Center (NWITC) since 1994. Ingenious in creativity, the center offers a wide variety 

of cultural activities and traditional/religious ceremonies, making it a natural place 

to heal—body, mind and soul. Fittingly, the center was given the spiritual name 

‘‘D3WXbi Palil’’ meaning ‘‘Returning from the Dark, Deep Waters to the Light.’’ 

Since the original congressional set-aside in 1993, NWITC has not received an adequate increase in the base Indian Health Service budget. It is critical to increase 

the NWITC’s annual base in order to sustain the current services to the tribes of 

the Northwest. An increase of $1.5 million would restore lost purchasing power and 

meet the need to add mental health and psychiatric components to the treatment 

program through other funding agents. This increase would allow NWITC to continue its effective treatment of Native Americans. 

NWITC is a residential chemical dependency treatment facility designed to serve 

American Indians from tribes located in Oregon, Washington and Idaho who have 

chronic relapse patterns related to unresolved grief and trauma. NWITC is unique 

in its integration of tribal cultural values into a therapeutic environment for co-occurring substance abuse and mental health disorders. It is a 28 bed, 30–60 day residential facility. 

Welcomed and hailed by tribal leaders who felt the urgent need for such a facility, 

NWITC is centrally located in Grays Harbor County between Olympia and Aberdeen, on 2.5 acres in the small rural town of Elma, Washington. NWITC accepts 

patients that are referred through outpatient treatment programs, parole and probation services, hospitals, assessment centers and child and family service centers. 

Medical care is provided through local Indian Health Service clinics and other medical service providers. NWITC has responded with an overwhelming success rate of 

nearly 65 percent. 

In 2011, the NWITC served 225 patients from 28 tribes and added intensive case 

management and crisis support to alumni in order to continue to promote positive 

outcomes for clients. Despite funding challenges, NWITC has continued to develop 

and deliver innovative, culturally appropriate services to meet increasingly complex 

demands. 

The Treatment Center’s traditional foods and medicines program is supported 

through a partnership with the Northwest Indian College and is funded through 

grants from the Washington Health Foundation, the National Institute of Food and 

Agriculture, The Potlatch Fund and several tribes. Weekly hands-on classes focus 

on traditional foods and medicines, including methods for growing, harvesting, processing, and preparation. Twice a month, tribal elders, storytellers, and cultural specialists speak as part of the program. A monthly family class allows patients to 

share what they are learning with their loved ones. Patients gain hands-on experience by working in three on-site teaching gardens. This program serves as a model 

for other tribal communities. 

It is ironic that we were forced into a lifestyle and to give up our land, and that 

which we retained or have since regained is threatened by the promises you made 

and have since recanted! 

Thank you for inviting us to present this Testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE

On behalf of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, I submit this testimony concerning 

the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget for the Indian programs within the Department of the Interior and the Indian Health Service. I would like to express our appreciation to this subcommittee for its support of Indian tribes. I will focus my remarks on public safety, education, housing, healthcare, and infrastructure. 

The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has a government to government relationship 

with the United States of America, reflected in our treaties which were signed in 

1851 and 1868. These treaties underscore the ongoing promises and obligations of 

the United States to the tribe, and our testimony today is submitted with those 

promises and obligations in mind. 

The Standing Rock Sioux Reservation encompasses 2.3 million acres in North and 

South Dakota. The reservation’s population—approximately 8,500 tribal members 

and 2,000 non-members—reside in eight districts, and in smaller communities. The 

tribe’s primary industries are cattle ranching and farming. The tribe struggles to 

provide essential governmental services to our members. The tribe’s desire is to provide jobs and improve the economic standard of living on our reservation. We operate two modest tribal casinos, and a small number of additional tribal businesses, 

including Standing Rock Propane and Standing Rock Telecommunications, which 

provide needed services on the reservation. Casino revenue is used to help the tribe 
262 

supplement services and programs for our members, but those revenues are modest 

and our challenges and needs are far greater than our resources. Despite the tribe’s 

best efforts, our unemployment rate remains above 50 percent. In fact, over 40 percent of Indian families on our reservation live in poverty—more than triple the average U.S. poverty rate. The disparity is worse for children, as 52 percent of the reservation population under age 18 lives below poverty, compared to 16 percent and 

19 percent in North and South Dakota, respectively. The Federal programs established and promised by treaty to aid tribes and their members are essential. We ask 

the Government to honor its commitments by adequately funding these Federal programs enacted for our benefit, so that our members may enjoy a standard of living 

comparable to that enjoyed by the rest of the Nation. Our specific requests are as 

follows: 

BIA—Public Safety and Justice.—Public safety is a priority for the tribe. We 

strongly disagree with the President’s proposal to decrease funding for Public Safety 

and Justice by $4 million below the 2016 enacted level, and urge the subcommittee 

instead to support an increase by at least that amount. A decrease in funding contradicts Interior’s promises to make our homelands safer. Funding is also essential 

for law enforcement equipment and facilities maintenance. 

Youth Corrections.—In December 2010, the tribe successfully completed construction of a secure 18-bed juvenile detention facility so that tribal youth offenders may 

remain on the reservation and receive culturally appropriate services if they must 

be incarcerated. For reasons beyond the tribe’s control, the facility has not been 

used for the past 5 years. This endeavor by the tribe is named the Youth Services 

Center, however, only the secure portion of the plan was completed due to inadequate funds to truly provide for all youth services as the name suggests. The tribe 

contributed $2 million of tribal funds to supplement $5 million in Justice Department funds to build this facility. Over time this tribally owned facility will save the 

BIA a great deal of money that now pays other contract facilities to house our youth 

offenders. Unfortunately, while the BIA, in January 2011 and many times thereafter, advised the tribe that the facility would become operational, it is still not open 

despite the BIA receiving staff funding as well as operations and maintenance funding. BIA was unable to provide staffing to open the facility in a timely manner when 

it was completed in 2010 and as a result, problems within the idle building have 

surfaced and have already cost the tribe additional dollars in repairs. Although the 

tribe is currently working with the BIA to address those matters remaining in the 

facility, the building remains unoccupied and our youth are still being taken hundreds of miles off reservation. Additional construction dollars, and greater discretion 

concerning the allowable use of public safety services funds, are critical to providing 

detention and associated services to all troubled youth, especially when tribes are 

seeking alternatives to incarceration, such as probation with mandatory counseling 

and substance abuse counseling and treatment. 

Adult Corrections.—BIA OJS operates an antiquated 48 bed adult detention center for male and female inmates in Fort Yates on our reservation. The detention 

center is a linear style facility which, because of its design, is very staff intensive. 

The jail was built in the 1960’s and has long outlived its utility. Renovated in the 

1980’s and again in the 1990’s, the jail fails to comply with most contemporary detention standards. The jail population is frequently two to three times over the 

rated bed capacity. To alleviate jail crowding, BIA OJS contracts bed space for long 

term adult inmates in a facility that is a 772 mile round trip from the reservation. 

Our tribal court is forced to release prisoners early to alleviate jail crowding just 

to make room for more prisoners. This sends the wrong message to criminals. 

Law Enforcement.—The tribe has seen firsthand that adequate law enforcement 

funding was key to reducing crime. A number of years ago, the Standing Rock Sioux 

Tribe was selected to participate in the High Priority Program Goals initiative, 

which dramatically increased law enforcement positions on our reservation. This 

had a significant positive impact in reducing crime. Increased numbers of police officers allowed pro active policing rather than reactive policing. This initiative enabled 

officers to be assigned within each reservation community, which meant quicker response time to calls and more positive relationships between law enforcement officers and the communities they served. The increased law enforcement presence and 

patrols has deterred crime and resulted in our members feeling safer. The data confirms this. When compared to the number of violent crimes (homicide, rape, robbery, 

assault) that occurred between 2007 and 2009, the additional staffing reduced such 

crimes by approximately: 7 percent in 2010, 11 percent in 2011, and 15–19 percent 

in 2012. These initiatives demonstrated the critical importance that adequate law 

enforcement staffing can have in our community. But HPPG ended after fiscal year 

2013 and the tribe’s law enforcement personnel were reduced from the numbers that 

served us so well. We strongly support an increase in funding for law enforcement 
263 

personnel. It makes no sense that these programs would not be funded in perpetuity 

since they have been demonstrated to work to reduce crime in Indian Country. 

Tribal Courts.—We support an increase to the modest funding appropriated for 

the Tribal Courts Program. The Standing Rock Tribal Court is an independent 

branch of government consisting of a supreme court, civil court, criminal court, and 

children’s court. Key positions in the tribal court require licensed attorneys—the 

chief judge; associate chief judge; chief prosecutor; and public defender. The supreme court consists of three Justices, two of whom must be a licensed attorney. 

Our tribe cannot effectively support these courts with our small BIA allocation, even 

when heavily subsidized by the tribe. And yet in order to use our tribe’s authorities 

provided under the Violence Against Women Act of 2013, Sex Offender Registration 

and Offender Act, and the Tribal Law and Order Act, we must continue to meet 

appropriate standards. Our tribal courts are also crowded, even when spread across 

three separate buildings. The main courthouse outgrew its ability to meet our needs 

years ago and the lack of space severely limits our ability to adequately handle the 

tribal court case load of 2,000 to 3,000 cases per year. Funding is critical to providing a safe and secure center to house justice programs. 

Bureau of Indian Education (BIE).—We support an increase to fiscal year 2017 

funding for BIE programs. Standing Rock relies on BIE funding for three tribal 

grant schools—the Standing Rock Community School (K–12), Sitting Bull School 

(K–8), and Rock Creek School (K–8). The Standing Rock Community School is operated through a Joint Powers Agreement between the Standing Rock Tribal Grant 

School and the Fort Yates Public School District. The Fort Yates Public School District, like other public schools on the reservation (Cannonball, Selfridge, 

McLaughlin, McIntosh, and Wakpala), depends on Federal impact aid to cover the 

costs of the public school’s share of the school operations. The children in the schools 

on the reservation are among the most at-risk students in the Nation. At seven out 

of eight public and tribal grant schools on our reservation, 100 percent of the students are eligible for the Free or Reduced Lunch Program. At the remaining school, 

90 percent of students are eligible for the Free or Reduced Lunch Program. The high 

rate of our student eligibility for the Free or Reduced Lunch Program documents 

that the majority of our families live at or below poverty level. 

A critical source of funds for the operation of our tribal grant schools are the Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) Formula funds. The funds cover the costs 

of the schools’ instructional programs, including salaries for teachers, teacher aides, 

school administrative staff and other operational costs. ISEP has not seen any 

meaningful increase in years, and as a result, there has been a significant negative 

impact on the effectiveness of the schools’ instructional programs. Academic programs are marginal at best and provide limited services to the students. It has become more difficult to attract and retain qualified staff. Despite the clear need, the 

administration proposes to cut ISEP funding by $16.4 million, apparently to offset 

the cost of a new pilot program. We do not object to a new pilot program, but it 

should not be created at the expense of existing needs. If the schools serving Indian 

children are to be effective and if our students are to succeed and be college and 

career ready, ISEP funding must be increased. 

The administration’s near flat line funding for virtually all aspects of BIE programs does not account for population growth, increased costs, or inflation. Student 

Transportation funding, intended to cover the costs of buses, fuel, maintenance, vehicle replacements, and drivers, has stayed at the same level for years. The substantial increases in fuel costs alone make it impossible to cover these costs. For Standing Rock, funds are further strained because we are a rural community, where bus 

runs for many of our students may take 11⁄2 to 2 hours each way and can include 

travel on unimproved roads. These factors result in higher maintenance costs and 

shorter vehicle life. A substantial increase in funds for Student Transportation is 

long overdue. 

The same is true for School Facility Operations and Maintenance which is drastically under-funded. In fact, O&M budgets are currently constrained at 40 percent 

of need. This also holds true for School Improvement and Repair. We urge this subcommittee to strongly support an increase, not only for Facility Operations and 

Maintenance and School Improvement and Repair, but for School Construction as 

well. Indeed, one of our tribal grant schools, the Rock Creek School, is more than 

100 years old and badly needs to be replaced. Federal funds to replace ancient 

schools—like Rock Creek—are essential. Funding for School Facility Operations and 

Maintenance and School Improvement and Repair, as well as School Construction 

should be substantially increased. We are also very concerned about the list of new 

schools which have been slated to be constructed. Not a single school from the Great 

Plains made that list. It is clear that the Bureau of Indian Education has discretion 

to select these schools, and they have used that discretion to effectively shut out 
264 

schools in our region for the next decade. We would like the subcommittee to better 

understand how these schools are selected. 

We also urge the subcommittee to support an increase in funding for scholarships. Because of the unmet need, the tribe spends $1 million in tribal funds annually to 

supplement this program and gives grants of $3,000–$3,500 to aid our students attending colleges and vocational schools. But even with this, the majority of our 

scholarship recipients have unmet financial need varying from $100 to $17,000. 

Indian Health Service.—We support the administration’s fiscal year 2017 requested increase in IHS funding. We depend on IHS to care for our 16,000 enrolled 

tribal members, many of whom suffer from diabetes, heart disease and hypertension. We are especially concerned about our region. Although we are not at risk 

of losing certification under the Center for Medicaid Services, we hope the Indian 

Health Service can continue to provide quality support and timely processing of the 

basics such as human resources, budget responses, and procurement. We also fully 

support the IHS’ efforts to increase funding for behavioral health by $46 million, 

especially the youth focused programming. 

We recommend that Congress prioritize the IHS preventive healthcare service 

programs, such as the diabetes grant program, and increase funding for these programs above the administration’s $150 million, while supporting and protecting the 

administration’s other IHS funding priorities, especially funding for healthcare personnel. In many instances, if additional funding for clinical services and preventive 

health programs can be made available, illnesses and injuries could be treated at 

their initial stages, or prevented altogether. This is especially important at Standing 

Rock, where many of our members’ health problems could be addressed if timely 

preventive care were available. We also support the administration’s request for increases in Dental Health and Purchased/Referred Care (previously known as Contract Health Services), which has been historically underfunded. 

Road Maintenance.—Proper road maintenance on the reservation is essential for 

the safety and health of our community, and for promoting economic opportunities. 

BIA Road Maintenance is responsible for 29,700 miles of BIA owned roads. The administration request of $27 million only funds 16 percent of the level of need for 

BIA road maintenance. Thus, 84 percent of the roads in the BIA systems will continue to be at poor or failing condition. These are roads used by school buses and 

first responders. In any other community this would be unacceptable. We urge the 

subcommittee to increase funding for the maintenance program by at least $9 million. This level of funding would allow a greater percentage of the roads to be properly maintained. 

Tribal Historic Preservation Offices.—We strongly support the $2 million increase 

for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices out of the National Park Service. This modest increase will help us to protect historic and culturally significant resources 

throughout the region. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAWN STOCKWELL

Dear Senators: 

As an American citizen and taxpayer, I strongly oppose the BLM’s proposal to 

conduct dangerous sterilization experiments on wild mares at the Wild Horse Corral 

Facility in Hines. According to the Environmental Assessment (EA), the BLM is deciding whether or not to proceed with one or more of the proposed sterilization procedures. The weight of scientific evidence and public opinion clearly supports a BLM 

decision NOT to proceed with any of these sterilization procedures. 

The sterilization procedures that BLM is proposing to conduct on federally protected wild mares are dangerous, costly and impractical for use in the field, due to 

the serious health risks they pose to the horses and their unborn foals, and also 

due to the great expense of purchasing the equipment and training the number of 

veterinarians necessary to implement these procedures on the range. 

It makes no sense to spend millions of taxpayer dollars on these risky invasive 

experiments when proven, humane, and relatively inexpensive fertility control technology in the form of the PZP vaccine is readily available but vastly underutilized 

by the BLM. 

The EA is completely inadequate in analyzing the impacts of these experimental 

procedures on mares. In addition, the BLM has deliberately avoided public opposition to this controversial and grotesque research proposal by skipping the scoping 

stage of the environmental analysis process. As a result, the public has been deprived of the opportunity to provide input into the impacts of and alternatives to 

these procedures that must be analyzed under the rules of the National Environmental Policy Act. 
265 

1. Ovariectomy via Colposcopy 

This is an outdated and archaic procedure that has been supplanted by more modern laparoscopic surgery. The EA fails to analyze the impacts of and alternatives 

to this procedure to mares and never once mentions the availability of more modern 

techniques! This proposed sterilization experiment is an intra-vaginal complex surgical procedure, which is hardly ever performed in domestic horses (never mind in 

wild ones), due to its inherently dangerous risks. 

—The blind nature of this surgery increases the risk of intra-abdominal hemorrhage, but the EA never even addresses this issue or the availability of more 

modern laparoscopic techniques that allow the surgeon to visualize the abdominal structures. 

—The lack of a sterile environment subjects the mares to a high risk of infection, 

something that is ignored by the EA. 

—The procedure carries with it a significant risk of hemorrhage and evisceration 

(protrusion of the intestines through the surgical incision), which is why it requires strict follow-up care when used in domestic horses, including pain relief 

and 4–7 days of stall rest, the first 48 hours of which is spent in crossties to 

prevent the mare from lying down. It is not possible to provide this required 

post-operative care to wild mares, yet the EA minimizes the impacts of this fact, 

citing the opinion of an un-named veterinarian, instead of the published science 

and National Research Council review, which clearly indicate the risks and impacts of this outdated procedure on wild mares. 

—The procedure will cause mares in early stages of pregnancy to abort their 

fetuses and may cause loss of pregnancy for mares in the mid-stage of pregnancy as well. This is unacceptable. 

This pursuit of ovariectomy research is directly counter to the recommendations 

of the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council (NRC) in its 2013 

report, ‘‘Using Science to Improve the BLM Wild Horse and Burro Program: A Way 

Forward.’’ That NRC report concluded that: ‘‘The possibility that ovariectomy may 

be followed by prolonged bleeding or peritoneal infection makes it inadvisable for 

field application.’’ 

2. Minimally Invasive Sterilization Techniques 

The other sterilization procedures that BLM proposes to research, while less 

invasive than ovariectomy, should also be abandoned due to the inability to provide 

post-operative care and the impracticality of implementing these procedures—which 

have never before been done in wild or domestic horses—on a broad scale in a field 

setting. The EA fails to analyze the impacts of precedent-setting procedures that 

have never before been performed in horses, and as well as the inability to provide 

required post-operative care. The EA also omits analysis of the economic impacts 

and practicalities of implementing these procedures on the range. 

In proceeding with these experiments, the BLM has ignored the NRC recommendation that these techniques should first be perfected in domestic mares, who 

can be easily handled and will be accessible for close monitoring and post-operative 

care, before attempting them in wild horses. 

It is unconscionable that the BLM is proceeding with these draconian experiments 

that endanger the lives of the un-consenting equine subjects and their unborn foals, 

particularly when a proven non-invasive and safe fertility control method exists in 

the readily available PZP birth control vaccine. Instead of wasting millions of tax 

dollars to fund experiments on inhumane and impractical sterilization experiments, 

the agency should instead focus resources on vaccinating sufficient numbers of 

mares with the PZP fertility control vaccine, which is documented through 30 years 

of experience and published science, to be safe, effective, cost-effective and successful in managing wild horse populations. 

Again, as a taxpayer and wild horse lover, I am outraged that the BLM is even 

considering pursuing such inhumane, barbaric and wasteful experimentation on 

wild horses and I find the BLM’s Environmental Analysis of its impacts to be woefully inadequate. As a result, I strongly urge the BLM to abandon these proposed 

experiments in favor of using proven, more cost-effective and humane fertility control methods. 
266 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF UNITED STATES SENATOR SUSAN M. COLLINS

MARCH 18, 2016. 

Hon. THAD COCHRAN

Chairman 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Hon. BARBARA MIKULSKI

Vice Chairwoman 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Hon. LISA MURKOWSKI

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, 

and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

Washington , DC 20510 

Hon. TOM UDALL

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, 

and Related Agencies 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

Dear Chairman Cochran, Vice Chairwoman Mikulski, Chairman Murkowski, and 

Ranking Member Udall: 

I respectfully submit the following requests for funding and language to be included in the fiscal year 2017 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill and report: 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) 

BOEM, Renewable Energy 

I request that you provide level funding, $24.3 million, for the Renewable Energy 

program. The United States has nearly 4,000 GW of offshore wind capacity within 

50 miles of the coastline, enough to power the United States four times over. Approximately two-thirds of this capacity is in deepwater. In order to foster the development of ocean energy resources, other countries, such as the United Kingdom, 

Canada, Germany, and Portugal, have established test sites for ocean energy. These 

countries have funded environmental permitting studies and provided electrical infrastructure, including undersea cabling and grid interconnection, for these test 

sites. Working with research institutions, private industry has used these ‘‘ready’’ 

sites to build and test advanced offshore wind turbines and other ocean energy harvesting devices, spurring further commercial developments. The President’s budget 

request includes $23.9 million. 

