    [Senate Hearing 115-315]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-315

    THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JUNE 20, 2017

                                   __________

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           Printed for the use of the
                   Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                   _________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

     26-075                     WASHINGTON : 2018

                   COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES

                        LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairman
    JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming               MARIA CANTWELL, Washington
    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    MIKE LEE, Utah                       BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    JEFF FLAKE, Arizona                  DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan
    STEVE DAINES, Montana                AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    LUTHER STRANGE, Alabama              CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada

                          Colin Hayes, Staff Director
                    Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
       Lucy Murfitt, Senior Counsel and Public Lands & Natural Resources
                                Policy Director
               Angela Becker-Dippmann, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
                    David Brooks, Democratic General Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, Chairman and a U.S. Senator from Alaska....     1
    Cantwell, Hon. Maria, Ranking Member and a U.S. Senator from
      Washington.....................................................     3

                                    WITNESS

    Zinke, Hon. Ryan, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior.....     5

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Cantwell, Hon. Maria:
        Opening Statement............................................     3
    Cassidy, Hon. Bill:
        Chart entitled ``Louisiana's 2017 Draft Coastal Master Plan''    24
        Chart entitled ``Predicted Land Change: Future Without
          Action/Year 50/Medium Scenario''...........................    26
        Chart entitled ``Predicted Land Change: Future Without
          Action/Year 50/High Scenario''.............................    27
    Heinrich, Hon. Martin:
        Map entitled ``Proposed Acquisition: Rimrock Rose Ranch''....    53
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    San Miguel County (New Mexico) Board of County Commissioners:
        Letter for the Record........................................    42
    Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, et al.:
        Letter for the Record........................................    40
    Zinke, Hon. Ryan:
        Opening Statement............................................     5
        Written Testimony............................................     8
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    59

    THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018

                                  ----------

                             TUESDAY, JUNE 20, 2017

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m. in
    Room SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa
    Murkowski, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI,
                        U.S. SENATOR FROM ALASKA

        The Chairman. Good morning, everyone. The Committee will
    come to order.
        We are here this morning to consider the President's budget
    request for the Department of the Interior (DOI) for Fiscal
    Year 2018. This is the second of three budget hearings before
    our Committee this year, following the Forest Service last week
    and the Department of Energy which is coming up on Thursday.
        Secretary Zinke, welcome back to the Committee for your
    first appearance since our bipartisan vote in favor of your
    confirmation on March 1st. It was nice to be able to give you
    the official tally sheet this morning, making it ``officially''
    official.
        I want to start by noting that you have taken on some tough
    tasks at the Department, including some challenges that really
    have gone unaddressed for years. I think you are off to a good
    start, and I appreciate that.
        I have enjoyed working with you during the early months of
    your tenure as Secretary. I truly appreciated the opportunity
    to host you and some members here on the Committee in Alaska a
    couple weeks ago. We had meetings in Anchorage. We were up on
    the North Slope, looking at our considerable potential up
    there, and we attended a Memorial Day ceremony at the Veteran's
    Memorial at Byers Lake. It was a very important and, I think, a
    very productive time while you were in the state.
        Our hearing today actually coincides with a big milestone
    for Alaska. Today is the 40th anniversary of the first oil
    moving through our Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (TAPS). It was
    on this day back in 1977 that our 800-mile-long pipeline
    carried the first of what is now more than 17 billion barrels
    of oil south to Valdez.
        We had an opportunity while you were in Alaska to be at the
    start of the pipeline--mile zero--along with Senator Barrasso
    and Senator Daines of our Committee and a couple others. I
    believe you saw why Alaskans say that TAPS is not just a
    pipeline, it is truly our economic lifeline. You wasted no time
    signing a Secretarial Order that will help us begin to refill
    that important asset, and your Department's budget request
    includes a number of proposals that will continue to help
    Alaska get back on track.
        The Administration has requested a total of $11.7 billion
    in discretionary appropriations for the Department of the
    Interior in FY18. Overall, that is a reduction of more than $1
    billion from the current level and it is in line with the
    Administration's effort to shift funding to defense needs.
        Know that we are going to be reviewing all of the cuts that
    this budget proposes very, very carefully. I do not expect many
    of them to become a reality, especially those that target
    popular programs, but I will also say that the positives, in my
    view, outweigh the negatives. For every item that many of us
    will not be able to support, there is another one that we can.
    I have not been able to make that statement for quite a while
    now, so it is good to be able to say it.
        A good example is in the Administration's decision to seek
    to end offshore revenue sharing for the Gulf Coast states,
    something that my colleague at the end of the row here is
    clearly engaged on. Like most Alaskans, I want to expand
    revenue sharing rather than end it, so frankly, I do not see
    that proposal going anywhere.
        But it is also clear that the Administration understands
    that we need to strengthen our energy security because I see
    proposals for both a new five-year leasing program which will
    hopefully restore access to Alaska's Arctic Outer Continental
    Shelf (OCS) as well as a proposal to open the non-wilderness
    portion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to
    responsible production.
        I have been asked a couple times in recent weeks, why is
    now the right time to open up the 1002 area? So I want to take
    a moment to explain why, I believe, this is so important for us
    to act on.
        First of all, it is critical to understand that we are
    talking about a part of ANWR that Congress explicitly set aside
    for oil and gas exploration. In 1987, 30 years ago this year,
    the Federal Government recommended it be opened for that
    purpose. Today we are at a place in Alaska where we have the
    highest unemployment rate in the country right now--we need
    more jobs, we have a dire state budget, we need more revenue,
    and with global oil discoveries falling but global demand
    projected to increase, we know that the world is going to need
    more oil.
        So what will opening the 1002 area deliver? By developing
    just about one-ten-thousandth of the refuge, just 2,000 surface
    acres in an area roughly the size of South Carolina, we can
    create those new jobs. We can generate tens of billions of
    dollars of new revenues. We can bring energy online, right when
    we need it, to strengthen our security, strengthen our
    competitiveness. This is something that most Alaskans, more
    than 70 percent, strongly support.
        I also appreciate the Administration taking a deliberative
    and a constructive approach on a potential royalty for hard
    rock minerals. I will be interested to see the results of the
    study that DOI is now conducting. But with our mineral security
    in a perilous state and our nation importing at least 50
    percent of 50 different minerals, our first goal must be to do
    no harm and that is exactly what I see here.
        The Administration's proposal to extend Payment in Lieu of
    Taxes (PILT) is another good sign. I would note, however, that
    PILT should be mandatory and it should not be subject to an
    across-the-board cut, not unless the Federal Government is
    willing to divest some of its lands and allow local governments
    to find alternative means to recoup their lost property tax
    base.
        So again, while I do not agree with everything in this
    request, I think it is better than what we have seen in recent
    years. It does not rely on budget gimmicks; it asks us to look
    for areas where we can cut spending--which we will do; it
    focuses on taking care of the lands that the Federal Government
    already owns rather than continuing to buy more; and it will
    help Western states, particularly Alaska, to increase the
    responsible production of our natural resources.
        So again, Secretary Zinke, I thank you for being here. I
    thank you for the steps that you are taking to help restore
    Alaska's trust in the Department.
        With that, Senator Cantwell, I turn to you for your opening
    remarks.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. MARIA CANTWELL,
                      U.S. SENATOR FROM WASHINGTON

