• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2017 HEARINGS BEFORE A SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES KEN CALVERT, California, Chairman MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota TOM COLE, Oklahoma CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio DEREK KILMER, Washington CHRIS STEWART, Utah STEVE ISRAEL, New York MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Rogers, as Chairman of the Full Committee, and Mrs. Lowey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees. DAVE LESSTRANG, DARREN BENJAMIN, JASON GRAY, BETSY BINA, JACLYN KILROY, and KRISTIN RICHMOND, Staff Assistants PART 7 Page U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Budget Oversight Hearing ................................................................................... 1 National Park Service Budget Oversight Hearing ......... 95 Bureau of Indian Affairs/Bureau of Indian Education Budget Oversight Hearing ................................................. 173 Environmental Protection Agency Budget Oversight Hearing ................................................................................... 247 Smithsonian Institution Budget Oversight Hearing ...... 341 Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 20–144 WASHINGTON : 2016 COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky, Chairman RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey NITA M. LOWEY, New York ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio KAY GRANGER, Texas PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana MICHAEL K. SIMPSON, Idaho JOSE´ E. SERRANO, New York JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas ROSA L. DELAURO, Connecticut ANDER CRENSHAW, Florida DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina JOHN R. CARTER, Texas LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California KEN CALVERT, California SAM FARR, California TOM COLE, Oklahoma CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida SANFORD D. BISHOP, JR., Georgia CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania BARBARA LEE, California TOM GRAVES, Georgia MICHAEL M. HONDA, California KEVIN YODER, Kansas BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota STEVE WOMACK, Arkansas STEVE ISRAEL, New York JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska TIM RYAN, Ohio THOMAS J. ROONEY, Florida C. A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland CHARLES J. FLEISCHMANN, Tennessee DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER, Washington HENRY CUELLAR, Texas DAVID P. JOYCE, Ohio CHELLIE PINGREE, Maine DAVID G. VALADAO, California MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois ANDY HARRIS, Maryland DEREK KILMER, Washington MARTHA ROBY, Alabama MARK E. AMODEI, Nevada CHRIS STEWART, Utah E. SCOTT RIGELL, Virginia DAVID W. JOLLY, Florida DAVID YOUNG, Iowa EVAN H. JENKINS, West Virginia STEVEN M. PALAZZO, Mississippi WILLIAM E. SMITH, Clerk and Staff Director (II) DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRON- MENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES APPRO- PRIATIONS FOR 2017 TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2016. UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUDGET OVERSIGHT HEARING WITNESSES DAN ASHE, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CHRIS NOLIN, BUDGET OFFICER, UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE GARY FRAZER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR ECOLOGICAL SERVICES, UNITED STATES FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE OPENING REMARKS OF CHAIRMAN CALVERT Mr. CALVERT. Good morning, and welcome to the subcommittee’s oversight hearing on the President’s fiscal year 2017 budget for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. I am pleased to welcome back Dan Ashe, Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service, and Chris Nolin, the Service budget officer. The President is proposing a $59 million, 4 percent increase for the Fish and Wildlife Service, an increase which relies on gimmicks to skirt the cap on nondefense discretionary spending agreed to less than a year ago. So while the Service’s proposed budget is insightful insofar as the service priorities, it is not realistic. The subcommittee’s challenge will continue to be to work within our allocation to ensure that the Fish and Wildlife Service has the budget necessary to carry out, first and foremost, those actions required by law, as opposed to those actions simply authorized by law. The greatest concern continues to be the Endangered Species Act budget. Despite the law’s many mandates, actions continue to be driven by lawsuits. Other mandates such as recovery plans, 5-year reviews, and status changes are put on a back burner. That is why listed species tend to stay listed, and why people are so frustrated by the Endangered Species Act. If the government is not prepared to carry out its full responsibilities under the law, then it should not be listing species in the first place. Granted, the Fish and Wildlife Service deserves credit for delisting 15 species over the past 8 years. But there is still a back- log of 49 waiting to be down-listed or