To ensure that the United States does not lose momentum in advancing this 

promising technology, I request that you include the following language in your report: 

Renewable Energy.—The Committee provides $24.3 million for renewable energy leasing activities, including program development, environmental analysis, 

and consultation with Federal, State, and local stakeholders. The Bureau 

should continue to work with the Department of Energy to identify and permit 

a national offshore wind test site that incorporates new technology related to 

the structural material of transitional depth and floating wind turbines. The 

Bureau should also make funding available for installation of electrical infrastructure for such a test site. The Committee expects the Bureau to continue 

working with coastal States and other stakeholders to study new wind energy 

areas, including those in shallow, transitional, and deep (over 200 feet) waters. 

The Secretary should work with the Secretary of Energy and States to exchange 

information about the development of new technology related to the structural 

material, environmental, and design safety criteria, as well as design and performance standards of transitional depth and floating wind turbines. 

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Land and Water Conservation Fund, State Grants 

I request continued support for the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), 

including the LWCF State grant program and the Forest Legacy Program. Within 

the funding provided for LWCF, I request level funding for the State grant program. 

The LWCF is one of the most important Federal programs for assisting in the preservation of recreational resources. According to the National Park Service, 92 per-
267 

cent of States reported an annual unmet funding need of 90 percent or greater, 

which funding for the State grant program would help address. State grants received $106.8 million in fiscal year 2016. The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget 

request includes $106 million in discretionary funding. 

Facility Operations and Maintenance 

I request continued support for the facility operations and maintenance of our National Park System, including for the base budget of Acadia National Park. The facility operations and maintenance activities at our national parks play key roles in 

ensuring continued protection and use of park facilities. Funding will help address 

the deferred maintenance backlog, which at the end of fiscal year 2015 totaled more 

than $11.9 billion. The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget request includes $842.5 

million for facility operations and maintenance, and $738.5 million was allocated in 

fiscal year 2016. 

Roosevelt Campobello International Park 

I urge the subcommittee to provide $1.66 million for the Roosevelt Campobello 

International Park Commission, the level requested by the Commission in its budget 

request. The President’s budget request includes $1.5 million. I appreciate the subcommittee’s willingness to work with me on language to help ensure the unique arrangement between the United States and Canada in operating the Roosevelt-Campobello International Park (RCIP) is maintained. I request that report language 

from the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Public Law 114–113), which would 

clarify congressional intent that the RCIP budget request be transmitted by the Office of Management and Budget to Congress without changes by the National Park 

Service, be retained in the fiscal year 2017 subcommittee report. To address what 

had become a perennial issue for NPS to reduce the budget request for RCIP, including the following language from fiscal year 2016 remains very important: 

Roosevelt-Campobello International Park Commission.—Funding for RooseveltCampobello International Park Commission (the Commission) on the MaineCanada border is jointly and equally supported by the U.S. and Canadian governments pursuant to the 1964 Agreement between the two nations, which was 

recognized and codified by Congress in 1964 (Public Law 88–363). While the Administration has a responsibility to consider priorities within overall budget 

constraints and submit an annual budget request to Congress, the Committee 

is concerned with recent requests for the Park from the Service. Congress observed in 1986 the following: ‘‘The managers agree that hereafter the Service 

should use its internal reprogramming authority so that there will be no diminution of the amount provided for the Roosevelt Campobello International Park 

Commission, unless reduced by the House or Senate in a report accompanying 

the appropriations bill.’’ (CR–H10497, October 15, 1986). Therefore, the Committee directs that the budget request prepared by the Roosevelt Campobello 

International Park Commission shall be submitted by the Administration directly to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations without any 

changes. The Administration, in its National Park Service budget justification, 

may comment on the Commission’s budget request and make such additions 

and subtractions that it may propose. However, the amounts requested by the 

National Park Service shall be consistent with its obligations under international agreements. The Committee will consider the proposal from the Commission and the Administration will allocate the overall appropriation as specified in the report accompanying the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

State and Tribal Wildlife Grants 

I request that you provide at least level funding, $60.6 million, for the State and 

Tribal Wildlife Grants program and maintain the ratio of formula and competitive 

grants. This program provides Federal funding to develop and implement conservation programs that protect wildlife and habitats, prioritizing the species most in 

need of conservation and helping to avoid listings under the Endangered Species 

Act. The President’s budget request includes $67 million. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

Water Resources Research Institute 

I request that you provide at least $6.5 million—level funding—for the Water Resources Research Institute, which provides vital research, public information, and 

educational opportunities on water availability, pollution, and use issues nation-
268 

wide. The President’s budget request for fiscal year 2017 includes $6.5 million for 

this program. 

Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program 

I support continued funding for the Groundwater and Streamflow Information 

Program (GWSIP), which collects, manages, and disseminates consistently highquality and reliable hydrologic information in real-time and over the long-term. The 

purpose of this important program is to minimize loss of life and property from 

water hazards and to protect, manage, and sustain water that is safe and available 

for drinking. The GWSIP is one of the primary sources of data needed for timely 

water decisions, as the streamgage data collected provide critical flood warning information to local, State, tribal, and national stakeholders. Groundwater data also 

help landowners monitor their irrigation activities and aquatic habitats. In fiscal 

year 2016, the program received $71.5 million. The President’s fiscal year 2017 

budget request includes $72.957 million for GWSIP. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

General Provision—Carbon Neutrality of Biomass 

I request that the fiscal year 2017 bill include the language below to address EPA’ 

s treatment of carbon emissions related to forest biomass. The carbon benefits of forest biomass are clearly established, yet current policy uncertainty is jeopardizing existing investments in biomass and discouraging new investment to build or upgrade 

facilities. Legislative clarity is required to secure the carbon benefits of—and remove 

uncertainty surrounding—this renewable energy resource. I look forward to working 

with you to achieve this necessary clarity and suggest the following bill language: 

CARBON NEUTRALITY OF FOREST BIOMASS

SEC. ll. (a) CARBON EMISSIONS FROM FOREST BIOMASS— 

‘‘(1) IN GENERAL. The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall provide in agency policies, regulations, and actions regarding carbon dioxide emissions that forest biomass carbon dioxide emissions including, but not 

limited to, biogenic carbon dioxide emissions from facilities that combust forest 

biomass for energy, do not require regulation, controls or actions, if— 

‘‘(A) the Chief of the Forest Service determines, based on the most recent assessment of forest and timberland carbon stocks derived from the 

Forest Inventory and Analysis data of the Department of Agriculture, that 

timberland carbon stocks in the relevant region, described in paragraph (2), 

are stable or increasing relative to carbon stocks assessment for the region 

for 2005; or 

‘‘(B) the forest biomass is derived from forest products manufacturing 

residuals, harvest residues, bio-wastes, including used wood products, or 

forest management activities conducted— 

‘‘(i) for stand improvement; 

‘‘(ii) to increase yield; or 

‘‘(iii) to maintain or enhance forest health. 

‘‘(2) For purposes of this section, the Chief of the Forest Service shall identify regions as follows: 

(i) The North Region: CT, DE, IL, IN, IA, KS, MA, ME, MD, MI, 

MN, MO, NE, 27 NH, NJ, NY, ND, OH, PA, RI, SD, VT, WV, WI; 

(ii) The South Region: AL, AR, FL, GA, KY, LA, NC, OK, SC, MS, 

TN, TX, VA; 

(iii) The Southwest Region: AZ, NM, CO, UT, NV, and WY; 

(iv) The Pacific Coast/Northwest Region: CA, OR, WA, ID, and MT; 

and 

(v) States not identified in the above regions shall be considered individually. 

‘‘(3) ANNUAL DETERMINATION OF APPLICABILITY.—Not less frequently than 

annually, the Administrator shall review the most recent assessment of the 

Chief of the Forest Service described in paragraph (l)(A) to determine the applicability of paragraph (1). 

(b) FOREST CARBON STOCKS.—Subject to appropriations, the Chief of the Forest 

Service shall update the measurement of forest and timberland carbon stocks not 

less frequently than once every 5 years. 

Additionally, I request that the following language be included in the report to 

accompany the fiscal year 2017 bill: 
269 

Carbon Neutrality of Forest Biomass.—‘‘Forest management activities’’ in this 

section include activities to improve the composition, structure, condition, 

health, and growth of stands; increase yield after stand establishment; and 

maintain or enhance forest health including fuel, pest infestation, and disease 

treatments. Forest management activities maintain or increase forest carbon 

stocks over time. 

National Estuary Program 

I support at least level funding, $26.7 million, for the National Estuary Program 

(NEP), which works with communities to craft stakeholder driven restoration solutions at the watershed level. Congress created the NEP in 1987 to restore designated estuaries of national significance, and today there are 28 estuaries in the 

program. The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget request includes $27.2 million. 

Rural Water Technical Assistance Grant Program 

I request that you provide $15 million for the Environmental Protection Agency’s 

Rural Water Systems Training and Technical Assistance Grant Program and the 

continuation of report language to ensure that this funding is awarded on a competitive basis. Rural water systems have an enormous responsibility to provide safe 

drinking water. Authorized under the Safe Drinking Water Act, these grants assist 

water system operators in understanding and achieving compliance with increasingly complex Federal regulations. The program received $12.7 million for fiscal 

year 2016. The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget request does not include funding 

for this program. 

Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRF) 

I request that you provide at least level funding for the Clean Water SRF and 

the Drinking Water SRF. These programs provide critical infrastructure funding to 

water quality protection projects for wastewater treatment, nonpoint source pollution control, watershed and estuary management, and to protect our ground and 

drinking water. In fiscal year 2016, the CWSRF received $1.393 billion and the 

DWSRF received $863 million. The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget requests 

$979 million for the CWSRF and $1.02 billion for the DWSRF, representing a total 

combined cut of $257 million. It is estimated that between 13,000 and 24,000 jobs 

result from every billion dollars in SRF funding. 

National Priorities Research Grant Program 

I request that you provide at least level funding—$4.1 million—for the National 

Priorities Research Grant Program. This grant program funds drinking water and 

wastewater-related research through the Environmental Protection Agency, managed by water non-profit foundations, and conducted in partnership with local 

wastewater and drinking water utilities. The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget request does not include funding for this program. 

FOREST SERVICE

Community Forest and Open Space Conservation Program—$2 million 

I request that you provide at least $2 million for the Community Forest and Open 

Space Conservation Program. This program provides grants to eligible local governments, tribal governments, and qualified non-profit organizations to create community forests. The program received $2 million in fiscal year 2016—the same level 

that the President’s budget request proposes for fiscal year 2017. 

State and Private Forestry—Forest Resource Pilot Program 

I request that the subcommittee report include language to support a pilot program that would leverage existing and ongoing research on forest carbon. Maine’s 

economy depends in large part on the condition of its forest, as the forest products 

industry accounts for more than 6 percent of the State’s total gross domestic product 

and has an estimated total economic impact of $8 billion. Further coordinated research is needed. With this in mind, I request that you include the following language in the subcommittee report: 

Forest Resource Pilot Program.—Within the funding provided for State and Private Forestry, the Committee directs the Department to fund a pilot program 

on forest carbon research. Such a pilot should be carried out in natural forested 

regions of the United States and link research on forest carbon to forest landowners and managers by establishing the methods and developing tools needed 

to quantify forest carbon as a resource that can be managed for economic and 

ecological benefits. 
270 

OFFICES OF INSPECTORS GENERAL

Offices of Inspectors General (OIGs) are an indispensable tool in the fight against 

waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. Through its partnership with OIGs 

across the Government, Congress has been able to identify and reduce inefficient, 

ineffective and improperly functioning Federal programs. Given their importance, I 

support adequately funding all the OIGs contained in your bill , including the OIGs 

for the Department of the Interior and the Environmental Protection Agency, to ensure proper oversight is conducted over every taxpayer dollar spent by the Federal 

Government. 

Recognizing the significant budget challenges facing the country, I appreciate your 

consideration of these requests and look forward to working with you as you develop 

the fiscal year 2017 Interior and Environment funding bill. 

Sincerely, 

SUSAN M. COLLINS

United States Senator 

[NOTE: See table on next page for priorities, agencies, accounts, programs, President’s budget, Member requests, and request descriptions.] 
271 

Priority State Member Agency Account Program (if applicable) President’s Budget ($) Member Request ($) Request Description 

1 ............. ME Collins EPA Carbon Neutrality of Biomass .............. ............................................................... n/a n/a Request bill language to recognize that forest biomass emissions are 

carbon neutral and to be treated as such by the EPA, and to require the Chief of the Forest Service to update measurements of forest and timberland carbon stocks at least once every five years. Request accompanying report language. 

2 ............. ME Collins EPA State Revolving Funds ......................... Clean Water SRF .................................. $979,000,000 $1,393,000,000 Request at least fiscal year 2016 level of $1.393 billion 

ME Collins EPA State Revolving Funds ......................... Drinking Water SRF .............................. $1,020,000,000 $863,000,000 Request at least fiscal year 2016 level of 863 million 

3 ............. ME Collins NPS Land and Water Conservation Fund .... State Grants ......................................... $106,000,000 $106,800,000 Request continued support for LWCF, Forest Legacy Program, and fiscal 

year 2016 level of 106.8 million for the state grant program 

4 ............. ME Collins EPA Environmental Programs and Management. Rural Water Technical Assistance Grant Program. $0 $15,000,000 Request an increase of 2.3 million over fiscal year 2016 level 5 ............. ME Collins USFS State and Private Forestry ................... Forest Carbon Pilot Program ................ n/a n/a Request report language. Forest Carbon Pilot Program.—Within the 

funding provided for State and Private Forestry, the Committee directs the Department to fund a pilot program on forest carbon research. Such a pilot should be carried out in natural forested regions of the United States and link research on forest carbon to forest landowners and managers by establishing the methods and developing tools needed to quantify forest carbon as a resource that can be managed for economic and ecological benefits. 

6 ............. ME Collins DOI BOEM .................................................... Renewable Energy ................................ $23,900,000 $24,300,000 Request fiscal year 2016 level of $24.3 million and report language. 

Renewable Energy.—The Committee provides $24.3 million for renewable energy leasing activities, including program development, environmental analysis, and consultation with Federal, State, and local stakeholders. The Bureau should continue to work with the Department of Energy to identify and permit a national offshore wind test site that incorporates new technology related to the structural material of transitional depth and floating wind turbines. The Bureau should also make funding available for installation of electrical infrastructure for such a test site.The Committee expects the Bureau to continue working with coastal States and other stakeholders to study new wind energy areas, including those in shallow, transitional, and deep (over 200 feet) waters. The Secretary should work with the Secretary of Energy and States to exchange information about the development of new technology related to the structural material, environmental, and design safety criteria, as well as design and performance standards of transitional depth and floating wind turbines. 
272 

Priority State Member Agency Account Program (if applicable) President’s Budget ($) Member Request ($) Request Description 

7 ............. ME Collins NPS Facility Operations and Maintenance .. ............................................................... $842,500,000 n/a Request continued support for the facility operations and maintenance 

of our NPS. 

8 ............. ME Collins USFS Community Forest and Open Space 

Conservation Program.

............................................................... $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Request at least fiscal year 2016 level of 2 million 

9 ............. ME Collins NPS Roosevelt Campobello International 

Park.

............................................................... $1,492,000 $1,657,897 Request retaining report language included in fiscal year 2016 Omnibus. Roosevelt-Campobello International Park Commission.—Funding for 

Roosevelt-Campobello International Park Commission (the Commission) on the Maine-Canada border is jointly and equally supported by the U.S. and Canadian governments pursuant to the 1964 Agreement between the two nations, which was recognized and codified by Congress in 1964 (Public Law 88–363). While the Administration has a responsibility to consider priorities within overall budget constraints and submit an annual budget request to Congress, the Committee is concerned with recent requests for the Park from the Service. Congress observed in 1986 the following: ‘‘The managers agree that hereafter the Service should use its internal reprogramming authority so that there will be no diminution of the amount provided for the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission, unless reduced by the House or Senate in a report accompanying the appropriations bill.’’ (CR–H10497, October 15, 1986). Therefore, the Committee directs that the budget request prepared by the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission shall be submitted by the Administration directly to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations without any changes. The Administration, in its National Park Service budget justification, may comment on the Commission’s budget request and make such additions and subtractions that it may propose. However, the amounts requested by the National Park Service shall be consistent with its obligations under international agreements. The Committee will consider the proposal from the Commission and the Administration will allocate the overall appropriation as specified in the report accompanying the Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. 

10 ........... ME Collins EPA National Estuary Program .................... ............................................................... $27,200,000 $26,700,000 Request at least fiscal year 2016 level of $26.7 million 11 ........... ME Collins USGS Water Resources Research Institute .... ............................................................... $6,500,000 $6,500,000 Request at least fiscal year 2016 level of $6.5 million 12 ........... ME Collins USGS Groundwater and Streamflow Information Program. ............................................................... $72,957,000 n/a Request continued funding for the Groundwater and Streamflow Infor- mation Program 13 ........... ME Collins USFWS State and Tribal Wildlife Grants .......... ............................................................... $67,000,000 $60,600,000 Request fiscal year 2016 level funding of $60.6 million 
273 

14 ........... ME Collins EPA National Priorities Research Grant Program. ............................................................... 0 $4,100,000 Request at least fiscal year 2016 level of $4.1 million 15 ........... ME Collins OIG Offices of Inspectors General ............... ............................................................... .......................... adequate

funding

Include adequate funding for all OIGs contained in the bill 
274 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE SUSTAINABLE URBAN FOREST COALITION

Dear Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and honorable subcommittee 

members: 

The Sustainable Urban Forests Coalition (SUFC) represents more than 30 national organizations and corporations who care and advocate for sustainable trees 

and green infrastructure where people live. Collectively, we are asking for your support for several programs under the Interior Subcommittee’s jurisdiction that support urban forests and green infrastructure. 

Our Nation’s 138 million acres of urban forests are vital to creating and maintaining healthy, livable communities of all sizes by providing scientifically proven social, 

economic, and environmental benefits to people living in populated areas. The National Urban and Community Forestry Advisory Council unveiled its Ten-Year Action Plan to advance urban forests nationwide. A key goal of the plan is to improve 

urban forest management, maintenance and stewardship. Caring for trees and landscapes in cities and towns creates a substantial demand for greencollar jobs in a 

sector poised for rapid growth. With a projected 90 percent of Americans living in 

urbanized areas by 2050, investing in livable communities needs to happen now. 

SUFC is conscious and respectful of the Federal budget challenges. It is critical 

that decision makers are aware that the relatively small investment in our funding 

requests result in a leveraged positive return through matching funds, preventive 

measures, and community health and welfare benefits. 

USDA FOREST SERVICE: STATE AND PRIVATE FORESTRY

Urban and Community Forestry Program (U&CF) 

U&CF plays an integral part in promoting sound stewardship of our Nation’s 

urban and community forests and trees. By providing important technical and financial support, U&CF helps cities, suburbs, and towns across the Nation enhance tree 

and forest cover, prepare for storms and other disturbance events, contain threats 

from native and invasive pests, and maximize the economic, social, and ecological 

benefits of their tree resources. In fiscal year 2015, U&CF again increased its impact—reaching over 200 million people in over 7,700 communities across all 50 

States, the District of Columbia, U.S. Territories, and affiliated Pacific Island Nations. U&CF is a high-impact program and a smart investment as Federal support 

is often leveraged 2:1 (or in many cases significantly more) by States and partner 

organizations. As a model Federal program, U&CF consistently increases communities served, brings together diverse partners and resources, and shows that Federal investment can have huge and lasting impacts on communities of all sizes. 

SUFC is very concerned with the significant decrease (16 percent) in the U&CF 

program in the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget. In testimony before the House 

and Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the Interior, Environment, and Related 

Agencies, U.S. Forest Service Chief Tidwell attributed the U&CF decrease to the increase in funding for the Landscape Scale Restoration (LSR) program. While U&CF 

projects have the opportunity to compete for grant funding under LSR, the SUFC 

does not support shifting funds from U&CF to LSR. LSR is a complement to the 

U&CF program, not a replacement. The proposed 16 percent reduction in U&CF 

will have negative impacts in States and Territories across the country, affecting 

many local public and private partners and collaborative projects in which Federal 

assistance has been essential. The decrease will erode the capacity that has been 

developed in cities and towns of all sizes through the technical and financial assistance delivered by State forestry agencies in partnership with the U&CF program. 

SUFC recommends the Urban and Community Forestry Program be funded at $31.3 

million in fiscal year 2017. 

Community Forests and Open Space Conservation Program (CFP) 

CFP has made substantial progress in preserving forests by increasing opportunities for Americans to connect with forests in their own communities and fostering 

new public-private partnerships. CFP has supported 27 community forest projects 

in cities and towns across 15 States and Territories. In the latest round of CFP 

grants, project partners leveraged $8.7 million in Federal funds to secure $31.8 million in non-Federal funding. As a result of these partnerships, more than 14,000 

acres of private forestlands have been or soon will be acquired to create new or expand existing community forests. SUFC recommends an increase in funds to $5 million. 

Forest Health Management 

Forests across the country are threatened by insects and disease pathogens introduced from abroad as an unwanted side effect of international trade. The damage 
275 

usually starts in urban forests because most imported goods go to cities. As a result, 

municipal governments across the country are spending an estimated $3 billion each 

year to remove trees on city property killed by non-native pests. Homeowners are 

spending an additional $1 billion to remove and replace trees on their properties 

and are absorbing an additional $1.5 billion in reduced property values. The pests 

do not stay in the cities, however. They spread to the rural and wildland forests 

and threaten their many values. Examples include the emerald ash borer—now killing forest trees from New England to the Great Plains; and the polyphagous and 

Kuroshio shot hole borers now killing trees in southern California riparian areas. 

While preventing introductions is the desired approach, it is essential that the Forest Service initiate programs countering these pests as soon as they are detected. 

Forest Health Management program provides essential expertise and assistance to 

State and municipal agencies and private landowners working to prevent these 

pests’ spread and to develop effective strategies to minimize the damage they cause. 

SUFC recommends $48 million for cooperative lands programs under the Forest 

Health Management program. 

USDA FOREST SERVICE: FOREST AND RANGELAND RESEARCH

SUFC urges the subcommittee to provide funding of $303 million for the overall 

R&D program. 

Urban Forestry Research 

The Forest Service Research and Development (R&D) program provides critical financial support for urban forestry research activities to develop information and 

tools for understanding conditions and trends in our Nation’s urban and community 

forests. Forest Service researchers have made huge strides in recent years through 

collaborative efforts to develop new tools, such as i-Tree, for mapping current tree 

cover, assessing trends, developing local strategies, and building greater understanding of the environmental, economic, and social services that trees and forests 

provide to communities. We urge the subcommittee to continue including language 

in Interior Appropriations reports encouraging the Forest Service to maintain a 

strong and vibrant urban forest research program. 

Non-native Insects and Diseases Research 

Among the major research challenges facing R&D, SUFC believes, is the destruction of our Nation’s urban forests caused by non-native insects and diseases. People 

who value urban forests join supporters of rural and wildland forests in depending 

on Forest Service R&D to develop better tools for pest detection and protective strategies including chemical and biological controls and breeding of trees resistant to 

pests. Currently, however, R&D provides only about $5 million for research on nonnative insects and diseases—less than 2 percent of its total budget. In the absence 

of a budget line item for invasive species research, we urge the subcommittee to include language in its Interior Appropriations report encouraging the Forest Service 

to increase funding for research targeting non-native insects and pathogens. 

Urban Forest in Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) 

The SUFC also wishes to call the subcommittee’s attention to our collaborative 

efforts with the Forest Service to bring urban forest data into the mainstream of 

the agency’s national data-collection program. FIA has long provided the Nation’s 

forest census, but it has not historically included urban areas because of its definition of forests. We ask the subcommittee to encourage the Forest Service to continue 

and strengthen its efforts to integrate urban forest data into FIA so that its critical 

data-collection efforts address all of our Nation’s forests, including our current and 

expanding 138 million acres of urban forest. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Clean Water State Revolving Funds (CWSRF) 

Green infrastructure, of which urban forests play a significant part, is a cost-effective and resilient approach to stormwater infrastructure needs that provides many 

community co-benefits: improving water and air quality; reducing a community’s infrastructure cost and promoting economic growth. SUFC supports the EPA’s goal of 

strengthening green infrastructure activities by incorporating green infrastructure 

and enhancing stormwater management. In fiscal year 2016, funding was reduced 

in the President’s budget but restored by Congress to $1.39 billion, resulting in only 

a small reduction for the current fiscal year. In fiscal year 2017, the President’s 

budget proposes an unprecedented cut to the CWSRF to just $979.5 million. SUFC 

asks the subcommittee to restore the CWSRF to the enacted fiscal year 2015 level 
276 

of $1.45 billion. SUFC also supports efforts to expand the use of green infrastructure to 20 percent to meet Clean Water Act goals through the CWSRF. 

Urban Waters Federal Partnership 

The Partnership is a unique 13 agency coordinated effort that helps stimulate 

local economies, create jobs, improve quality of life, and protect health by revitalizing urban waterways and the communities around them, focusing on underserved 

urban communities of all sizes. Partnership projects serve as a laboratory for developing and implementing innovative approaches to using Federal resources more efficiently and effectively—targeting investments and leveraging local leaders and community partners. SUFC supports the Urban Waters Federal Partnership, coordinated by the Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water. 

THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

Outdoor Recreation Legacy Partnership Program (ORLPP) 

SUFC supports robust funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(LWCF) as reflected in the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget. The State and Local 

Assistance Program provides matching grants to States and localities for protection 

and development of parks and recreation resources and is the primary Federal investment tool to ensure that families have easy access to urban forests in parks and 

open space, and neighborhood recreation resources. This nationally competitive program complements the existing State and local assistance program by creating opportunities for outdoor play as well as developing or enhancing outdoor recreation 

partnerships in cities. SUFC supports the President’s fiscal year 2017 request of 

$110 million for the State and local assistance program, which includes $12 million 

for ORLPP. 

Urban Parks Recreation Recovery Program (UPARR) 

The reestablishment of UPARR within the National Parks Service, proposed to be 

funded through LWCF, is essential to bring nature to the urban communities. These 

competitive grants focus on engaging and connecting communities, especially young 

people, to their neighborhood parks through projects that would revitalize and rehabilitate park and recreation opportunities. SUFC supports the President’s fiscal year 

2017 request of $25 million for the Urban Park and Recreation Recovery Program 

(UPARR). 

THE FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

Urban Wildlife Refuges 

With 101 refuges within 25 miles of 250,000 or more people, the Refuge System 

is a vital component of our urban forests. FWS also engages with 17 urban communities not directly connected to FWS refuges. SUFC agrees that the more engagement of individuals with their surrounding urban forests, the more they will come 

to understand and appreciate nature in and around their communities. SUFC supports the Refuge Visitor Service at $80.38 million with the additional $5.5 million 

above fiscal year 2016 enacted level to support the Urban Wildlife Refuges. 

Sincerely, 

Alliance for Community Trees 

American Forests 

American Planning Association 

American Public Works Association 

American Rivers 

American Society of Consulting Arborists 

American Society of Landscape 

Architects 

Arbor Day Foundation 

Bartlett Tree Foundation 

California ReLeaf 

Center for Chesapeake Communities 

Center for Invasive Species Prevention 

International Society of Arboriculture 

National Association of Clean Water 

Agencies 

National Association of Conservation 

Districts 

National Association of Landscape 

Professionals 

National Association of State Foresters 

National Recreation and Parks 

Association 

Outdoor Power Equipment Industry 

Society of American Foresters 

Society of Municipal Arborists 

Student Conservation Association 

The Davey Foundation 

The Nature Conservancy 

Tree Care Industry Association 

Trust for Public Lands 

Utility Arborist Association 

Water Environment Federation 
277 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE

The Tanana Chiefs Conference (TCC) would like to thank Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and all the members of the subcommittee for the 

opportunity to provide testimony about TCC’s priorities. 

TCC is a non-profit intertribal consortium of 37 federally recognized Tribes and 

41 communities located across Alaska’s vast interior. TCC serves approximately 

13,000 Alaska Natives in Fairbanks and the surrounding rural villages. Our traditional territory and current service area occupy a mostly roadless region that is 

nearly the size of Texas. It stretches from Fairbanks clear up to the Brooks Range 

and over to the Canadian border. 

Remoteness poses many challenges, but I can assure you TCC meets those challenges every day. TCC’s priorities over the coming years include substantially expanding public safety and court services, improving healthcare quality with a renewed focus on wellness and prevention, growing tribal influence in fish and game 

management, ensuring responsible economic development, and increasing employment in the villages. The fiscal year 2017 appropriations process provides this subcommittee with the opportunity to provide vital resources to help us achieve these 

goals. Today, I would like to highlight a few key areas, including the need for additional funds for the Indian Health Service, the importance of funding for tribal 

courts and hunting and fishing management, and the critical role of the Federal 

Government in funding responses to climate change in in-river—not just coastal— 

Alaska. 

IHS BUDGET

TCC was very pleased to see that the President’s budget contains a 6.5 percent 

increase over 2016 enacted levels. These additional funds are vital to addressing the 

critical need for health services for Alaska Natives and we hope the subcommittee 

is able to find the funds to meet these targets. 

Similarly, TCC supports the $48 million increase targeted to Purchased and Referred Care (PRC). These funds are used to buy healthcare when a tribal organization or IHS cannot provide the services. As we reported to you over the last several 

years, the demand on PRC funding has increased as healthcare costs, especially provider fees, have increased. These dollars will provide much needed relief to PRC 

programs across the country and especially for TCC-one of the only tribal health entities in Alaska that does not have a regional hospital and relies heavily on PRC. 

TCC supports the President’s budget request for IHS which includes $10 million 

in small health clinic funding for the Small Ambulatory Program. In remote Alaska, 

where hub clinics are sometimes hundreds of miles from a patient—the village clinics play an integral role in providing not only the everyday healthcare, but the 

emergency care needed to support the healthcare impacts from an area that contains the highest rates of accidents and violence in the Nation. The funding would 

be used for grants to 8–10 tribes to construct new small ambulatory health clinics, 

and we are optimistic that some of these funds will be used to create additional 

healthcare facilities in the villages we serve. 

And finally, TCC is relieved to see that, unlike last year, the President’s budget 

contains an increase of $4 million for the Domestic Violence and Prevention Initiative (DVPI). These funds support efforts to reduce the incidence of domestic violence, 

which affects Alaska Native women at a much higher rate than other populations. 

The statistics are not new. The Indian Law and Order Commission’s report made 

clear just how bad the situation was: Women in Alaska’s rural villages report rates 

of domestic violence up to 10 times higher than in the rest of the United States. 

Physical assault victimizations rates are 12 times higher. We request that you meet 

the President’s request for expansion of this very successful and urgently needed 

program. 

TRIBAL COURTS FUNDING

One of TCC’s strongest priorities is to see that our villages receive adequate public safety services. As the Indian Law and Order Commission’s report made clear, 

there is a lot of work to be done to ensure public safety in Alaska’s rural communities. Alaska is one of six States, called Public Law 280 States, in which jurisdiction over crimes in Native American communities rests mainly with the States. The 

BIA doesn’t have enough funding to go around and so it prioritizes its public safety 

efforts in non Public Law 280 States on the assumption that Public Law 280 States 

are investing sufficiently in public safety and law enforcement in Native and rural 

communities. But this is simply not so. The Alaska Department of Public Safety, 

which has primary responsibility for providing law enforcement in rural Alaska, pro-
278 

vides only 1.0 to 1.4 field officers for every one million acres. This means that at 

least 75 communities in Alaska lack any law enforcement presence at all. In most 

Alaska villages, the tribal courts are the only meaningful judicial voice for anything 

other than the most serious and violent of crimes. 

Tribal courts allow our villages to address public safety concerns in a way that 

is more responsive, more culturally appropriate, more attuned to local concerns than 

the State system, and most importantly seeks to heal and end criminal actively 

through a holistic community approach rather than incarceration which perpetuates 

criminal activity and creates more victims. Therefore, TCC was very disappointed 

to see that the President’s budget requests an $8 million reduction in funding for 

tribal courts in Public Law 280 States. The BIA estimated that it would need 

around $17 million in funding to maintain parity in Federal funding—which is itself 

only a fraction of actual need—for tribal courts in Public Law 280 and non-Public 

Law 280 States. Reducing this funding further will only exacerbate this disparity 

and is a terrible step in the wrong direction. We ask that the subcommittee find 

the funds necessary to maintain and expand this important initiative. 

CLIMATE CHANGE

As this subcommittee has long heard from TCC and other tribes and tribal organizations, Indian and Alaska Native communities are bearing the brunt of the existing—and accelerating—effects of climate change. For us, this is not about future effects. We are being impacted now. Therefore, we are pleased to see that the President’s budget includes $3.1 million in additional funds for Tribal Climate Resilience. 

However, the budget justification for this request places a strong emphasis on 

combating the effects of climate change on coastal Arctic villages, such as coastal 

erosion, and notes that the proposed increase ‘‘will be set aside to support Alaska 

Native Villages in the Arctic and other critically vulnerable communities to improve 

the long-term resilience of their communities.’’ Although we understand the serious 

difficulties faced by our fellow Alaska Native communities on the coast, it is important to understand that our communities are currently facing a massive increase in 

wildfires, riverbank erosions, spring flooding, substantial changes to flora and fauna 

distributions, and other major threats to physical and food security in our communities, all due to climate change. 

It can be stated with certainty that in the spring and summer months, with flooding threats and millions of acres on fire at a given time, Interior Alaska experiences 

the most impacts of climate change of any place in the Nation. Senator Murkowski 

and I visited the hub village of McGrath this past October and saw first-hand how 

the already vulnerable Kuskokwim River bank is threatened by erosion and the 

community’s response. This past summer, wildfires came literally within feet of destroying the villages of Nulato and Tanana and today there is a lot of work to be 

done towards rehabilitation of specific burned sites which impact these two villages. 

Therefore we ask the subcommittee to direct the BIA to make sure that this muchneeded increase is also used to combat the effects of climate change on in-river villages as well. 

SUBSISTENCE MANAGEMENT

The number one priority for not only Athabascans of Interior, but for all Alaska 

Natives is to continue traditional hunting and fishing practices which promote the 

social, cultural and spiritual well-being of our people. TCC and the Tribes along 

with Doyon and Fairbanks Native Association have partnered to ensure Alaska Natives and tribes have an increased role in hunting and fishing management. King 

Salmon have been a staple food source for many rural Alaskans across the State, 

yet failed management has recently prevented adequate subsistence harvests to 

meet our well-being needs. Tribal ability to manage hunting and fishing resources 

has been crippled by the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, but because of our 

dedicated unity towards this issue, tribes are increasingly proving to fill a necessary 

role in order for the State and Federal managers to achieve success. 

TCC has endeavored to take a stronger role in oversight and management of subsistence resources, including taking an active part in the establishment of intertribal fish commissions for the Yukon and Kuskokwim rivers respectively. The sole 

reason, the State of Alaska achieved for the first time in years, its Yukon River 

salmon treaty obligations to Canada is because the Yukon River Intertribal Fish 

Commission called for a river-wide moratorium on King Salmon fishing. 

The tribes are the most dedicated stakeholders in the efforts to save the King 

Salmon and should be given the proper funding and authority to carry out those 

stewardship duties that we will never turn our backs to. Therefore, TCC supports 

proposed increase of $5 million for the Tribal Management/Development Program, 
279 

with $2 million of this increase to address subsistence management in Alaska. We 

ask that you meet this important request and ensure the funding will go towards 

tribal projects rather than State, Federal or other projects that have continued to 

disenfranchise those most dependent on the resources—the rural Alaska Native people. 

CONTRACT SUPPORT COSTS

Finally, let me address the contract support cost issue. It has long been recognized that TCC provides far better services to our communities than the BIA or IHS 

ever did, and this is why supporting and honoring our TCC contracts with the BIA 

and IHS is so important. Our ability to maximize the results of our self-governance 

and to run robust programs depends on our receiving full contract support cost 

(CSC) reimbursements. 

In the past few years, significant strides have been made in this area. Thanks 

in large part to this subcommittee, we are now in an era of full CSC funding. We 

were delighted that the President’s budget estimate for CSC again provides for full 

funding. However, we ask that the Committee discontinue a proviso that was included in last year’s bill and in the President’s request because it is counter to existing law. Specifically, the proviso would direct that CSC amounts that were obligated 

but not expended by a tribe for the current fiscal year be applied to CSCs otherwise 

due in subsequent fiscal years. The Indian Self-Determination Act already addresses 

the use and disposition of unexpended contract and compact funds. Therefore, the 

proviso is unnecessary. Further, the proviso will cause unnecessary accounting difficulties. 

On a related note, we ask the subcommittee to include language in the appropriations act making clear that IHS must pay contract support costs on MSPI and DVPI 

program funds. Despite years of acknowledging that CSCs are due on these program 

funds, IHS in 2013 reversed course and started requiring tribes to cover these CSC 

costs with program funds. This position is in clear conflict the Indian Self-Determination Act, and nothing separates these programs from any other program within 

the Indian Health Service. Further, these program funds should be transferred to 

us through our existing self-governance compact, and it shouldn’t be necessary for 

us to execute separate grant agreements with IHS. The whole idea of the 1988 and 

1994 amendments to the Indian Self-Determination Act was to get away from having multiple different contracts and grants, and to consolidate and streamline our 

relationship with IHS. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify on behalf of TCC. We believe that 

the proposed increases will have a deep, meaningful, impact for the tribal members 

of Interior Alaska, and for the betterment of all Alaskans. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE THEATRE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the subcommittee, Theatre Communications Group—the national service organization for the American theatre—is 

grateful for this opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of our 523 not-for-profit 

member theatres across the country and the nearly 33 million audience members 

that the theatre community serves. We urge you to support funding at $155 million 

for the National Endowment for the Arts for fiscal year 2017. 

The entire not-for-profit arts industry stimulates the economy, creates jobs, and 

attracts tourism dollars. The not-for-profit arts generate $135.2 billion annually in 

economic activity, support 4.13 million jobs, and return $22.3 billion in government 

revenue. Art museums, exhibits, and festivals combine with performances of theatre, dance, opera, and music to draw tourists and their consumer dollars to communities nationwide. Federal funding for the arts creates a significant return, generating many more dollars in matching funds for each Federal dollar awarded, and 

is clearly an investment in the economic health of America. In an economy where 

corporate donations and foundation grants to the arts are diminished and increased 

ticket prices would undermine efforts to broaden and diversify audiences, these Federal funds simply cannot be replaced. Maintaining the strength of the not-for-profit 

sector, along with the commercial sector, is vital to supporting the economic health 

of our Nation. 

Our country’s not-for-profit theatres develop innovative educational activities and 

outreach programs, providing millions of young people, including ‘‘at-risk’’ youth, 

with important skills for the future by expanding their creativity and developing 

problem-solving, reasoning, and communication abilities—preparing today’s students to become tomorrow’s citizens. Our theatres present new works and serve as 

catalysts for economic growth in their local communities. These theatres also nur-
280 

ture and provide artistic homes for the development of the current generation of acclaimed writers, actors, directors, and designers working in regional theatre, on 

Broadway, and in the film and television industries. At the same time, theatres 

have become increasingly responsive to their communities, serving as healing forces 

in difficult times and producing work that reflects and celebrates the strength of our 

Nation’s diversity. 

Here are some recent examples of NEA grants and their impact: 

Actors Theatre Of Louisville in Louisville, Kentucky, received $50,000 to support 

the Humana Festival of New American Plays. The festival is a showcase of new theatrical work featuring American playwrights. The company will produce several fulllength plays, multiple 10-minute plays, and a commissioned work to be performed 

by its Acting Apprentice Company. Outreach activities will include panels and community forums. The event always attracts national theatre industry professionals 

from the United States and abroad. 

The Coterie Theatre in Kansas City, Missouri, was awarded $10,000 to support the 

development and production of Imaginary Friends by Laurie Brooks. The theater 

commissioned Brooks to write a play for teens and families that is adapted from a 

short story by her brother and award-winning fantasy author, Terry Brooks. The 

story centers on a young teen with a serious illness who must face a demon alone. 

Playwright Brooks will further develop the play and add a new work of fantasy to 

the canon of dramatic literature available for young audiences. Residencies in 

schools and interactive post-show forums will prepare students for its challenging 

themes and topic. The Coterie may partner with Children’s Mercy Hospital to benefit youth and families who are or have been recent patients. 

Oregon Shakespeare Festival in Ashland, Oregon, received $70,000 to support productions of Vietgone by Qui Nguyen, directed by May Adrales, and The Winter’s 

Tale by William Shakespeare, directed by Desdemona Chiang. The productions, 

which will play opposite each other in repertory, will be directed by Asian-American 

women and feature primarily Asian-American actors. Vietgone recounts the story of 

Vietnamese refugees who escaped the fall of Saigon and made it to the United 

States. The Winter’s Tale will be set at the turn of the 20th century in dynastic 

mainland China. The productions will be accompanied by educational activities as 

part of the annual conference of the National Association of Asian-American Theatre 

Artists. 

Trinity Repertory Company in Providence, Rhode Island, was awarded $20,000 to 

support a production of To Kill a Mockingbird, based on the novel by Harper Lee 

and adapted for the stage by Christopher Sergel. Directed by Brian McEleney and 

using color-blind casting, the production will be designed to reflect not only the Civil 

Rights Era in which the novel was written, but also the contemporary post-Ferguson 

world in which we live. The production will be supported by a wide range of inschool and community engagement activities such as artist-led classroom workshops, panel discussions, and post-show discussions with actors and artists. 

These are only a few examples of the kinds of extraordinary programs supported 

by the National Endowment for the Arts. Indeed, the Endowment’s Theatre Program is able to fund only 50 percent of the applications it receives, so 50 percent 

of applying theatres are turned away because available funds are insufficient. Theatre Communications Group urges you to support a funding level of $155 million 

for fiscal year 2017 for the NEA; to maintain citizen access to the cultural, educational, and economic benefits of the arts; and to advance creativity and innovation 

in communities across the United States. 

The arts infrastructure of the United States is critical to the Nation’s well-being 

and economic vitality. It is supported by a remarkable combination of government, 

business, foundation, and individual donors and represents a striking example of 

Federal/State/private partnership. Federal support for the arts provides a measure 

of stability for arts programs nationwide and is critical at a time when other sources 

of funding are diminished. Further, the American public favors spending Federal 

tax dollars in support of the arts. The NEA was funded at $148 million in the fiscal 

year 2016 budget; however, it has never recovered from a 40 percent budget cut in 

fiscal year 1996, and its programs are still under-funded. We urge the subcommittee 

to fund the NEA at a level of $155 million to preserve the important cultural programs reaching Americans across the country. 