delisted, 318 awaiting 5-year status reviews, and 1,159 awaiting recovery plans. We will ensure that the agency has the budget needed in fiscal year 2017 to con- tinue to whittle away at these backlogs. (1) 2 We also ensure that the agency continues to whittle away at the maintenance backlogs at national wildlife refuges and national fish hatcheries. The National Wildlife Refuge System backlog, for exam- ple, has declined annually since 2012, but still exceeds $1.1 billion. The fiscal year 2017 budget is not enough to keep driving that number down, so the subcommittee will appropriate an amount that will. It is irresponsible for the Federal Government to add to its estate if it cannot even maintain what it already owns. Last but not least, we will continue to arm the service with the resources it needs to combat international wildlife trafficking. The escalation of trafficking in recent years has put many iconic species in grave danger and has fueled the activities of those who are a threat to our national security. Closer to home, the extended drought in California continues to threaten the Nation’s food security. California produces nearly half the Nation’s fruits, nuts, and vegetables. It is the Nation’s largest dairy State. I am sorry to point that out to Minnesota. The drought has cost us $1.8 billion in economic losses and 10,000 jobs. People are desperate. Unemployment and suicide rates are now among the highest in the Nation. Now some people believe that California should return to the desert it used to be, but the fact is that the Nation cannot afford to feed its people without California, and long-term reliance on food imports makes our Nation vulnerable. We must save California’s agriculture. Witnesses in previous hearings before the subcommittee have testified that the problem is simply not enough water. If that was really the case, then we should have been able to pump and store a good portion of this winter’s El Nin˜ o rains. Instead, we pumped less than last year—less. If the Fish and Wildlife Service had simply allowed the Bureau of Reclamation to pump the maximum allowable under the biologi- cal opinion, we could have pumped enough water to serve 2 million people for an entire year, the population of San Diego and San Francisco combined. Instead, that water went out to sea, and it is not coming back. El Nin˜ o has proven that the problem is not the quantity of water but the regulation of water. So much of the regulation is dictated by the Fish and Wildlife Service under the mandates of the Endan- gered Species Act, with wide latitude afforded scientific uncertainty and save-at-any-cost policy that borders on dogma. Enough is enough. For the sake of the people of California who fuel the Nation’s largest economic engine, who grow the Nation’s largest fresh food supply, and who push the Nation to the cutting edge of technology, we must reconsider what the Federal Govern- ment is doing with our water. We must reconsider calling on the Endangered Species Committee. I get that the Fish and Wildlife Service feels its hands are tied, which is why this is yet another policy matter banging on the front door of a statute long overdue for the reauthorization process. This is not about the Fish and Wildlife Service. It is not meant to be criticism of any of the thousands of outstanding scientists and other employees of the service who are faithfully executing the 3 laws of the United States on behalf of the people and natural re- sources we highly value. Along those lines, in closing, let me take a moment to recognize some of these employees in another part of the country that was recently featured so prominently in the news. I want to give a short shout-out directly to the men and women of the Fish and Wildlife Service who are working at or in support of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon. No doubt it was and continues to be a difficult ordeal for you and your families. I hope you will take some comfort in knowing that while the Nation was glued to the press, your refuge neighbors, ranchers, came to your defense and made Congress aware that co- operative conservation can work when landscape neighbors truly work together. For your collective efforts, we commend you. I am now pleased to yield to our distinguished ranking member, Betty McCollum, for her opening remarks. Ms. MCCOLLUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. OPENING REMARKS OF MS. MCCOLLUM I also would like to welcome Director Ashe to the subcommittee this morning. Thank you for being here. And I would like to extend my congratulations to National Wild- life Refuge System, which yesterday celebrated 113 years of wildlife conservation. Happy birthday. Happy anniversary. Congratula- tions. This year, Fish and Wildlife Service has some great accomplish- ments to celebrate. The Yellowstone grizzly bear has been success- fully recovered and proposed for delisting. The Monarch butterfly population grew 255 percent, showing signs of effective conserva- tion efforts with our partners. You engaged everyone in the United States for Monarch protec- tion, and it is working. Sadly, however, the Service also faced challenges.

Load more

  405

Copy Link