Thank you for considering this request. 
281 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE TOHONO O’ODHAM NATION OF ARIZONA

SUMMARY OF BUDGET REQUESTS

1. Funding for Interior’s implementation of SAWRSA/AWSA water rights settlement. 

2. Increased funding for BIA Law Enforcement programs. 

3. Increased funding for BIA Roads Maintenance. 

4. Increased funding for Indian Health Service Facilities Construction. 

INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND

Good afternoon, Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall and distinguished 

members of the subcommittee. My name is Edward Manuel and I am the Chairman 

of the Tohono O’odham Nation, a federally recognized tribe with more than 32,000 

members. The Tohono O’odham Reservation consists of more than 2.8 million acres 

in the Sonoran Desert, shares a 75-mile border with Mexico, and is one of the largest Indian reservations in the United States. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify about the Nation’s Federal funding priorities. Let me begin by saying that the Nation appreciates the subcommittee’s dedication to providing Indian Country with much-needed resources in a very challenging 

fiscal climate. My testimony will focus on the following priorities: funding to implement our 1982 water rights settlement, law enforcement, roads, and healthcare. 

I. FUNDING TO IMPLEMENT THE NATION’S 1982 WATER RIGHTS SETTLEMENT

The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget request contains no request for funding 

to implement the Nation’s historic water settlement, the Southern Arizona Water 

Rights Settlement Act of 1982, Public Law 97–293 (‘‘SAWRSA’’), as amended in 

2004 by the Arizona Water Settlements Act, Public Law 108–451 (‘‘AWSA’’). The 

Nation is facing a serious water crisis because of the United States’ continued failure to fund this water settlement, despite statutory authorization and clear direction to Interior to do so. Under SAWRSA, as amended through the AWSA, the Nation gave up significant superior claims to ground water and surface water in the 

Upper Santa Cruz Basin. In exchange for releasing these claims, the United States 

promised that the Nation would receive reliable, affordable and long-term access to 

Central Arizona Project (CAP) water. 

In SAWRSA, Congress created the Cooperative Fund to pay for water deliveries: 

The parties to the settlement recognized there would be costs associated with the 

delivery of the Nation’s CAP water. To address these ongoing delivery charges in 

1982 Congress created the Cooperative Fund and authorized $16 million in Federal 

contributions toward the Fund. But in fact, the United States has never made this 

contribution to the Fund. In 2004, Congress doubled the United States’ promised 

contribution to $32 million, and explicitly identified the Lower Colorado River Basin 

Development Fund as an additional source for this funding. SAWRSA as amended 

provides that Interior must provide notice to Congress of the funding amounts necessary to carry out the United States’ obligations under the Act. However, despite 

repeated efforts to spur the Department into action, Interior has never requested 

any of the $32 million authorized under SAWRSA. 

Failure to make Federal contributions leaves the Cooperative Fund severely undercapitalized: The settlement provided that the Federal Government can only use the 

interest (and not the principal) for the Nation’s water delivery costs. Had the two 

$16 million Federal contributions been deposited as intended, the principal and accrued interest on these deposits would total more than $90 million today. Instead, 

as of March 4, 2016, there is only $34,393,003 in the Fund, less than $14 million 

of which is expendable interest. Again, despite repeated efforts to urge the Department to act, Interior has never officially notified Congress of the Fund shortfall. 

Federal projections show that the Cooperative Fund will run out of interest within 

3 years: Because these key Federal contributions were never made, the Cooperative 

Fund is in jeopardy—Interior modeling shows that the Fund will run out of expendable interest within 3 years if the Nation uses the CAP water entitlement guaranteed by its settlements. At present, the delivery costs chargeable to the Cooperative 

Fund are approximately $4.5 million per year. These delivery costs continue to rise 

with the increase in the cost of energy needed to deliver the CAP water. In the absence of swift action to rectify the implementation problems under SAWRSA and 

AWSA, the Nation will not be able to receive the benefits of the substitute water 

supply promised to the Nation in the settlements. 

If the Cooperative Fund runs out of interest, the Nation will be unable to take delivery of its CAP replacement water, and the consequences will be severe: Unless 
282 

SAWRSA is funded as Congress has authorized and directed, the Nation will not 

receive the benefit of its bargain and may lose access to its water entitlements— 

resulting in the closure of long-operating farms in which the Nation has invested 

tens of millions of tribal dollars, layoffs for dozens of employees, default on crop 

loans, and the breach of related water settlement agreements. 

Interior must act to begin to adequately capitalize the Cooperative Fund: The Nation respectfully requests that this subcommittee direct Interior to provide formal 

notice of the Cooperative Fund shortfall and that funding be included in the fiscal 

year 2017 budget for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Without water, water settlements are meaningless, and we ask the Congress to ensure the agreement the 

United States made with the Nation is fully implemented. 

II. LAW ENFORCEMENT

The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget requests $341 million for Bureau of Indian Affairs Law Enforcement, which is a decrease of over $6 million from the fiscal year 

2016 enacted level. The Nation requests that Congress increase funding for BIA law 

enforcement, not decrease it. 

The Nation faces significant and unique law enforcement challenges: The location 

and size of the Nation’s reservation presents unique and difficult law enforcement 

challenges. The Tohono O’odham Police Department (TOPD) must cover a huge geographic area, including many remote and isolated areas that are difficult to access. 

Communication among law enforcement agencies is also a challenge. In addition, 

our reservation includes a 75-mile southern border with Mexico, which is the longest 

shared international border of any Indian tribe in the United States. In addition, 

there are fourteen O’odham communities with a population of 1,800 members located across the border. These tribal members living in Mexico present unique border issues and challenges for the Nation. Because of the Nation’s location at the border, drug trafficking, illegal immigration and border security divert tribal police 

force resources. The Nation spends millions of dollars annually from tribal revenues 

to help meet the United States’ border security responsibilities. 

Current funding is utterly inadequate to meet the needs of tribal law enforcement: 

As NCAI has noted, ‘‘The Bureau of Indian Affairs recently conducted an analysis 

of law enforcement needs pursuant to the Tribal Law and Order Act, and found that 

current funding meets only 42 percent of the need for law enforcement, and an additional $337 million is needed to bring staffing up to median county government law 

enforcement levels based on population.’’ (NCAI Budget Request fiscal year 2017). 

The Nation’s unique law enforcement needs require even greater resources. In 2015 

TOPD officers handled 92,887 calls for service—a 5.26 percent increase in calls over 

2014 figures. During the same year, TOPD and Customs and Border Protection 

(CBP) seized over 368,000 pounds of marijuana on the Nation. These increased law 

enforcement needs have led to significant capacity challenges at the Nation’s Corrections Center, where a facility with a rated capacity of 107 beds serves an average 

daily population of 140 inmates. Millions of dollars in additional funding is desperately needed to address improvements at the Corrections Center ($2.1 million) 

and to hire and train officers, purchase vehicles, and to improve the security of the 

police station ($5.9 million). 

The Nation strongly supports NCAI’s funding recommendations: The National 

Congress of American Indians (NCAI) recommends an increase in funding for BIA 

law enforcement by at least $200 million over the fiscal year 2015 funding level of 

$328 million (the fiscal year 2016 enacted level was $347.9 million), including an 

increase in funds for officer recruitment and training and for tribal detention facilities operations and maintenance. The Tohono O’odham Nation strongly supports 

and concurs in that request. 

III. ROADS FUNDING

For fiscal year 2017 the President has requested $26.8 million for BIA Road Maintenance, an increase of only $90,000 from the fiscal year 2016 enacted level. NCAI 

has advocated for a significantly greater funding level, at $40 million. 

The BIA Road Maintenance Program is responsible for maintaining approximately 

29,400 miles of roads in Indian Country, and the funding for that program has been 

woefully inadequate for years. According to NCAI, the current deferred maintenance 

for BIA roads is in the neighborhood of $300 million. 

The Nation has hundreds of miles of poorly maintained roads: The Tohono 

O’odham Nation’s reservation encompasses over 4,500 square miles. There are hundreds of miles of roads on the Nation, including approximately 500 miles of arterial 

and collector roads (roads with significant traffic and higher speed limits), plus 

many more local and dirt and gravel roads used by the Nation’s members. Maintain-
283 

ing the reservation’s vast road system is a major challenge. Our roads are in very 

bad condition, due in large part due to inadequate BIA funding for repair and maintenance. The poor condition of the roads is further exacerbated by heavy monsoon 

rains and flooding. The roads are marred by sink holes, pot holes, broken and 

cracked pavement, and weakened and washed out bridges. During monsoon season, 

the flooding often completely inundates the roads and makes them impassable; it 

also washes out bridges, isolating communities, stranding children on school buses 

and preventing access for emergency vehicles. A number of our people have been 

killed by flooding while traveling on these roads. 

Bureaucratic red tape further exacerbates road damage: The Nation’s already deteriorated roads suffer further damage from heavy usage by CBP vehicles, which have 

increased dramatically in number on the Nation’s reservation in response to border 

security issues. The poor conditions of these roads negatively affects CBP’s and 

TOPD’s ability to respond to emergencies and support mission critical operations, 

and tribal members’ ability to undertake simple day-to-day activities like driving to 

the grocery store or doctor’s office. Both the Nation and CBP need roads that are 

accessible and safe to travel, and that ensure the safety and security of tribal citizens, TOPD law enforcement, and CBP patrol officers. 

The Nation has attempted to work with CBP to repair these damaged roads, but 

BIA objects to these repairs because of liability concerns while at the same time acknowledging that the BIA does not have the funding to repair them. Despite years 

of discussion, BIA and CBP have not been able to reach agreement on how they can 

use their existing appropriations and authorities to fund the repair of the roads 

damaged by CBP vehicles—effectively endangering the safety of both CBP and the 

Nation’s citizens using those roads. 

We ask that the subcommittee work with the HSGAC Subcommittee to make 

clear in both appropriations bills that both agencies have authority and responsibility to use their funding to repair and maintain the Nation’s roads that have been 

damaged by CBP vehicles. 

The Nation strongly supports NCAI’s funding recommendations: In sum, the Nation strongly supports NCAI’s recommendation that Congress provide $40 million 

for the BIA Road Maintenance Program—as NCAI has made clear, this is the minimum amount needed ‘‘to begin to address the most critical maintenance needs of 

BIA roads in Indian Country.’’ (NCAI Budget Request 2017). 

IV. HEALTH CARE

The President’s fiscal year 2017 budget request includes $132 million for Health Care Facilities Construction, an increase of $27 million from the fiscal year 2016 

enacted level. The increase will provide an additional $11.4 million for construction 

projects from the Health Care Facilities Construction Priority List. This will provide 

funding for the six Health Care Facilities Construction projects in fiscal year 2017, 

none of which are on the Nation. 

The Indian Health Service Unit that serves the Nation in Sells, Arizona is over 

50 years old and one of the oldest facilities within IHS: The Sells IHS Unit can handle only minor medical issues, and is completely inadequate to serve the Nation’s 

needs. The Sells replacement hospital has been on the IHS facilities construction 

list for more than 20 years. There are several projects ahead of the Nation’s Sells 

IHS Unit on the priority list, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. Even with the 

requested budget increase, the Sells Unit still will not be funded, although it will 

be closer to being funded. This illustrates the need for additional funding for Health 

Care Facilities Construction. Additional funding is needed for IHS to work its way 

down the ‘‘priority list’’ and eventually begin work on a replacement facility for the 

Nation. 

We ask that the Committee provide substantial increases to the IHS Facilities 

budget. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE TRUST FOR PUBLIC LAND

Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and distinguished members of 

the Interior subcommittee: 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to submit testimony on behalf of The 

Trust for Public Land in support of programs under your jurisdiction for the fiscal 

year 2017 appropriations process. The Trust for Public Land (TPL) is a national 

nonprofit land conservation organization working to protect land for people in communities across the Nation. We are extremely grateful for the support members of 

this subcommittee and other conservation leaders in Congress have shown for Federal conservation programs during these challenging fiscal times. We recognize that 
284 

the subcommittee will again face enormous challenges in meeting the broad range 

of priority needs in the Interior and Environment bill this year. Our work in many 

of your States and elsewhere around the country shows that there is tremendous 

support for conservation and access to recreation at the local, State and Federal 

level, and the programs under your jurisdiction play a critical role in bringing those 

community visions to reality. Thank you for your support. 

Federal funding is an absolutely critical part of the conservation toolbox and provides manifold benefits to the American people. Given the limited public conservation funding at all levels of government, TPL works to leverage Federal conservation 

dollars, bringing to bear private philanthropic support as well as State and local 

funding to forge solutions to sometimes complex conservation funding challenges. 

The major programs under your jurisdiction that we count on year in and year out 

are the entire suite of Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) programs—including BLM, FWS, NPS and USFS acquisitions, NPS State and local grants, the 

Forest Legacy Program, the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund 

and the American Battlefield Protection Program—as well as the USFWS North 

American Wetlands Conservation Act and the USFS Community Forest Program. 

Land and Water Conservation Fund.—The Land and Water Conservation Fund 

(LWCF) celebrated its 50th anniversary in 2014. In the fiscal year 2016 omnibus 

appropriations bill, Congress took an important step by reauthorizing the program 

for three additional years until 2018 and appropriating $450 million, an increase 

from $306 million. These two actions were a major achievement. We are extremely 

grateful to the members of the subcommittee for their critical role in this successful 

effort, which will result in important conservation and outdoor recreation investments at the local, State and Federal levels. Investments in conservation and outdoor recreation make sound economic sense. The Outdoor Industry Association estimates that active outdoor recreation contributes $646 billion annually to the U.S. 

economy, supports nearly 6.1 million jobs across the country, and generates $39.9 

billion in annual national tax revenue. 

We strongly support the fiscal year 2017 President’s budget proposal to fully fund 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund at $900 million, with $475 million from discretionary sources and $425 million in mandatory funds, for the various component 

programs funded under LWCF. In the fiscal year 2017 bill, we respectfully request 

that you allocate at least the $475 million in discretionary funding to support essential community-based conservation and outdoor recreation needs. We recognize that 

the mandatory funding request requires additional legislative action, and we appreciate the support of the subcommittee as that process moves forward. Continued annual investment in the entire suite of LWCF programs as proposed in the budget 

is essential and we are ready to work with the subcommittee to ensure that dollars 

invested are well spent on our Nation’s most urgent needs. We greatly appreciate 

the key role your subcommittee plays in ensuring that program dollars are used for 

high-priority strategic investments and appreciate that in challenging budgetary 

times you have maintained a commitment to this bipartisan program. 

LWCF’s programs bring specific and complementary conservation benefits to the 

American public. These key programs are: 

BLM/FWS/NPS/USFS Land Acquisitions.—Every year tens of millions of Americans, as well as visitors to our country, enjoy our Federal public lands—national 

parks, forests, wildlife refuges and BLM conservation lands. Recent data shows that 

National Park Service units were visited by larger numbers than in the past 20 

years. Strategic inholding and other acquisitions in these Federal areas through 

LWCF ensure recreation access and nature education; foster vital economic growth; 

protect clean water and other community resources; enhance the incomparable natural and scenic treasures that belong to all Americans; and frequently resolve complex land-use conflicts and produce management savings. Without adequate funding, the unfortunate alternative often is an irretrievable loss of public use and enjoyment of these areas and irreversible damage to the resources we all care about. 

This is precisely the choice for numerous outdoor recreation and natural resource 

protection projects budgeted in fiscal year 2017, including lands in the Tahoe and 

Eldorado national forests in California, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, and the 

Appalachian Trail near Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. The Trust for Public Land is 

working in these and other areas identified in the President’s budget and looks forward to working with the subcommittee as you consider these critical needs. 

We applaud the inclusion of recreational access line items in the fiscal year 2016 

omnibus appropriations bill for each of the four land management agencies—with 

particular emphasis on BLM and USFS—and support similarly focused funding in 

the fiscal year 2017 bill to address opening up and improving public access to the 

outdoors. 
285 

We urge the subcommittee to allocate at least the discretionary funding levels for 

each land management agency as proposed in the fiscal year 2017 President’s budget: BLM—$32.301 million; FWS: $35.884 million; NPS: $37.314 million; USFS: 

$49.703 million. 

USFS: Forest Legacy Program.—For 25 years, the Forest Legacy Program has 

been an extraordinarily effective program, providing assistance to States and localities seeking to preserve important working forests. It has protected over 2.5 million 

acres of forestland and has leveraged more than the required 25 percent match. For 

fiscal year 2017, the President’s budget recommends projects that provide multiple 

public benefits through forest protection—clean water, wildlife protection, climate 

change adaptation and mitigation, public access to recreation, economic development 

and sustainable forestry. We urge your continued support for sustained investment 

in this strategic and successful program. Included in the fiscal year 2017 budget 

proposal are numerous projects where TPL is working with States, landowners and 

other partners to protect recreation access for snowmobilers and hikers, ensure jobs 

in the woods, buffer important Federal and State conservation areas and provide 

strategic land conservation that fits a larger goal. Among these are the Whitefish 

Lake Project which will protect the recreational access, a municipal water supply 

and critical wildlife habitat near Whitefish and Columbia Falls in Montana; a 3,714- 

acre tract in the Rio Brazos watershed in New Mexico; and a 1,533-acre property 

at Wallowa Lake in northeastern Oregon. We support a minimum of $62.347 million 

in discretionary funding for the Forest Legacy Program in fiscal year 2017. 

USFWS: Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund.—We are grateful 

for the subcommittee’s historic support for USFWS grant programs, including the 

Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund (CESCF), which leverages 

State and private funds and has protected threatened and endangered species habitat across the Nation. Two components of this program are funded via LWCF: the 

Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) Land Acquisition program and the Recovery Land 

Acquisition (RLA) program. The CESCF has been critical to communities in Montana, California, and Hawaii where landowners and public wildlife managers are 

working together through integrated HCP’s to foster species recover and appropriate 

economic development. We support at least the enacted level of $30.8 million for the 

HCP and RLA programs. 

NPS: State and Local Assistance grants.—Since 1965, the State and local assistance grant program has provided over $4 billion in Federal funds for more than 

42,000 projects in States and local communities for park protection and development 

of recreation facilities. This program reaches deep into communities across our Nation, supporting citizen-led efforts to conserve places of local importance and opportunities for close-to-home recreation. Through our Parks for People Program, The 

Trust for Public Land works with local communities to create, build, design, fund 

and care for parks, trails and playgrounds. As we continue our work with many of 

these communities to meet these needs, we hope the subcommittee will fully fund 

the administration’s discretionary request for stateside grants and that a mandatory 

full-funding LWCF solution will provide much-needed additional funding for this important program. We also strongly support the allocation of a portion of LWCF State 

and local assistance funds to the nationwide competitive program, the Outdoor 

Recreation Legacy Program, which has now been included in three consecutive appropriations bills. Last year Congress demonstrated a deeper commitment to this 

program by bringing its funding level up to $12 million, for which we are extremely 

grateful. We greatly appreciate the subcommittee’s leadership in setting aside these 

funds and support an allocation of no less than $12 million for ORLP in fiscal year 

2017. 

NPS: American Battlefield Protection Program.—We applaud the subcommittee 

for its longstanding commitment to this important program, which complements acquisitions of threatened Civil War, Revolutionary War, and War of 1812 properties 

in national park units with non-Federal land protection of key battlefield sites. We 

hope that Congress can fully fund the program again at the enacted $10 million 

level. 

Beyond LWCF, we urge the subcommittee to provide adequate funding to other 

conservation programs including: 

USFWS: North American Wetlands Conservation Act.—We respectfully request 

your support for program funding at the enacted and proposed level of $34.1 million 

in fiscal year 2017. The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) provides much-needed matching grants to carry out wetlands conservation, restoration 

and enhancement projects. A recent NAWCA grant will help ensure protection of a 

215-acre property in the growing suburbs of Portland, Maine, including a 46 acre 

pond that provides habitat for waterfowl and migratory birds. NAWCA is a highly 
286 

leveraged program with a substantial record of success and is another important 

Federal conservation tool to support critical wetland habitat. 

USFS: Community Forest Program.—We urge your continued support for the 

Community Forest Program (CFP), which complements existing conservation programs by helping communities and tribes identify, purchase, and manage locally important forestlands that are threatened with development. These community forests 

can be tailored to local needs, from timber revenue for municipal or county budgets 

to recreation access and outdoor education. Every Federal dollar from CFP is evenly 

matched by funding from State, local, and private sources. The Forest Service has 

now approved 27 grants in 15 States for innovative local and tribal projects, and 

the program has generated significant interest from local entities concerned about 

the future of their close-to-home forests. Given the strong interest in community forests from coast to coast, we urge you to include $5 million in the fiscal year 2017 

bill for this innovative conservation tool. 

Wildfire Disaster Funding Act.—We also support efforts to improve budgeting for 

forest fire management that will provide Federal agencies the means to fight fires 

without raiding other important Federal programs, like LWCF. America’s forests 

and forest-dependent communities are at risk from outbreaks of pests and pathogens, persistent drought, and the buildup of hazardous fuels. Urbanization and development patterns are placing more homes and communities near fire-prone landscapes, leading to more destructive and costly wildfires. Unfortunately and again in 

fiscal year 2015, the 10-year average was not enough to meet the USFS suppression 

needs, forcing the agency to transfer $700 million from non-suppression accounts to 

make up for the shortfall. The current wildfire suppression funding model and cycle 

of transfers and repayments has negatively impacted the ability to implement forest 

management, among many other activities. Additionally, the increasing 10-year average to has not met annual suppression needs since before fiscal year 2002, which 

is why we are thankful to the subcommittee for the full transfer repayment and increased suppression funding in fiscal year 2016. However, we understand this is not 

expected to occur every year. DOI and USFS need a long-term fire funding solution 

that would result in stable and predictable budgets. 

We appreciate the subommittee’s support of the bipartisan Wildfire Disaster 

Funding Act, which addresses Federal fire funding challenges as well as other bipartisan congressional efforts in this regard. We respectfully request a bipartisan 

fire funding solution that would (1) access disaster funding, (2) minimize transfers, 

and (3) address the continued erosion of agency budgets over time, with the goal 

of reinvesting in key programs that would restore forests to healthier conditions. 

The programs highlighted here are critical to the future of conservation at the 

local, State and Federal levels; reflect the continued demand on the part of the 

American people for access to outdoor recreation; and help sustain our economy and 

reflect the true partnership that exists in Federal conservation efforts. As ever, we 

are deeply thankful for the subcommittee’s recognition of the importance of these 

programs and urge you to maintain robust funding for them in the fiscal year 2017 

Interior, Environment and Related Agencies bill. Thank you for your help and support, and for your consideration of our requests. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE USGS COALITION

The USGS Coalition appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony about the 

fiscal year 2017 budget for the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The USGS 

Coalition supports the administration’s budget request of $1.2 billion for the USGS. 

The requested funding would allow the agency, by advancing scientific discovery and 

innovation, to sustain current efforts and make strategic investments that will 

produce the impartial knowledge and decision support tools needed by decision-makers across the country. 

Few modern problems can be addressed by a single scientific discipline. The 

USGS is uniquely positioned to provide information and inform responses to many 

of the Nation’s greatest challenges. The USGS is an agency that has a unique capacity to deploy truly interdisciplinary teams of experts to gather data, conduct research, and develop integrated decision support tools that improve ecosystem management, ensure accurate assessments of our water quality and quantity, reduce 

risks from natural and human-induced hazards, deliver timely assessments of mineral and energy resources, and provide emergency responders with accurate 

geospatial data and maps. 

The USGS Coalition is an alliance of over 70 organizations united by a commitment to the continued vitality of the United States Geological Survey to provide critical data and services. The Coalition supports increased Federal investment in 
287 

USGS programs that underpin responsible natural resource stewardship, improve 

resilience to natural and human-induced hazards, and contribute to the long-term 

health, security, and prosperity of the Nation. 

ESSENTIAL SERVICES FOR THE NATION

Established by Congress as a branch of the Department of the Interior in 1879, 

the United States Geological Survey has a national mission that extends beyond the 

boundaries of the Nation’s public lands to positively impact the lives of all Americans. The agency plays a crucial role in protecting the public from natural hazards, 

assessing water quality and quantity, providing geospatial data, and conducting the 

science necessary to manage our Nation’s biological, mineral, and energy resources. 

Through its offices across the country, the USGS works with partners to provide 

high-quality research and data to policymakers, emergency responders, natural resource managers, civil and environmental engineers, educators, and the public. A 

few examples of the USGS’ valuable work are provided below. 

The USGS plays an important role in reducing risks from natural hazards that 

jeopardize human lives and result in billions of dollars in damages annually. Seismic networks and hazard analysis are used to formulate earthquake probabilities 

and to establish building codes. The continued efforts on an earthquake early warning system, ShakeAlert, can provide advance notice of ground shaking from an 

earthquake to allow for the protection of life and property. USGS volcano monitoring provides warnings to avian officials about impending eruptions. Data from 

the USGS network of streamgages enable the National Weather Service to issue 

flood and drought warnings. The bureau and its Federal partners map seasonal 

wildfires and assess the potential spread of fires. 

The Survey collects scientific information on water availability and quality to inform the public and decision-makers about the status of freshwater resources and 

how they are changing over time. During the past 130 years, the USGS has collected streamflow data at over 21,000 sites, water-level data at over 1,000,000 wells, 

and chemical data at over 338,000 surface-water and groundwater sites. This information is needed to effectively manage freshwaters—both above and below the land 

surface—for domestic, public, agricultural, commercial, industrial, recreational, and 

ecological purposes. 

USGS assessments of mineral and energy resources—including rare earth elements, coal, oil, unconventional natural gas, and geothermal—are essential for making decisions about the Nation’s future. The Survey identifies the location and quantity of domestic mineral and energy resources, and assesses the economic and environmental effects of resource extraction and use. The agency is mapping domestic 

supplies of rare earth elements necessary for widespread deployment of new energy 

technologies, which can reduce dependence on foreign oil. The USGS is the sole Federal source of information on mineral potential, production, and consumption. 

USGS science plays a critical role in informing sound management of natural resources on Federal and State lands. The USGS conducts research and monitoring 

of fish, wildlife, and vegetation—data that informs management decisions by other 

Interior bureaus regarding protected species and land use. Ecosystems science is 

also used to control invasive species and wildlife diseases that can cause billions of 

dollars in economic losses. The Survey provides information for resource managers 

as they develop adaptive management strategies for restoration and long-term use 

of the Nation’s natural resources in the face of environmental change. 

Research conducted by the USGS is vital to predicting the impacts of land use 

and climate change on water resources, wildfires, and ecosystems. The Landsat satellites have collected the largest archive of remotely sensed land data in the world, 

allowing for access to current and historical images that are used to assess the impact of natural disasters and monitor global agriculture production. The USGS also 

assesses the Nation’s potential for carbon sequestration. Other Interior bureaus use 

USGS research on how climate variability affects fish, wildlife, and ecological processes to inform natural resource management decisions. 

FUNDING

Over the years, Congress has worked in a bipartisan fashion to provide essential 

funding to the USGS. These efforts have paid dividends and helped the USGS provide answers to the challenging questions facing decision-makers across the country. 

The funding level proposed for fiscal year 2017 for the USGS would allow the 

agency to invest in mission critical areas, including: 

—Support for development of the Landsat 9 ground system; 

—Development of methods to assess regional and national water use trends during drought; 
288 

—New research on native pollinators, which are essential to our Nation’s agricultural and natural systems; 

—Establishment of a real-time water quality monitoring capabilities along the 

Northeast Coast to further a prototype contaminant detection network; 

—Improvement of earthquake monitoring in the Central and Eastern United 

States; 

—Development of new tools to detect and control new and emerging invasive species; 

—Establishment of a new Great Lakes Climate Science Center to improve research in this distinctive region; 

—Accelerate assessments of domestic unconventional oil and gas resources; 

—Expand use of rapid deployable streamgages to improve data collection during 

floods; 

—Enhanced research in the Artic on sea-level rise, severe storms, and/or melting 

permafrost; and 

—Provide support for 3DEP to provide lidar coverage for the country and increased support for topographical mapping for the United States. 

We are also pleased to see the proposed increases for Core Science Systems, 

Science Support, and facilities. These parts of the USGS budget are essential to the 

success of scientific research and monitoring conducted by other programs in the bureau. All three budget lines were lower in fiscal year 2016 than they were in fiscal 

year 2011. Currently, the USGS is faced with approximately $400 million in deferred maintenance to facilities and research centers. Continued deferment is creating situations in which one-of-a-kind and mission critical samples and data are 

being lost. 

Through careful management and deferring staff travel and training, the USGS 

has survived the recent budget cuts resulting from sequestration. Staff training and 

participation in scientific meetings, however, are necessary investments that help 

USGS maintain its technical capacity. It is through exchanges at scientific meetings 

and workshops that new ideas emerge and scientific analyses are shared, challenged 

by colleagues, and honed prior to submitting research for publication in peer-reviewed journals. We encourage Congress to work with the USGS to ensure that scientists are able to fully participate in scientific meetings. 

As a science agency, much of the USGS budget is dedicated to salaries and equipment that must be maintained and updated to ensure the continuity of data acquisition and that the data gathered are reliable and available for future scientific investigations. We believe that the leadership of the USGS is doing all it can, and has 

been for a number of years, to contain costs while continuing to deliver high quality 

science. 

CONCLUSION

We recognize the financial challenges facing the Nation, but losing irreplaceable 

data can increase costs to society today and in the future. Data not collected and 

analyzed today is data lost forever. This is particularly significant for environmental 

monitoring systems, where the loss of a year’s data can limit the scope and reliability of long-term dataset analysis. The USGS Coalition requests that Congress 

work to provide $1.2 billion for fiscal year 2017. 

The USGS Coalition appreciates the subcommittee’s past leadership in strengthening the United States Geological Survey. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this request. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UNITED STATES SECTION OF THE PACIFIC SALMON

COMMISSION

Mr. Chairman, and honorable members of the subcommittee, I am Ron Allen, the 

Alternate Tribal Commissioner and Chair of the Finance and Administration Committee for the U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission (PSC). The U.S. Section prepares an annual budget for implementation of the Pacific Salmon Treaty. 

The integrated budget details program needs and costs for tribal, Federal, and State 

agencies involved in the treaty. Tribal participation in the treaty process is funded 

in the Bureau of Indian Affairs budget. 

In order meet the increased obligations under the 2009–2018 Pacific Salmon 

Treaty Agreement the 25 affected tribes identified costs at $4,800,000 for tribal 

research projects and participation in the U.S.-Canada Pacific Salmon Treaty 

process, an increase of $520,000 over fiscal year 2015 enacted level. The funding 
289 

for tribal participation in the Pacific Salmon Treaty is a line item in the BIA’s 

budget under Rights Protection Implementation. 

Under U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service programs, the U.S. Section identified needs 

as follows: 

USFWS participation in the treaty process is funded at $372,362 for fiscal 

year 2015. The Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission’s Regional Mark 

Center (PSMFC) receives support from the USFWS to provide data services to 

the PSC process at a level of $236,189 for fiscal year 2015. The total for the 

two programs is $608,551. This represents a decrease from fiscal year 2010 levels, which were $417,673 for USFWS and $315,000 for PSMFC, for a grand 

total of $732,673. The U.S. Section recommends increasing the fiscal year 2017 

funding for these programs by $50,000, which partially restores both programs 

to previous funding levels. 

This base funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service supports critically important on-going work. The funding for Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission’s 

Regional Mark Center is utilized to meet treaty requirements concerning data exchange with Canada. These program recommendations are integrated with those of 

the State and Federal agencies to avoid duplication of effort and provide for the 

most efficient expenditure of scarce funds. 

Funding to support activities under the Pacific Salmon Commission comes from 

the Departments of Interior, State, and Commerce. The U.S. Section can provide a 

cross-9cut budget summary to the Committee. Adequate funding from all three Departments is necessary for the U.S. to meet its treaty obligations. All of the funds 

are needed for critical data collection and research activities directly related to the 

implementation and are used in cooperative programs involving Federal, State, and 

tribal fishery agencies and the Department of Fisheries in Canada. The commitment 

of the United States is matched by the commitment of the Government of Canada. 

The U.S. Section of the PSC is recommending an adjustment to support the work 

carried out by the 24 treaty tribes’ participating in implementation of the treaty. 

Programs carried out by the tribes are closely coordinated with those of the States 

and Federal agencies. Tribal programs are essential for the United States to meet 

its international obligations. Tribal programs have taken on additional management 

responsibilities due to funding issues with State agencies. All participating agencies 

need to be adequately supported to achieve a comprehensive U.S. effort to implement the treaty. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service activities are necessary so the United States 

can maintain the critical database to implement the treaty. The work of the Regional Mark Processing Center includes maintaining and updating a coastwide computerized information management system for salmon harvest data as required by 

the treaty. This work has become even more important to monitor the success of 

management actions at reducing impacts on ESA-listed salmon populations. Canada 

has a counterpart database. The U.S. database will continue to be housed at the 

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission. 

Mr. Chairman, the United States and Canada established the Pacific Salmon 

Commission, under the Pacific Salmon Treaty of 1985, to conserve salmon stocks, 

provide for optimum production of salmon, and to control salmon interceptions. 

After 30 years, the work of the Pacific Salmon Commission continues to be essential 

for the wise management of salmon in the Northwest, British Columbia, and Alaska. For example, upriver bright fall Chinook salmon from the Hanford Reach of the 

Columbia River are caught in large numbers in Alaskan and Canadian waters. Tribal and non-tribal fishermen harvest sockeye salmon from Canada’s Fraser River in 

the Strait of Juan de Fuca and in Puget Sound. Canadian trollers off of the west 

coast of Vancouver Island catch Washington coastal Coho salmon and Puget Sound 

Chinook salmon. In the Northern Boundary area between Canada and Alaska, fish 

from both countries are intercepted by the other country in large numbers. The 

Commission provides a forum to ensure cooperative management of salmon populations. The agreements in the current Annex Chapters for management of chinook, 

coho, chum, and transboundary populations expire at the end of 2018. The Annex 

Chapter for management of Fraser River sockeye and pink chapter expires at the 

end of 2019. The United States and Canada are negotiating revisions to the current 

agreements. Based on past experience, the negotiation process will require additional meetings to reach a successful conclusion. It is important to have adequate 

resources for U.S. participants to negotiate the best outcome. 

Before the treaty, fish wars often erupted with one or both countries overharvesting fish that were returning to the other country, to the detriment of the resource. At the time the treaty was signed, Chinook salmon were in a severely de-
290 

pressed state as a result of overharvest in the ocean as well as environmental degradation in the spawning rivers. Under the treaty, both countries committed to rebuild the depressed runs of Chinook stocks, and they recommitted to that goal in 

1999 when adopting a coastwide abundance based approach to harvest management. Under this approach, harvest management will complement habitat conservation and restoration activities being undertaken by the States, tribes, and other 

stakeholders in the Pacific Northwest to address the needs of salmon listed for protection under the Endangered Species Act. The 2008 Chinook agreement continued 

these commitments. The combination of these efforts is integral to achieving success 

in rebuilding and restoring healthy, sustainable salmon populations. 

Finally, you should take into account the fact that the value of the commercial 

harvest of salmon subject to the treaty, managed at productive levels under the 

treaty, supports the infrastructure of many coastal and inland communities. The 

value of the recreational fisheries, and the economic diversity they provide for local 

economies throughout the Pacific Northwest and Alaska, is also immense. The value 

of these fish to the 24 treaty tribes in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho goes far beyond their monetary value, to the cultural and religious lives of Indian people. A 

significant monetary investment is focused on salmon as a result of listings of Pacific Northwest salmon populations under the Endangered Species Act. Given the 

resources, we can continue to use the Pacific Salmon Commission to develop recommendations that help to ensure solutions that minimize impacts on listed stocks, 

especially if we are allowed to work towards the true intent of the treaty: mutually 

beneficial enhancement of the shared resource. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my written testimony submitted for consideration 

by your subcommittee. I want to thank the subcommittee for the support that it has 

given the U.S. Section in the past. Please feel free to contact me, or other members 

of the U.S. Section to answer any questions you or subcommittee members may 

have regarding the U.S. Section of the Pacific Salmon Commission budget. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE UNITED TRIBES TECHNICAL COLLEGE

United Tribes Technical College (UTTC) has for 47 years, and with the most basic 

of funding, provided postsecondary career and technical education and family services to some of the most impoverished high risk Indian students from throughout 

the Nation. Despite such challenges we have consistently had excellent retention 

and placement rates and are a fully accredited by the Higher Learning Commission 

(HLC). We are proud to be preparing our students to participate in the energy economy in North Dakota and to be part of building a strong middle class in Indian 

Country by training the next generation of law enforcement officers, educators, medical providers, and administrators. We are governed by the five tribes located wholly 

or in part in North Dakota. We are not part of the North Dakota University System 

and do not have a tax base or State-appropriated funds on which to rely. The funding requests of the UTTC Board for fiscal year 2017 Bureau of Indian Education 

(BIE)/Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are: 

—$11 million for the line item, Tribal Technical Colleges, which is $3.6 million 

over the administration’s request. Of this amount, $6.8 million is BIE funding 

for our Indian Self-Determination Act contract. 

—Place Contract Supports Costs on a permanent, full, mandatory-funded basis. 

—Provide full funding for Tribal Grant Support Costs for tribally operated elementary/secondary schools. 

—Establishment of a tribally administered Northern Plains law enforcement 

training center at UTTC. 

First of all, we thank you for placing the Tribal Technical Colleges account that 

provides core operational funds to our institution and Navajo Technical University 

(NTU) on a forward funded basis as of fiscal year 2016. We also support your interest in providing forward funding for the three remaining colleges who not yet forward funded: Haskell Indian Nations University, Southwestern Indian Polytechnic 

Institute, and the Institute of American Indian Arts. 

The extended length of time to achieve forward funding for UTTC and NTU and 

the fact that three Indian higher education institutions are still not forward funded 

highlights the carefulness with which tribal college references need to be made. We 

are authorized under differing titles of the Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities Act and then there are other statutory authorities for the three institutions 

administered through the Bureau of Indian Education. 

Base Funding.—UTTC administers our BIE funding under an Indian Self–Determination and Education Assistance Act agreement, and has done so for 39 years. 
291 

We appreciate that the administration is requesting a $500,000 increase for Tribal 

Technical Colleges, but our need far exceeds that amount. The UTTC portion of the 

Tribal Technical Colleges line item should be $6.8 million based on an $11 million 

appropriation. 

Acquisition of additional base funding is critical. We struggle to maintain course 

offerings and services to adequately provide educational services at the same level 

as our State counterparts. Our BIE funding provides a base level of support while 

allowing us to compete for desperately needed discretionary contracts and grants. 

Very little of our other funds can be used for core career and technical educational 

programs; they are competitive, often one-time funds that help us provide support 

services but cannot replace core operational funding. 

We highlight several relatively recent updates of our curricula to meet job market 

needs. Indeed, the ramifications of the North Dakota Bakken oil boom are apparent 

as we have seen faculty and students leave education in pursuit of jobs in the 

Bakken region. At the certificate level, we saw the need for more certified welders 

in relation to the oil boom and expanded our certified welding program in response 

to the workforce need. We are now able to train students for good paying in-demand 

welding employment with a focus on career rather than just a job. And we recently 

received HLC approval to offer a Bachelor’s Degree in Environmental Science that 

will provide experiential research opportunities for our students. 

Funding for United Tribes Technical College is a good investment. We have: 

—Renewed unrestricted accreditation from the Higher Learning Commission for 

July 2011 through 2021, with authority to offer all of our full programs on-line. 

We offer 16 Associate degrees, 5 Certificates, and 3 Bachelor degree programs 

of study (Criminal Justice; Elementary Education; Business Administration). 

Six of the programs are offered online. 

—Services including a Child Development Center, family literacy program, 

wellness center, area transportation, K–6 elementary school, tutoring, counseling, family and single student housing, and campus security. 

—A projected return on Federal investment of 20–1 (2005 study). 

—A semester retention rate of 58 percent and a graduate placement rate of 82 

percent. 

—Students from 37 tribes represented; 67 percent of our undergraduate students 

receive Pell Grants. 

—An unduplicated count of 536 undergraduate degree-seeking students: 828 continuing education students; and 24 dual credit enrollment students for a total 

of 1,283 students for 2014–2015. 

—A dual-enrollment program targeting junior and senior high school students, 

providing them an introduction to college life and offering high school and college credits. —A critical role in the regional economy. Our presence brings at least $34 million 

annually to the economy of the Bismarck region. A North Dakota State University study reports that the five tribal colleges in North Dakota made a direct 

and secondary economic contribution to the state of $181,933,000 in 2012. 

Contract Support Costs.—As mentioned above, we administer our BIE funding 

through an Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act contract, and 

thus Contract Support Costs (CSC) are vital to us. We thank this subcommittee and 

the administration for the recognition of the legal obligation the Federal Government has to pay tribal contractors their full CSC. This has been an enormously important development for Indian tribes. We appreciate that the fiscal year 2016 appropriations act places Contract Support Costs for both the BIA and the Indian 

Health Service (IHS) in their own accounts and is funded at an indefinite amount, 

thus assuring full funding. That circumstance applies only to the fiscal year 2016 

appropriations and we join with others in Indian Country in supporting a long-term 

legislative solution that will provide full and permanent funding for Contact Support Costs. Placing CSC funding on a mandatory basis is the logical resolution to 

a long-term solution for CSC that will also protect the programs funded on a discretionary basis in the BIA and IHS budgets. 

Tribal Grant Support Costs for K–12 Tribally-Operated Schools.—We have a BIEfunded elementary school on our campus, the Theodore Jamerson Elementary 

School, and thus many of our college students and their children attend school on 

the same campus. For these elementary schools, Tribal Grant Support Costs are the 

equivalent of Contract Support Costs for tribes although authorized under different 

statutory authorities. We thank you for providing what is estimated to be full funding for Tribal Grant Support Costs in fiscal year 2016 ($73.3 million), and we support the administration’s fiscal year 2017 request of $75.3 million, estimated to be 

full funding. 
292 

A Northern Plains Indian Law Enforcement Academy.—We again ask Congress to 

seriously look at the problem of addressing crime in Indian Country with an eye 

toward the establishment of a campus-based academy for training of law enforcement officers at UTTC. We ask that you direct the Secretary of Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs to work with the Northern Plains tribes and others on the 

timely development of a plan for the establishment of an academy to better serve 

the tribes residing in the Northern tier of the United States. 

Establishment of such an academy at UTTC continues to be strongly supported 

by the Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association (GPTCA) via Resolution 5–1–20– 

16. The Resolution requests that the Secretary of Interior and the BIA consult with 

the tribes on the details of a plan for establishment of the Academy. Cultural and 

legal differences further support why such training should be tribally directed in 

order to be appropriate for the realities of tribal communities within different parts 

of the Indian Country. The need is critical and continues to grow with the methamphetamine, opioid and heroin crises and the resulting social ills from these 

epidemics. North Dakota and other northern border regions have special problems 

relating to drug and human trafficking. Additionally, the expanded tribal authorities under the Tribal Law and Order Act and the Violence Against Women Act only 

further the importance of trained law enforcement officers within our tribal communities. State and national training resources would have an important role in this 

new endeavor. 

The UTTC Criminal Justice program currently offers 2- and 4-year degrees, and 

prepares graduates for employment as Federal, State or tribal law enforcement, correction, parole and probation, and transportation safety officers; victim advocates; 

U.S. Customs, Homeland Security, and Military Investigative services; and private 

security agents. A pre-law program is currently in development to address the shortage of law trained personnel within tribal judicial systems. We want to expand our 

endeavors to help meet law enforcement needs in Indian Country. Given our Criminal Justice program, our location and our campus resources, we propose the establishment of a Northern Plains Indian Law Enforcement Academy. 

Basic law enforcement training is currently provided through the BIA’s Indian Police Academy in Artesia, New Mexico, which often has waiting lists. The BIA is depending on the basic training provided by State academies to supplement what is 

provided at Artesia. UTTC is well positioned with regard to providing both basic 

and supplemental law enforcement training. An academy at UTTC would allow tribal people in the Great Plains and other nearby regions a more affordable choice for 

training locations while minimizing the distance and long separation of trainees 

from their families. 

The fiscal year 2017 Indian Affairs budget (p. IA–PSJ–12) notes that training initiatives for the Indian Police Academy include developing a pre-Academy training 

program for candidates; developing a mid-level manager training program; and establishing an on-line distance learning program for recertification, among other 

things. These are things that we could do as part of an academy at UTTC or in partnership with the Indian Police Academy. 

In short, the BIA should be utilizing and enhancing the resources of UTTC to 

make a real difference in the law enforcement capability in Indian Country. We can 

offer college credit to trainees, and our facilities include the use of a state-of-theart crime scene simulator. Maintaining safe communities is a critical component of 

economic development for our Tribal Nations, and local control of law enforcement 

training resources is a key part of that effort. 

The Duplication or Overlapping Issue.—As you know in March 2011, the Government Accountability Office issued two reports regarding Federal programs which 

may have similar or overlapping services or objectives (GAO–11–474R and GAO– 

11–318SP). Funding from the BIE and the DOEd’s Carl Perkins Act for Tribally 

Controlled Postsecondary Career and Technical Education were among the programs listed in the reports. The full GAO report did not recommend defunding these 

programs; rather, it posed the possibility of consolidation of these programs to save 

administrative costs. We are not in disagreement about possible consolidation of our 

funding sources, as long as program funds are not cut. 

BIE funds represent over half of our core operating budget. The Perkins funds 

supplement, but do not duplicate, the BIE funds. Both sources of funding are necessary to the frugal maintenance of our institution. We actively seek alternative 

funding to assist with academic programming, deferred maintenance, and scholarship assistance, among other things. The need for career and technical education in 

Indian Country is so great and the funding so small that there is little chance for 

duplicative funding. There are only two institutions targeting American Indian/Alaska Native career and technical education and training at the postsecondary level— 

UTTC and NTU. Combined, these institutions received only $15.1 million in fiscal 
293 

year 2016 Federal operational funds ($8.2 million from Perkins; $6.9 million from 

the BIE). That is not an excessive amount for two campus-based institutions who 

offer a broad array of programs geared toward the educational and cultural needs 

of their students and who teach job-producing skills. 

We know members of this subcommittee have made a point to visit places in Indian Country and we would love to be able to arrange for you to visit United Tribes 

Technical College. Thank you for your consideration of our requests. Mitakuye 

Owasin (All my relatives) 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WESTERN GOVERNORS’ ASSOCIATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, the Western Governors’ Association (WGA) appreciates the opportunity to provide written testimony on the appropriations and activities of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Forest Service 

(USFS) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). My name is James D. Ogsbury 

and I am the Association’s Executive Director. WGA is an independent, non-partisan 

organization representing the Governors of 19 Western States and 3 U.S.-flag islands. 

The agencies within the subcommittee’s jurisdiction wield significant influence 

over vast areas of the American West, as 94 percent of all Federal lands are situated in the western States and the Federal Government owns over 46 percent of 

the land within active WGA States. The work of this subcommittee is of vital importance to Western Governors, as it helps establish how these lands are managed and 

how Federal agencies interact with other levels of government and the public. 

Western Governors recognize that there is a certain tension between State and 

Federal governments, one that is embedded in the very fabric of our Constitution. 

It is equally clear that these different layers of government must have a close and 

productive working relationship if our citizens are to prosper and thrive. Western 

Governors believe that such cooperation is only possible when States are regarded 

as full and equal partners with the Federal Government. 

The promotion of greater partnership between States and the Federal Government is central to the mission of WGA and represents a key theme of the WGA Species Conservation and Endangered Species Act Initiative, a signature project of the 

Association’s Chairman, Governor Matt Mead of Wyoming. The goal of wildlife conservation is essential to preserving the heritage of the West. This is possible only 

through the cooperative efforts of State and Federal officials across multiple disciplines, including data sharing and species management. 

For the past 3 years, the subcommittee has adopted report language directing 

Federal land managers to use State fish and wildlife data and analyses as principal 

sources to inform land use, land planning and related natural resource decisions. 

Western Governors are deeply appreciative of your assistance in encouraging a positive relationship between the States and the Federal Government in the use of wildlife data. Federal managers need data-driven science, mapping and analyses to effectively manage wildlife species and habitat, and in many cases States generate the 

best available wildlife science. 

This direction from the subcommittee is having a positive effect with Federal 

agencies. For example, in their recent rulemaking on Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife and Plants; Revisions to the Regulations for Petitions [80 FR 29286, May 

21, 2015], FWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service recognized the important 

role of State data and proposed common-sense process reforms. Western Governors 

view this progress as a direct result of the subcommittee’s efforts to urge Federal 

agencies to use State data, and are grateful for your steadfast commitment to this 

principle. With this encouraging progress, WGA urges you to maintain this position 

and reiterate it in your fiscal year 2017 report. 

Remaining on the topic of species conservation, Western States routinely invest 

enormous amounts of time, money and manpower in the management of wildlife 

and habitat conservation. It is appropriate for Federal agencies to provide sufficient 

resources for species protection, particularly on Federal lands. When Federal lands 

are inadequately managed, State and local efforts to protect habitat and species will 

not be sufficient to assure the success of species. Federal agencies must demonstrate 

their commitment to species preservation and recovery by committing sufficient 

funding for conservation efforts on Federal lands, and Western Governors encourage 

you to adequately fund these habitat management activities. 

Western Governors believe that States should be full and equal partners in the 

implementation of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and should have the opportunity to participate in pre-listing and post-listing ESA decisions. The Act is pre-
294 

mised on a strong State-Federal partnership. Section 6(a) of the ESA states that, 

‘‘In carrying out the program authorized by the Act, the Secretary shall cooperate 

to the maximum extent practicable with the States.’’ WGA submits that such cooperation should include partnership with States in the establishment of quantifiable species recovery goals, as well as in the design and implementation of recovery 

plans. 

ESA listing decisions can have dramatic impacts on vital State interests, influencing a State’s ability to conduct almost any activity—from road siting to new 

home construction to environmental projects. Consequently, States should have the 

right to intervene in proceedings regarding the ESA. Western Governors urge the 

subcommittee to support the legal standing of States to participate in administrative and judicial actions involving ESA that, by their nature, implicate State authority and resources. This is not a new concept: several Federal statutes—including the 

Clean Water Act, the Clean Air Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act—already vest the States with the role of co-regulator with the EPA. 

With respect to funding levels of appropriated programs, WGA recommends the 

enactment and full funding of a permanent and stable funding mechanism for the 

Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program administered by the Department of the 

Interior (DOI). PILT funding does not represent a gift to local jurisdictions; rather 

it represents important compensation for the disproportionate acreage of non-taxable Federal lands in the West. Similarly, payments under the Secure Rural Schools 

and Community Self-Determination Act (SRS) are critical to compensating communities whose timber industries have been negatively impacted by actions and acquisitions of the Federal Government. Western Governors hope that you will consider 

full funding for both PILT and SRS payments in fiscal year 2017. 

The subcommittee knows very well the pressing problem of ‘‘fire borrowing,’’ by 

which funding for routine Forest Service management activities is transferred to 

emergency firefighting activities. By diverting funding from management activities 

that reduce wildfire threats, this practice increases the overall fire risk and all but 

ensures that future wildfires will be more damaging and costly. WGA strongly supports efforts to solve the issue of fire borrowing, and would like to see the Federal 

Government use a funding structure similar to that used by the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) in its response to natural disasters. 

The 2014 Farm Bill accorded Governors the opportunity to request that National 

Forest System lands within their States be considered for insect and disease (I&D) 

designation, and the Forest Service responded by designating 46.7 million acres of 

land for expedited treatment. The Farm Bill authorized the appropriation of $200 

million to accomplish the work required under the statute. This work will reduce 

the threat of wildfires in areas of high risk, and WGA requests that funding be appropriated at a reasonable and sustainable level for I&D designation projects. 

Data for water management and drought response planning is critical to western 

States. Western Governors request adequate funding levels for the Cooperative 

Water Program and National Streamflow Information Program, both administered 

by the DOI’s U.S. Geological Survey. This data is integral to the water supply management decisions of States, utilities, reservoir operators and farmers. They are also 

used for flood forecasts, making them essential to risk assessment as well as water 

management. These two programs are important elements of a robust water data 

management framework in the western States, and provide needed support for 

drought mitigation efforts throughout the West. 

Infrastructure management is another crucial element of drought response. EPA’s 

Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds (SRFs) provide necessary 

support for communities to maintain and enhance their water infrastructure. The 

Western Governors’ Policy Resolution 2014–04, Water Quality in the West, encourages adequate funding for SRFs. 

The following recommendations are intended to help ensure that taxpayers realize 

a healthy return on the investment of limited discretionary resources. This goal will 

be more readily achieved to the extent that Federal agencies better leverage State 

authority, resources and expertise. 

Western Governors continue to be concerned about the number of wild horses and 

burros on BLM lands, which is presently estimated to be almost double the current 

Appropriate Management Level (AML). Overpopulation can degrade rangeland, 

causing harmful effects on wildlife and domestic livestock and threatened and endangered species habitat. WGA supports a process to establish, monitor and adjust 

AMLs for wild horses and burros that is transparent to stakeholders, supported by 

scientific information (including State data), and amenable to adaptation with new 

information and environmental and social change. 

While the EPA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ proposed rule expanding 

the definition of ‘‘waters of the United States’’ is currently being resolved in Federal 
295 

court, WGA continues to view the development of this proposal as an example of 

process failure. Congress intended for the States and EPA to implement the CWA 

in partnership and delegated authority to the States to administer the law as coregulators with EPA. States should be fully consulted and engaged in any process 

that may affect the management of State waters. While Western Governors appreciate the outreach from EPA and the Corps since the release of the proposed rule, 

we note that the agencies did not engage the States in substantive consultation 

prior to the release. Western Governors encourage congressional direction to EPA 

to engage the States in the creation of rulemaking, guidance or studies that threaten to redefine the roles and jurisdiction of the States. 

States have exclusive authority over the allocation and administration of rights 

to groundwater located within their borders and are primarily responsible for protecting, managing, and otherwise controlling the resource. The regulatory reach of 

the Federal Government was not intended to, and should not, be applied to the 

management and protection of groundwater resources. WGA encourages the subcommittee not to permit the use of appropriated funds for any activity that would 

implement a directive on groundwater management or otherwise subvert States’ primacy over water management. Federal agencies should work through existing State 

authorities to address their groundwater-related needs and concerns. Such collaborative efforts will help ensure that Federal efforts involving groundwater recognize 

and respect State primacy and comply with Federal and State statutory authorities. 

States also have delegated authority from EPA to manage air quality within their 

borders. Last year the EPA tightened the National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) for ozone to .070 parts-per-million, a level equal to background ozone levels in much of the West. Attaining the revised ozone standard will present significant challenges for many western States—challenges exacerbated by factors such as 

wildfire, transported ozone, and background ozone. For decades eastern States have 

enjoyed the benefit of financial and technical support from EPA for ozone research 

and mitigation. Given the attainment challenges presented, and the unique character of the West, funding should be appropriated for EPA to assist western States 

in discharging their ozone responsibilities. 

Western Governors and Federal land management agencies deal with a complex 

web of interrelated natural resource issues. It is an enormous challenge to judiciously balance competing needs in this environment, and Western Governors appreciate the difficulty of the decisions this subcommittee must make. The foregoing recommendations are offered in a spirit of cooperation and respect, and WGA is prepared to assist you as you discharge these critical and challenging responsibilities. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony. Please feel free 

to contact WGA if you have any questions about the content of these remarks. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WHITE EARTH RESERVATION TRIBAL COUNCIL

Dear Chair Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall: 

The White Earth Tribal Council supports President Obama’s fiscal year 2017 

budget. These funding increases for Indian Country will move our people forward 

in many positive steps. 

We know the subcommittee is aware of the challenges we face in Indian Country. 

However, the White Earth Band of Ojibwe has unique issues as its largest band of 

the Ojibwe in Minnesota. On aggregate American Indians in Minnesota suffer the 

following economic disparities: 

—38 percent of the Ojibwe live at or below poverty 

—50 percent of Ojibwe children live in poverty 

—48 percent of Ojibwe 16–64 are unemployed or not in labor force 

—20 percent of Ojibwe households exist with no wage earner 

The President’s proposal directly affects these economic disparities and we strongly support his budget. 

The White Earth Tribal Council recognizes that the subcommittee has asked Tribal Nations to highlight several areas of the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget that 

would be critically important to them. While we consider his overall proposal extremely important, the following budget areas best represent our interests at this 

time: 

1. $109 million increase for the Department of Justice and Bureau of Indian Affairs public safety and justice programs for Indian Country. The DOJ funding 

provides additional grants to address criminal justice issues. The BIA funding 

continues investments to reduce violent crime and repeat incarcerations. 
296 

2. $204 million increase for social services in Indian Country, $164 million in- crease for HHS Administration of Children and Families, $231 million for 

Head Start, $194 million for Tribal TANF, $55 million for Tribal Child Support, $212 million for Child Care programs, $106 million for child welfare and 

other programs. In addition, $55 million in SAMHSA to reduce the incidence 

of suicide among Native youth. 3. $60 million increase for BIE to support enhanced Native language and cultural 

curricular programming. 4. $55 million in HHS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services to expand 

for Native youth. 5. The Department of Energy’s Office of Indian Energy with $18 million for financial and technical assistance for renewable energy projects and energy efficiency projects. 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide written testimony on these issues. The 

White Earth Tribal Council invites you and members of your subcommittee to visit 

our reservation to see the positive work being performed in Indian Country. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WILDERNESS LAND TRUST

Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall and members of the subcommittee, 

my name is Reid Haughey and I am the President of the Wilderness Land Trust. 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony. My testimony focuses on a very 

small portion of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF)—funding for the 

Inholding Acquisition Accounts for the four land management agencies. Continued 

modest funding—between $3 and $5 million—of the Inholding Accounts is vital to 

the success of securing and preserving wilderness already designated by Congress, 

while treating private landowners within these areas fairly. 

The Trust is a small not-for-profit organization focused on protecting designated 

wilderness. To do this, we work in partnership with landowners who own private 

property within designated and proposed wilderness areas and the agencies that 

manage these areas. We acquire properties from willing sellers with the intent to 

transfer ownership to the United States. 

We recently marked the 50th Anniversary of the Wilderness Act of 1964 that established our National Wilderness Preservation System. As part of our celebration 

of the 50th anniversary, the Trust commissioned a national inventory of private 

lands within wilderness. The results are startling. The report determined that within the lower 48 States, 175,863 acres of private lands still remain in 2,883 parcels. 

There are also 440,000 acres of State owned lands. Alaska is home to 47 percent 

of the total nonFederal lands—predominantly Native corporation lands stemming 

from ANCSA—comprising 693,641 acres in 686 parcels. 

When the Trust started work 24 years ago, we estimated there were 400,000 acres 

of private land within designated wilderness in the lower 48 States. It has taken 

steady work to reduce that by more than half. Large appropriations for the 

Inholding Accounts did not accomplish this success—just reliable, modest funding 

so that lands can be purchased when landowners want to sell. This is the level of 

funding we are hoping to continue. 

Thank you for funding the Inholdings Accounts in fiscal year 2016 and I ask for that support once again. An appropriation of between $3 and 5 million to each of 

the land management agencies, the Forest Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Park Service, is sufficient to 

enable the agencies to acquire high priority inholdings from willing sellers. 

Our work, along with that of many other organizations and facilitated by funding 

of the Inholding Accounts, aims to give the Federal Government less work. Eliminating private inholdings within designated wilderness: 

—Saves Federal dollars 

—Solves management and resource problems 

—Helps private landowners, and 

—Increases recreational access and economic development 

Saving Federal dollars 

The management of human development activities in wilderness is expensive for 

the agencies. The potential resource damage to the protected lands and waters is 

enormous. While steady progress has been made reducing private inholdings in wilderness areas in the lower 48 States, our wilderness areas remain riddled with private inholdings that greatly threaten the wilderness that surrounds them and creates a ‘‘Swiss cheese’’ effect. While The Wilderness Act defines Wilderness as places 

where ‘‘where man himself is a visitor who does not remain,’’ private landowners 
297 

retain their rights to build roads, homes and other buildings, extend utilities, extract minerals and timber, and block public access. There are numerous cases where 

such inholdings have been developed in ways that seriously degrade wilderness values on the adjacent public lands. All of these activities pose challenges for Federal 

managers of the lands surrounding private inholdings and create significant and 

costly management inefficiencies. By contrast, the cost of acquiring these properties 

when they are offered for sale is relatively small. That is why continued modest appropriations for the inholding acquisition program are important. 

For example, the Trust acquired a property in the Hells Canyon Wilderness in 

Arizona several years ago that ended 38 years of on and off litigation over access. 

This saved the agency a lot of ongoing costs. It made the landowner happy and completed the wilderness that surrounded it. 

Further, as you are well aware, the costs associated with firefighting on public 

lands are enormous. The Wilderness Land Trust may be the only landowner within 

designated wilderness that can say it has experienced both sides of reducing firefighting costs. A property we owned in the heart of California’s Yolla Bolly Wilderness burned while we owned it. Significant resources were spent to protect the 

structures on it, risking life and limb, as well as money. 

On the other hand, the Trust’s Hells Canyon Wilderness property in Idaho burned 

1 week after it was transferred to Federal ownership. No one cared; no one came 

out to protect it. It burned as part of the natural process of wilderness and firefighting efforts rightly concentrated at the edges of the wildland-urban interface. 

Specific data on firefighting expenses are difficult to get. The Western Forestry 

Leadership Coalition, a State and Federal Government partnership whose members 

include 23 State and Pacific Island Foresters, 7 Western Regional Foresters, 3 Western Research Station Directors, The Forest Products Lab Director of the USDA Forest Service, published a report: The True Cost of Wildfire in the Western U.S. in 

April 2009. Among the case studies reviewed, the lowest total cost per acre firefighting expense was the Canyon Fire Complex in Montana (2000). The total cost 

was $411 per acre. There were only six structures involved. The highest cost per 

acre was the 2000 Cerro Grande fire in New Mexico. It cost $22,634 per acre. There 

were 260 residences involved. This is strong evidence that the presence of private 

lands and structures within public landscapes exponentially increases the cost of 

firefighting. 

Not all the costs of managing these isolated parcels fall on the Federal Government. As the manager of Pitkin County, Colorado I learned firsthand that the expenses of providing services to these isolated and far-flung properties far exceed the 

tax revenues received and do not come close to offsetting the cost of providing fire 

protection, emergency services, road, school buses and general government services. 

It costs more to serve these isolated single properties than the tax revenue they generate. 

Solves management and resource problems 

The Inholding Accounts have been used to acquire mines from private owners, private retreats, and various properties that include the spectrum of non—wilderness 

uses. We are currently readying for transfer to Federal ownership a former mine 

in the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness. We’ve closed the former unreclaimed mine on the banks of the Wild and Scenic Salmon River. The transfer will 

remove a private home and no trespassing signs on one of the few flat spots on that 

stretch of river. It will be returned to the public, who can enjoy being able to stop 

and learn about past mining days, camp or fish from land on which the abandoned 

and open mine is now reclaimed and closed—no longer a threat to the public, or 

to the Wild and Scenic River from its open shafts deep into the alluvium of the 

river. 

Recent purchases funded from the Inholding Accounts have secured access to the 

east side of the Ventana Wilderness in California, secured trails through the 

Wabayuma Peak Wilderness in Arizona and the Glacier Peak Wilderness in Washington and created access to a recently designated wilderness in Idaho. More are 

on the way. 

Helps private landowners 

Landowners who are ready to sell deserve to have their properties purchased. 

Their isolated properties are primarily the result of 19th century Congressional policy when homesteads, mining operations and timber production were encouraged 

without the balance of conservation. As a result, wilderness areas now dedicated by 

Congress are pockmarked with islands of private ownership that compromise the 

wilderness resource, become expensive management issues for the agencies and 
298 

often befuddle landowners who wish to sell these properties for the benefit of their 

companies or families. 

If the opportunity to acquire these when offered is lost, the management issues 

and inefficiencies that result from private lands remaining within designated wilderness continue. This is why consistent funding for the Inholding Accounts is vital. 

We have learned that these lands become available about once a generation. It has 

been our experience that these critical inholdings come on the market at a steady 

rate as owners make decisions based on their family or business needs. About 3 to 

5 percent come on the market every year—once a generation. If the opportunity to 

meet the seller’s need is missed, it averages another 20 years before the opportunity 

comes again. Without consistent funding, numerous opportunities to acquire these 

private parcels will be lost. Not for a year, but often for at least another generation. 

Increases recreational access and economic development 

On the east side of the Castle Crags Wilderness in California is a wall of private 

land that blocks access from Interstate 5. The nearby communities of Dunsmuir and 

Mt. Shasta are wholly supportive of transferring these lands to Federal ownership 

and opening up the Crags to visitation. The towns anticipate visitors that will come 

to the community and its climbing, biking and skiing shops it is hoped will grow 

to replace the loss of logging jobs. Dunsmuir has been suffering under an unemployment rate of 18 percent and looks forward to having the recreational asset of the 

Crags’ world class climbing only one mile off Interstate 5 and just outside their community—rather than a 7-mile hike around the private lands that now block access. 

Finally, it is also important to recognize that wilderness inholdings come in many 

shapes, sizes and prices depending on the real estate market in a particular area. 

A number of projects that fall in the agency project lists are inholdings. Thus, we 

ask that you give the highest level of support possible for Federal LWCF acquisitions. 

In summary, continued consistent funding of the Inholding Accounts is vital. 

Without such funding, significant opportunities to acquire private parcels within our 

designated wilderness areas will be lost for at least another generation. We urge 

your support of continued funding for these accounts and as much support for Federal LWCF acquisitions as possible. Support for these accounts: 

—Saves money by eliminating management inefficiencies that frequently exceed 

the cost of acquisition; 

—Helps private landowners within federally designated wilderness and other conservation areas; 

—Allows the agencies to act when opportunities occur to acquire inholdings, often 

only once a generation; and 

—Completes designated wilderness areas, removing threats from incompatible 

and harmful development within their boundaries. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. We greatly appreciate your time and consideration and the support of the subcommittee in securing these appropriations. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WILDERNESS SOCIETY

The Wilderness Society (TWS) represents more than 700,000 members and supporters who share our mission to protect wilderness and inspire Americans to care 

for our wild places. When deciding on funding that affects hundreds of millions of 

Americans, we urge you to take into account the full economic, social, environmental 

and cultural value of the many programs overseen by our land management agencies. 

Additionally, we urge that in crafting the Interior and Environment Appropriation 

bill you avoid harmful policy riders that damage our land, air, water and wildlife. 

Must-pass appropriations legislation is not the appropriate venue for unpopular policy provisions which undermine bedrock environmental laws like the Wilderness 

Act, Antiquities Act and Land and Water Conservation Fund Act. In particular, we 

strongly oppose riders which would authorize a road through the Izembek Wilderness Area or prevent the Bureau of Land Management from implementing the collaboratively developed sage-grouse conservation strategy. The laudable goal of returning to regular order on appropriations must not continue to be undermined by 

the attempted inclusion of harmful policy riders which would damage the environmental protections all Americans value. Their inclusion only serves to further compromise an already challenging appropriations process. 

Prudent investments in critical conservation programs will provide jobs and protect the health and economic wellbeing of local communities. We urge bold action 
299 

in support of conservation funding for fiscal year 2017. Specifically, TWS recommends: 

WILDERNESS MANAGEMENT

America’s National Wilderness Preservation System, now over 50 years old, is suffering from a serious lack of funding. Trail maintenance, law enforcement, monitoring, and user education have been significantly underfunded, leading to an erosion of wilderness values and a diminution of the experience for visitors. We recommend that funding for agency wilderness management accounts be restored to 

support much needed trails maintenance, update signage, fight invasive species, restore watersheds, and monitor effects of climate change, among other critical needs. 

Specifically, we recommend: 

—Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wilderness 

TWS supports restoring BLM Wilderness funding to the fiscal year 2011 level 

of $19.663 million. The fiscal year 2017 budget proposal of $18.392 million for 

BLM wilderness management is strong, but still 6 percent lower than the fiscal 

year 2011 enacted level. To just keep the fiscal year 2011 level on pace with 

inflation the fiscal year 2017 request would need to be $20.830 million. 

—Forest Service Recreation, Wilderness and Heritage 

We urge Congress to support wilderness and recreation by restoring funding to 

the fiscal year 2010 level of $285.1 million for the Recreation, Heritage and Wilderness Program. Recreation is the most ubiquitous use of our forest lands, and 

accounts for more than half of all job and income effects attributable to Forest 

Service programs (over 190,000 jobs and $11 billion in spending effects by visitors). 

LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

Having recently celebrated its 50th Anniversary year and been reauthorized until 

2018, LWCF remains the premier Federal program to conserve our Nation’s land, 

water, historic, and recreation heritage. It is a critical tool to protect national parks, 

national wildlife refuges, national forests, BLM lands, and other Federal areas. The 

companion LWCF State grants program provides crucial support for State and local 

parks, recreational facilities, and trail corridors. LWCF also funds two other important State grant programs—the Forest Legacy Program and Cooperative Endangered Species programs—that ensure permanent conservation of important forest 

lands and threatened and endangered species’ habitat, as well as important wildlife 

and recreational habitat and ensures that public lands stay public for hunters, anglers, and other outdoor recreationists for generations to come. 

—TWS strongly supports fully funding LWCF at the proposed $900 million, with 

a discretionary funding level of $475 million. Full funding for LWCF will allow 

land management agencies to manage our public lands more efficiently and 

cost–effectively. This is in part achieved through strategic inholdings acquisition 

which reduces internal boundary line surveying, right–of–way conflicts and special use permits. 

SAGE GROUSE INITIATIVE

If successful, implementation of the sage-grouse conservation strategy will lead to 

recovery of this important western game species without the necessity of a listing 

under the Endangered Species Act. 

—The Wilderness Society supports the administration’s $89.7 million request to 

conserve and restore sage steppe habitat. 

BLM ONSHORE OIL AND GAS POLICY

The BLM is implementing important management reforms of its oil and gas program that is leading toward a better balance between oil and gas development on 

public lands and the protection of the numerous natural resource values that were 

put at risk by previous policies. It will also lead to Federal lands that are fully and 

fairly valued for the American people. TWS supports the following administrationproposed reforms of the BLM’s oil and gas program: 

—A fee on onshore Federal operators to provide for a $48 million per year inspection and enforcement program to implement recommendations made by the 

GAO. 

—An increase of $5.8 million in BLM to accelerate development and completion 

of Master Leasing Plans to ensure proper planning and conservation during 

siting and development of oil and gas wells. 
300 

—An increase of $13.1 million to enact and implement important revenue and environmental regulations including: 

—Royalty reforms and improve revenue collection process to ensure that resources on Federal lands are fully and fairly valued and delivering fair taxpayer returns. 

—Regulations to reduce natural gas waste from wells on Federal and tribal 

lands. 

—Implementation of regulations concerning hydraulic fracturing on Federal and 

tribal lands. 

—An increase of $2.1 million in BLM to strengthen and increase efficiency for 

oversight of oil and gas permitting through the Automated Fluid Minerals Support System (AFMSS). 

—An increase of $2.6 million to retain and staff positions in the oil and gas program to ensure safe and responsible development in the right places. 

TWS is also urging more funding for implementation and planning regarding ongoing and new Master Leasing Plans to ensure that any time development occurs, 

conservation is considered as part of the larger planning efforts. 

BLM’S NATIONAL LANDSCAPE CONSERVATION SYSTEM

The National Landscape Conservation System (Conservation Lands) comprises 

over 30 million acres of congressionally and presidentially designated lands and waters, including National Monuments, National Conservation Areas, Wilderness 

Areas and other designations. Stewardship of the Conservation Lands provides jobs 

for thousands of Americans while supporting vibrant and sustainable economies in 

surrounding communities. The Conservation Lands provide immeasurable public 

values from modest investments: outstanding recreational opportunities, wildlife 

habitat, clean water, wilderness, and open space near cities. 

—TWS strongly supports the administration’s fiscal year 2017 recommendation of 

$83.122 million. This is a strong funding proposal for the Conservation Lands, 

and will help promote the natural, cultural, and historical resource protection 

provided by the NLCS for the American public. 

RENEWABLE ENERGY

TWS is a strong proponent of transitioning our country to a clean energy economy 

by developing our renewable energy resources responsibly. We believe renewable energy is an appropriate and necessary use of public lands when sited in areas 

screened for habitat, resource, and cultural conflicts. Identifying and avoiding conflicts early helps ensure projects are permitted faster with limited impact on 

wildlands. TWS hopes the Department will continue to support a program that ensures our public lands play an important role in supporting renewable energy infrastructure through environmental review, suitability screening, and energy zone 

identification to find suitable places for renewable energy projects. Specifically we 

would like to see: 

—Increased funding for renewable energy programs across Interior from fiscal 

year 2016 enacted, up to $110.4 million total. This increase would enhance 

training opportunities for staff to fully implement the proposed wind and solar 

leasing rulemaking and mitigation strategies as directed in the Western Solar 

Plan. 

BLM’S FEDERAL COAL PROGRAM

The BLM is commencing a long-term review of the Federal coal program. For too 

long, the coal program has been plagued by a lack of transparency, an outdated perception of energy responsibility, an unfair return to taxpayers and a lack of consideration of Federal coal’s contribution to global climate change. By starting this review, the BLM can ensure that the American people are selling their resources at 

fair prices in the right ways, while understanding how the program affects the climate. TWS supports the administration’s comprehensive review of the BLM’s Federal coal program and will be working to ensure that a future coal program corrects 

the inadequacies of the current model and that the Federal coal program is fit for 

the 21st century vision of energy development on Federal lands. 

IMPLEMENTATION OF LANDSCAPE LEVEL MANAGEMENT

The Wilderness Society supports the Department of Interior’s philosophy of looking at development on a landscape level with proper mitigation policies. The re-
301 

cently released draft of the Desert Renewable Energy Conservation Plan in the California Desert is a prime example. 

—It is crucial that the Department is fully funded to put in place processes that 

designate areas for energy development, both traditional and renewable, at the 

same time setting aside important areas for wildlife, cultural, and recreational 

values. 

LEGACY ROADS AND TRAILS

The Legacy Roads and Trails (LRT) program provides the Forest Service essential 

funding to restore watersheds, improve recreational access, protect aquatic species 

and advance collaborative restoration projects. LRT funding was slashed 50 percent 

in fiscal year 2011 and 22 percent in fiscal year 2014. Given the recent evaluation 

of the Integrated Resource Restoration (IRR) program we recommend that LRT be 

removed from IRR, to enable it to operate as a complementary program to IRR, 

similar to CFLR. We also do not recommend that the IRR pilot program be expanded until the test regions have proven that IRR can improve restoration without 

a loss of transparency and accountability. Specifically, TWS recommends: 

—Funding Legacy Roads and Trails at $50 million, distinct from IRR. 

FOREST SERVICE PLANNING

The Land Management Planning Program funds amendments and revisions to 

Land Management Plans, the overarching documents that guide the management 

of individual forests and grasslands. By providing adequate and consistent funding 

we advance plans and projects, avoid bad decisionmaking and unnecessary costs, 

and reduce risks to water quality and quantity, wildlife, and recreation. 

—We support funding USFS Land Management Planning at the running 10-year 

average of $45,712,600. 

NATIONAL FOREST TRAILS

There are 158,000 miles of trails in the National Forest System. These trails provide 50 million visitor days of cross-country skiing, hiking, horseback riding, mountain biking, and off-road vehicle use each year. Annual visitor days have grown 376 

percent since 1977, and the total mileage of trails has grown 56.9 percent to accommodate this use. Unfortunately, the trails maintenance and reconstruction line item 

has remained essentially flat since 1980, after adjusting for inflation. In fiscal year 

2015 the trails budget was cut 9 percent compared to fiscal year 2010, despite the 

fact that GAO has reported a $500 million trail maintenance backlog. Currently, the 

Forest Service is only able to maintain a quarter of its trail miles to a minimum 

standard condition. 

—We urge Congress to fund Capital Improvement and Maintenance Trails at its 

fiscal year 2010 level of $85,381,000 in fiscal year 2017. 

NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE SYSTEM

The National Wildlife Refuge System is the only Federal conservation system with 

a mission that prioritizes wildlife and habitat conservation alongside wildlife-dependent recreation. 

—We urge the subcommittee to provide a funding level of $506.6 million for the 

Operations and Maintenance accounts of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

for fiscal year 2017. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WILDLIFE CONSERVATION SOCIETY

The Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) would like to thank Chairwoman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall and the members of the subcommittee for providing 

this opportunity to provide public testimony on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s 

(FWS) proposed 4(d) rule on the African elephant and in support of sufficient funding in the fiscal year 2017 Interior, Environment and Related Agencies (Interior) 

Appropriations Act to meet the President’s request for the Multinational Species 

Conservation Fund (MSCF), Office of International Affairs (IA), Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) Cooperative Landscape Conservation Program (CLCP) and State & 

Tribal Wildlife Grants (STWG) accounts at FWS, and the International Forestry 

program at the U.S. Forest Service (FS–IF). 

WCS was founded with the help of Theodore Roosevelt in 1895 with the mission 

of saving wildlife and wild places worldwide. Today, WCS manages the largest net-
302 

work of urban wildlife parks in the United States led by our flagship, the Bronx 

Zoo. Globally, our goal is to conserve the world’s largest wild places in 15 priority 

regions, home to more than 50 percent of the world’s biodiversity. We manage more 

than 200 million acres of protected lands around the world, employing 4,000 staff 

including 170 PhD and DVM scientists. 

The American conservation tradition is based on promoting sustainable use of our 

natural resources in order to preserve the world’s species and environment for future generations. In recognition of the current fiscal constraints, it is important to 

note that effective natural resources management and conservation has indirect economic benefits, including contributing to local economies through tourism and other 

means. Internationally, by supporting conservation, the U.S. is increasing capacity 

and governance in developing nations and improving our own national security as 

a result. 

No Harmful Rider on Ivory: On July 29, 2015, the FWS issued a proposed rule 

to close loopholes in the existing ban on commercial ivory sales that have allowed 

illegal ivory to be sold in the United States for decades. The proposed rule would 

require sellers to demonstrate that ivory items qualify for an exemption from the 

law so consumers may be assured they are purchasing a legal product. It also 

tightens the existing, congressionally-mandated ban on the import and export of 

most ivory, with some narrow exceptions, including ones for sport-hunted trophies 

and musicians travelling with instruments that contain ivory. The proposal continues to allow the domestic sale of items such as bona fide antiques and, to accommodate the concerns voiced by many stakeholders, also allows the sale of items like 

firearms, knives, instruments and artworks that contain only a small amount of 

ivory. It is also important to note that nothing in the proposed rule would make 

the possession of ivory illegal, and that States maintain the right to regulate commercial sales occurring entirely within their borders. 

Last year’s Interior bill in the House contained a provision that would have 

blocked FWS from proceeding on this rule, forcing the continuation of a system that 

we know does not work and has been a contributing factor in the poaching of 

100,000 elephants over the past 3 years. Given the broad accommodation of most 

stakeholders that FWS has provided in its proposed rule, WCS encourages the subcommittee not to include the same or a similar rider in the fiscal year 2017 bill. 

On the ground in Africa and elsewhere, WCS scientists are seeing, first-hand, the 

devastating impact poaching is having on elephants, rhinos, tigers and other iconic 

species. A study published by WCS found that in 2012 alone, 35,000 African elephants were killed for their ivory—that is an average of 96 elephants per day or 

one killed every 15 minutes. This finding is supported by a subsequent study which 

also found that 100,000 elephants were poached between 2011 and 2013. Both studies show that conditions are dire for African forest elephants, which has declined 

by about two-thirds in a little more than a decade. Continued poaching at these 

rates may mean the extinction of forest elephants in the wild within the next 10 

years and the potential loss of all African elephant species in the wild in our lifetimes. Action must be taken now to prevent this catastrophe from occurring. 

There is broad consensus that the stunning increase in poaching is due to one factor—the illegal sale of poached ivory in commercial markets around the world. The 

illegal trade in elephant ivory and other products, like rhino horns and tiger skins, 

is worth at least an estimated $8 to $10 billion annually, and because of the lucrative nature of this industry, evidence is showing increasingly that transnational 

criminal organizations and terrorist groups that are involved in other major trafficking operations—drugs, humans and weapons—are engaged in wildlife trafficking 

as well. 

There is no question that China is the largest market for illegal ivory. However, 

the United States is also one of the larger destinations, both for domestic consumption and as a transshipment hub for Asia. As part of Operation Crash, FWS and 

Department of Justice have successfully arrested criminals and prosecuted cases in 

several States over the last few years involving millions of dollars illegal ivory and 

rhino horn. These busts, although few in number, are strong evidence that there is 

a domestic problem with illegal ivory, all of which is smuggled in from overseas and 

which frequently crosses State lines, placing it firmly under Federal jurisdiction. 

The problem with ivory is that you cannot differentiate legal ivory antiques, 

which are exempt from the underlying Federal laws and regulation, from illegal 

ivory without costly lab tests that can damage the piece. Accordingly, once raw or 

worked ivory from recently poached elephants is smuggled into the United States, 

it can easily be placed in the marketplace right alongside genuine antiques. A survey conducted in 2008 of 24,000 pieces of ivory being sold in antique stores in 16 

cities in the U.S. and Canada concluded exactly this point, finding that almost a 

third of these items were potentially illegal. However, due to an unusual quirk in 
303 

Federal regulations, Federal law enforcement agents must prove a piece is not exempt from the law in order to determine it is illegal—an impossible task for the 

FWS and its small team of special agents and wildlife inspectors tasked with enforcing all U.S. wildlife laws. Essentially, the cost of enforcement was simply prohibitive. The proposed rule is essential to closing these loopholes and protecting U.S. 

consumers from unwittingly purchasing products with ivory from poached elephants. 

FWS—Multinational Species Conservation Fund—$11.1 Million: Iconic species 

such as tigers, rhinos, African and Asian elephants, great apes and marine turtles, 

face constant danger from poaching, habitat loss and other serious concerns. MSCF 

programs have helped sustain wildlife populations by controlling poaching, reducing 

human-wildlife conflict and protecting essential habitat—all while promoting U.S. 

economic and security interests in far reaching parts of the world. These programs 

are highly efficient, granting them an outsized impact because they consistently leverage two to four times the Federal investment in matching funds. 

WCS has had great success on projects using funds from the MSCF. One grant 

just awarded to WCS in fiscal year 2015 through the African Elephant Conservation 

Fund will provide initial funding to use innovative ivory anti-trafficking methods to 

protect elephants of South Sudan. Among the key parts of the project are the deployment of a sniffer dog team to detect ivory, firearms and other wildlife products 

at key transit points and the establishment of a national ivory management system 

for seized ivory to better ensure that confiscated ivory does not reenter the marketplace. 

WCS is grateful that the subcommittee appropriated $11.1 million for the program in fiscal year 2016—its first increase in several years—and supports an appropriation of the same amount in fiscal year 2017, which would also be equal to the 

President’s fiscal year 2017 request. 

FWS—International Affairs—$15.8 Million: The FWS International Affairs (IA) 

program supports efforts to conserve our planet’s rich wildlife diversity by protecting 

habitat and species, combating illegal wildlife trade, and building capacity for landscape-level wildlife conservation. The program provides oversight of domestic laws 

and international treaties that promote the long-term conservation of plant and animal species by ensuring that international trade and other activities do not threaten 

their survival in the wild. Within IA, the Wildlife Without Borders program seeks 

to address grassroots wildlife conservation problems from a broad, landscape perspective, building regional expertise and capacity while strengthening local institutions. WCS supports appropriations for this program at $15.8 million, the level included in the President’s fiscal year 2017 request. 

FWS—Office of Law Enforcement—$75.1 Million: The U.S. remains one of the 

world’s largest markets for wildlife and wildlife products, both legal and illegal. A 

small group of dedicated officers at the OLE are tasked with protecting fish, wildlife, and plant resources by investigating wildlife crimes—including commercial exploitation, habitat destruction, and industrial hazards—and monitoring the Nation’s 

wildlife trade to intercept smuggling and facilitate legal commerce. Many of the new 

responsibilities placed on FWS by the National Strategy are enforced by the OLE, 

and WCS supports the President’s request for $75.1 million. Additional funding for 

the program will support FWS efforts to maximize the scope and effectiveness of 

FWS’ response to the international wildlife trafficking crisis by strengthening forensic capabilities and expanding the capacity of their Special Investigations Unit. It 

will also ensure OLE has an adequate number of law enforcement agents deployed 

to enforce laws against wildlife trafficking in the U.S. effectively and allow the agency to continue to support coordinated law enforcement actions against wildlife trafficking overseas through the deployment of FWS attache ́s in targeted U.S. embassies. 

FWS—Cooperative Landscape Conservation—$17.8 Million: Many of the domestic 

conservation programs in this bill provide funding to States to implement their conservation goals. However, wildlife does not recognize political boundaries, and scarce 

conservation dollars can best be spent when effective planning and coordination 

takes place across entire ecosystems. The CLCP funds a network of 22 Landscape 

Conservation Cooperatives in the U.S. and Canada, which use a collaborative approach between Federal, State, tribal and local partners to identify landscape scale 

conservation solutions and work collaboratively to meet unfilled conservation needs, 

develop decision support tools, share data and knowledge, and facilitate and foster 

conservation partnerships. Funding will support landscape planning and design that 

will improve the condition of wildlife habitat and improve resilience of U.S. communities. WCS encourages the subcommittee to meet the President’s request for $17.8 

million for this program. 
304 

FWS—State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program—$67 Million: The State and 

Tribal Wildlife Grants program gives States and tribes funding to develop and implement comprehensive conservation plans to protect declining wildlife and habitats 

before protection under the Endangered Species Act is necessary. This important 

program is supported by more than 6,200 organizations that have formed a national 

bipartisan coalition called Teaming with Wildlife, of which WCS is a steering committee member. WCS recommends Congress provide strong and continued support 

for the program by meeting the President’s request for $67 million in the fiscal year 

2017 Interior bill. 

USFS—International Forestry—$8 Million: The U.S. economy has lost approximately $1 billion per year and over 200,000 jobs due to illegal logging, which is responsible for 15–30 percent of all timber by volume. The FS–IF program works to 

level the playing field by reducing illegal logging and improving the sustainability 

and legality of timber management overseas, translating to less underpriced timber 

undercutting U.S. producers. Through partnerships with USAID and the Department of State, FSIP helps to improve the resource management in countries of strategic importance to U.S. security. 

With technical and financial support from FS–IF, WCS has been working to conserve a biologically rich temperate forest zone called the Primorye in the Russian 

Far East. The region hosts over a hundred endangered species as well as numerous 

threatened species, including the Far Eastern leopard and Amur tiger. FS–IF works 

with us to exchange information and methodologies with Russian scientists, managers, and students on a variety of wildlife-related topics to support conservation 

and capacity building efforts and ensure the sustainable management of forests and 

wildlife habitat. WCS supports meeting the President’s request of $8 million for fiscal year 2017, equal to the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2016. 

We appreciate the opportunity to share WCS’s perspectives and make a case for 

increased investment in conservation in the fiscal year 2017 Interior, the Environment and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Conservation of public lands is an 

American tradition and, as far back as 1909, Theodore Roosevelt recognized that the 

management of our natural resources requires coordination between all nations. 

Continued investment in conservation will reaffirm our global position as a conservation leader, while improving our national security and building capacity and 

good governance in developing countries. 

PREPARED STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE WILDFIRE RISK REDUCTION AND

PROTECTION PROGRAMS

Dear Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member Udall: 

The undersigned organizations are writing to express our strong support for maintaining effective funding levels in the fiscal year 2017 appropriations process for essential wildfire risk reduction and protection programs at the USDA Forest Service 

(Forest Service) and the Department of the Interior (DOI). The important work accomplished through the Hazardous Fuels programs and the State Fire Assistance 

and Volunteer Fire Assistance programs help decrease total Federal emergency 

wildfire suppression costs and reduce the threat of fire to people, communities, and 

both public and private lands. 

America’s forests and forest-dependent communities are at risk from outbreaks of 

pests and pathogens, persistent drought, and the buildup of hazardous fuels. Urbanization and development patterns are placing more homes and communities near 

fire-prone landscapes, leading to more destructive and costly wildfires. In 2015, 

68,151 wildland fires burned more than 10.1 million acres. Once again in fiscal year 

2015, the 10-year average allocated to the USFS was not enough to meet the suppression needs, forcing the USFS to transfer $700 million from non-suppression accounts to make up for the shortfall. The current wildfire suppression funding model 

and cycle of transfers and repayments has negatively impacted the ability to implement forest management, among many other activities. Additionally, the increasing 

10-year average has not met annual suppression needs since before fiscal year 2002, 

which is why we thank the subcommittee for the full transfer repayment and increased suppression funding in fiscal year 2016. However, we understand this is not 

expected to occur every year and DOI and USFS need a long-term fire funding solution that would result in stable and predictable budgets. 

We respectfully request a bipartisan fire funding solution be included as part of 

the fiscal year 2017 Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies’ appropriations 

bill. A fire funding solution must fund wildfires like natural disasters by (1) accessing disaster funding, (2) minimizing transfers, and (3) dealing with the continued 
305 

1 USDA Forest Service Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Justification at pg. 299. 

erosion of agency budgets over time, with the goal of reinvesting in key programs 

that would restore forests to healthier conditions. 

We appreciate this subcommittee’s attention to this increasing and unsustainable 

natural resource challenge. The fiscal year 2017 appropriations bill can provide for 

both necessary wildfire suppression and fire risk reduction activities that create jobs 

and reduce firefighting costs in the long run. We are prepared to help and look forward to assisting Congress in developing a sustainable and long-term solution to 

fund emergency wildfire suppression. 

The Hazardous Fuels Programs at the Forest Service and DOI are the primary 

source of funding used to reduce wildfire risk on Federal lands. In fiscal year 2017, 

we urge you to provide $479 million for the Hazardous Fuels Program at the USDA 

Forest Service and $178 for Hazardous Fuels and Resilient Landscapes at the Department of the Interior. We are also asking that you include report language to 

encourage the Federal Agencies to coordinate their fuels plans with other planning 

efforts such as State forestry and conservation plans in order to encourage crossboundary efforts and increase the effectiveness of this program. 

Fiscal Year 

2016 

Enacted 

Fiscal Year 

2017 

President’s 

Proposal 

Fiscal Year 

2017 

Request 

USDA Forest Service Hazardous Fuels .... $375 $384 $479 

Department of the Interior 

Hazardous Fuels Management ... $164 $149 $178 

Resilient Landscapes ..... $30 

State Fire Assistance (SFA) is the fundamental Federal mechanism for assisting 

States and local fire departments in responding to wildland fires and in conducting 

management activities that mitigate fire risk on non-Federal lands. SFA also helps 

train and equip local first responders who are often first to arrive at a wildland fire 

incident and who play a crucial role in keeping fires and their costs as small as possible. A small investment of SFA funds supports State forestry agencies in accessing 

and repurposing equipment from the Federal Excess Personal Property and the 

Firefighter Property programs. Between 2008 and 2012 these two programs have delivered more than $150 million annually in equipment for use by State and local 

first responders. 

In fiscal year 2015, SFA directly funded hazardous fuel treatments on 148,020 

acres (with another 126,368 acres treated with leveraged funding from partners) 

and provided assistance to communities around the country, supporting 2,998 risk 

assessment and fire management planning projects and 10,160 prevention and education programs.1 Fires know no boundaries. In 2015, 80 percent of the total number of wildfires were where State and local fire departments had primary jurisdiction. 85 percent of all local and State crews and engines dispatched outside of their 

geographic areas were responding to Federal fires. In fiscal year 2017, we urge you 

to provide $87 million for the State Fire Assistance program. 

The Volunteer Fire Assistance Program provides support to rural communities 

and is critical to ensuring adequate capacity to respond to wildfires, reducing the 

risk to communities, people, homes and property, and firefighters. This capacity is 

critical because these State and local resources are the first responders to more than 

80 percent of wildland fires—whether on State, Federal or private lands. According 

to the Forest Service Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Justification, the small investment 

in the Volunteer Fire Assistance program helped provide assistance to 9,318 communities, helped to train 22,272 firefighters, expanded or organized 20 fire departments, and purchased, rehabilitated or maintained more than $8.1 million in equipment. In fiscal year 2017, we urge you to provide no less than $15 million for the 

Volunteer Fire Assistance Program. 

The Joint Fire Science Program is a relatively small budget for a program that 

successfully yields important results which are directly applied. These tools and 

technology products support the fire risk reduction community. They help track the 

effectiveness of Forest Service programs, such as vegetation management and hazardous fuels reduction. Their applied research supports resilient landscapes and 

communities, and provides key information on wildfire mitigation impacts on water 
306 

quality, atmospheric emissions, and other natural resources and ecosystem services. 

We are concerned about the zeroing out of this program under Wildland Fire Management in exchange for funding a smaller portion from the Forest & Rangeland 

Research budget. In fiscal year 2017, we request the Joint Fire Science Program 

maintain a $7 million funding level. 

We appreciate the difficult task the subcommittee faces in the current budget climate. However, these vital, interrelated programs safeguard human life, habitat, 

and property, and reduce the overall cost of wildland fire management. The shortterm savings realized by cuts to any one of these programs is substantially outweighed by the ultimate increase in suppression costs and damages caused by 

wildland fires. Accordingly, we urge you to support funding for these critical programs. Thank you for your consideration of this important request. 

Sincerely, 

American Forests 

American Forest Foundation 

Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies 

Framing Our Community Inc. 

National Association of RV Parks & 

Campgrounds 

National Association of State Foresters 

National Association of Forest Service 

Retirees 

National Ski Areas Association 

National Wild Turkey Federation 

North American Bear Foundation 

North American Grouse Partnership 

Public Lands Foundation 

Quality Deer Management Association 

Ruffed Grouse Society/American 

Woodcock Society 

Sustainable Northwest 

The Conservation Fund 

The Forest Stewards Guild 

The International Association of 

Wildland Fire 

The Mountain Pact 

The National Wildlife Institute 

The Nature Conservancy 

The Society of American Foresters 

Tread Lightly! 

Whitetails Unlimited 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE WILDLIFE SOCIETY

The Wildlife Society appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony concerning 

the fiscal year 2017 budgets for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Bureau 

of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and U.S. Forest Service (USFS). The Wildlife Society was founded in 1937 and is an international nonprofit scientific and educational association representing nearly 10,000 professional 

wildlife biologists and managers. Our mission is to inspire, empower, and enable 

wildlife professionals to sustain wildlife populations and habitats through sciencebased management and conservation. We respectfully request the following programmatic funding in fiscal year 2017 to ensure that the Federal budget supports 

the important work wildlife professionals do to manage and conserve our Nation’s 

wildlife resources. 

U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE

The State and Tribal Wildlife Grants Program (SWG) has been the Nation’s core 

program for preventing wildlife from becoming endangered since 2001. SWG provides Federal funding assistance to State and tribal wildlife agencies for implementing on-the-ground conservation programs designed to ensure the sustainability 

of our fish and wildlife resources. In order to receive Federal funds through SWG, 

each State and Territory must develop a Wildlife Action Plan that examines the 

health of wildlife, identifies issues of conservation concern, and prescribes actions 

needed to conserve more than 12,000 at-risk species and their vital habitats. These 

action plans encourage multi-partner projects, have high accountability, and require 

matching-funds from States. As the only Federal program focused on keeping common species common, SWG alleviates the need to add more species to the Federal 

Endangered Species List; thereby saving taxpayer dollars and reducing regulatory 

uncertainty for businesses. Recent successes of SWG include the New England cottontail rabbit and greater sage-grouse. The Wildlife Society strongly recommends 

that Congress increase funding for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants to at least $67 

million in fiscal year 2017, as per the Agency’s request. 

Previous budget reductions in SWG, though, have not allowed this highly successful program to reach its full potential. A March 2016 report from the Blue Ribbon 

Panel on Sustaining America’s Diverse Fish and Wildlife Resources highlights the 

Nation’s need for immediate and robust long-term investment in science-based management, and recommends that Congress dedicate $1.3 billion annually to ensure 
307 

the effective implementation of all Wildlife Action Plans. As a leading member of 

Teaming With Wildlife, a multidisciplinary, bipartisan coalition of more than 6,400 

organizations supporting reliable fish and wildlife conservation funding, The Wildlife Society encourages Congress to consider the legislative solutions presented by 

this diverse and distinguished panel. 

As a member of the Cooperative Alliance for Refuge Enhancement (CARE), The 

Wildlife Society supports the President’s request for the National Wildlife Refuge 

System’s operations and maintenance accounts at $506.6 million for fiscal year 

2017. CARE estimates that the Refuge System needs at least $900 million in annual 

operations and maintenance funding to properly administer its 562 refuges and 38 

wetland management districts spanning over 150 million acres. At its highest funding level in fiscal year 2010, the Refuge System received only $503 million—little 

more than half the needed amount. Without adequate funding, habitats are not restored, invasive species are left unchecked, poaching and other illegal activities 

occur, and our Nation’s wildlife suffers. Moreover, since 2009, the National Wildlife 

Refuge System has lost over 500 employees (1/7 of all staff), despite generating approximately $4.87 in economic activity for every $1 appropriated by Congress. The 

Wildlife Society also supports the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Resource Protection 

Act, which would remove taxpayer responsibility for damage deliberately caused by 

a third party within the National Wildlife Refuge System by justly attributing those 

damages to the guilty party. 

The North American Wetlands Conservation Act is a cooperative, non-regulatory, 

incentive-based program that has shown unprecedented success in maintaining and 

restoring wetlands, waterfowl, and other migratory bird populations. This program 

has remained drastically underfunded despite its demonstrated effectiveness. We 

support the Agency’s request of $35.1 million and encourage Congress to match this 

request for fiscal year 2017. 

The Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (NMBCA) Grants Program supports partnership programs to conserve birds in the U.S., Latin America, and the 

Caribbean, where approximately 5 billion birds representing 341 species spend their 

winters, including some of the most endangered birds in North America. Reauthorization for appropriations has expired under NMBCA, but the Agency recommends 

funding the program at $3.9 million for fiscal year 2017 as a sub-account of the Multinational Species Conservation Fund. The Wildlife Society supports this funding, 

and recommends that Congress reauthorize NMBCA at $6.5 million annually to 

achieve maximum conservation results under the program. 

Through the Ecological Services Program, FWS partners with Federal/State agencies, tribes, local governments, the business community, and private citizens, to help 

identify species on the verge of extinction and reduce threats to their survival so 

that they can be removed from Federal protection. FWS is working to implement 

new strategies to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the Ecological Services 

Program and to reduce the regulatory burden on private landowners and industry 

partners. To support these actions, and the increased emphasis on consultation and 

recovery, we recommend Congress match the Agency’s request and provide $23 million for Listing, $105.7 million for Planning and Consultation, $34.6 million for Conservation and Restoration, and $89.2 million for Recovery in fiscal year 2017. 

Through its International Affairs office, FWS works with many partners and 

countries in the implementation of international treaties, conventions, and projects 

for the conservation of wildlife species and their habitats. Careful regulation of imports and implementation of international policies is an important task, and represents our first line of defense against the introduction of threats like the potentially devastating infectious wildlife disease Bsal, which threatens the integrity of 

our diverse and important native salamander populations. We ask Congress to 

match the Agency’s request of $15.8 million in support of FWS International Affairs 

in fiscal year 2017. 

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

Historically, the Wildlife and Fisheries Management (WFM) and the Threatened 

and Endangered Species Management (TESM) programs have been forced to pay for 

the compliance activities of BLM’s energy, grazing, and other non-wildlife related 

programs, eroding both their ability to conduct proactive conservation activities and 

their efforts to recover listed species. In order to allow BLM to effectively maintain 

and restore wildlife and habitat amidst the tremendous expansion of energy development across the BLM landscape, we recommend Congress appropriate $108.7 million for BLM Wildlife Management within WFM in fiscal year 2017. We also support 

the proposed increase of $14.2 million for greater sage-grouse conservation; this 
308 

kind of broad-scale conservation is necessary to manage/conserve greater sagegrouse across their entire range. 

To allow BLM to meet its responsibilities in endangered species recovery plans, 

the Threatened and Endangered Species Management Program (TESM), also needs 

increased funding. BLM’s March 2001 Report to Congress called for a doubling of 

the Threatened and Endangered Species budget to $48 million and an additional 70 

staff positions over 5 years. Now, over a decade later, this goal has yet to be met. 

In light of this, we strongly encourage Congress to increase overall funding for 

TESM to $48 million in fiscal year 2017. 

The Wildlife Society, leader of the National Horse and Burro Rangeland Management Coalition, appreciates the commitment of BLM to addressing the problems associated with Wild Horse and Burro Management. The Wildlife Society also thanks 

Congress for the much needed increase in funding for fiscal year 2016 for continued 

research and development on contraception and population control. The Wildlife Society, however, remains concerned about BLM’s emphasis on fertility control alone. 

Horses and burros currently exceed the BLM’s estimated threshold of ecological sustainability by more than 31,000—over twice BLM’s Appropriate Management Level. 

With nearly 50,000 additional horses living in Federal off-site long- and short-term 

holding facilities, The Wildlife Society believes the current language limiting the use 

of humane euthanasia for unwanted or unadoptable horses should be removed. BLM 

needs to use all necessary management tools to bring populations of on- and offrange wild horses and burros within manageable levels. Therefore, The Wildlife Society supports the Agency’s request of $80.1 million for Wild Horse and Burro Management, provided that BLM remove excess horses from the range at a reasonable 

rate and focus additional resources on habitat restoration to correct the habitat 

damage caused by these animals. 

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY

The basic, objective, and interdisciplinary scientific research that is supported by 

USGS is necessary for understanding the complex environmental issues facing our 

Nation today. The Ecosystems Department of USGS contains programmatic resources for fisheries, wildlife, environments, invasive species, and Cooperative Research Units (CRU). The Ecosystems program strives to maximize research and support for comprehensive biological and ecosystem based needs. The Wildlife Society 

supports the Agency’s request of $174 million for USGS’s Ecosystems Department 

in fiscal year 2017. Furthermore, within the Ecosystems Department, we support 

the specific request of at least $18.2 million for the underfunded CRU program, 

which leverages Federal, State, non-governmental organizations, and academic partnerships to provide actionable science that supports management of wildlife and 

fisheries resources. 

The National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center plays a pivotal role in 

addressing the impacts of climate change on fish and wildlife by providing essential 

scientific support. In order for this role to be fully realized, we recommend that Congress fund the National Climate Change and Wildlife Science Center at the requested $31 million in fiscal year 2017. 

U.S. FOREST SERVICE

Current mechanisms for calculating USFS appropriations have resulted in funding shortfalls for proactive wildland fire and fuel management practices, thereby 

leading to more destructive and costly wildfires. The traditional 10-year moving average for forecasting fire suppression costs for the upcoming fiscal year, has not met 

USFS suppression needs since fiscal year 2002. In fiscal year 2015, USFS was 

forced to transfer $700 million from non-suppression accounts to make up for the 

emergency fire suppression deficit. This has negatively impacted the ability of USFS 

to implement proactive forest research and management projects and has resulted 

in the loss of 40 percent of non-fire related USFS professionals. We are thankful 

to Congress for the full transfer repayment and increased suppression funding in 

fiscal year 2016. However, we understand this is not expected to occur every year. 

DOI and USFS need a long-term fire funding solution that would result in stable 

and predictable budgets. Therefore, we support bipartisan congressional efforts, like 

the Wildfire Disaster Funding Act, to address Federal fire funding challenges, minimize fund transfers, and address the continued erosion of agency budgets over time, 

with the goal of reinvesting in key programs that would restore forests to healthier 

conditions. 

For the fiscal year 2017 budget, USFS will transition from Integrated Resource 

Restoration back to a more traditional budget structure with separate line items, 

including Vegetation and Watershed Management, Wildlife and Fisheries Habitat 
309 

Management, and Forest Products. We support this change for the accountability 

it provides Congress, and support the request of $140.5 million for Wildlife and 

Fisheries Habitat Management in fiscal year 2017. 

Integral to management of our natural resources is a deep understanding of the 

biological and geological forces that shape the land and its wildlife and plant communities. The research being done by the USFS is at the forefront of science, and 

essential to improving the health of our Nation’s forests and grasslands. We urge 

Congress to at minimum match the Agency’s request of $292 million in fiscal year 

2017 for Forest and Rangelands to support this high-quality research.