        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        This morning we are reviewing the President's proposed
    budget for the Department of the Interior. Overall, President
    Trump's budget is proposing to cut funding at the Department of
    the Interior by $1.8 billion, a 13 percent decrease from
    current fiscal year funding.
        This budget would be devastating to our national parks,
    wildlife refuges and other public lands, and it betrays the
    Secretary's trust responsibility to Native tribes.
        The budget gives us a very clear indication of President
    Trump's and Secretary Zinke's priorities. Unfortunately, these
    priorities put the interests of the fossil fuel industry ahead
    of the public interest by prioritizing onshore and offshore
    development and cutting funds for all other priorities.
        The budget also makes clear the Trump Administration's
    intention to disregard science and undermine conservation.
        Let me run through a few of those low-lights.
        Just one year after our National Park Centennial, this
    budget would cut almost $400 million from the Park Service
    budget. It would result in cutting more than 1,000 full-time
    employees. And according to the Department's own math, ``nearly
    90 percent of parks would reduce their current staffing levels,
    leading to a reduction of services to the public.''
        Secretary Zinke's proposal also uses a budget gimmick to
    try to obscure the fact that it is cutting the Land and Water
    Conservation program by 85 percent, $61 million down from $400
    million. This is our nation's most successful land conservation
    program, which 85 Senators voted to make permanent just last
    year. Suffice it to say, this budget would pump the brakes on a
    booming outdoor recreation economy, all in favor of industries
    that have had trouble competing in today's marketplace.
        Meanwhile, the Administration's war on science is also on
    full display. The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) would be cut by
    15 percent, or $163 million. We are talking about water and
    climate science. We are also talking about USGS' work on
    natural hazards, including earthquakes and volcano warning
    systems that are vital to public safety.
        Secretary Zinke's proposal would also cut 11 percent, $371
    million, from an already woefully underfunded Bureau of Indian
    Affairs. These cuts would significantly reduce funding for
    tribal education programs and social services. This is
    unacceptable, and it is a betrayal of our trust
    responsibilities to tribes.
        Finally, I suppose I should not be surprised the
    Administration is proposing to open up the Arctic National
    Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. It has been attempted by every
    Republican President since the 1980s, but that does not mean
    that it is right.
        I know that this will be something that we will have
    continued discussion on, but I think it is also important,
    since this is the first time that Secretary Zinke has been back
    before the Committee since his confirmation, that we raise a
    few other issues.
        My colleague, Senator Murray, and I are particularly
    concerned about your national monument strategy, concerned
    about the Hanford Reach National Monument in the State of
    Washington.
        But it is also clear that there are many other areas.
        It took the Trump Administration less than 100 days to
    launch its unprecedented war on 111 years of bipartisan land
    conservation--which began with President Roosevelt's
    leadership. The most glaring example is an ongoing attack on
    the Antiquities Act in general, and Bears Ears National
    Monument in particular. Trying to roll back Bears Ears is a
    taxpayer waste, especially at a time when the Administration is
    proposing significant staff cutbacks. In my opinion, Secretary
    Zinke's recent decision to propose another management
    designation for Bears Ears is an affront to tribes and the
    Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition. These tribes have spent
    years working to protect these lands. I believe that any action
    by this Administration to undermine the protection for Bears
    Ears or any other national monument is illegal, and I will
    strongly oppose any legislative attempt to weaken this monument
    status.
        Secretary Zinke and the Administration are also attempting
    to unilaterally suspend rules that have already gone into
    effect like the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Methane Rule.
    Last week, the Department announced its legally dubious
    decision to suspend the Methane and Waste Prevention Rule. This
    is a common-sense rule that implements a 97-year-old
    requirement to prevent waste of federal natural gas. Many
    people here understand that my colleagues in the Senate just
    voted on this recently. But instead of following what the
    United States Senate has said should be done, the Department is
    trying to abandon hundreds of pages of environmental analysis.
        I want to be clear. My colleague, Senator Udall, and I are
    sending you a letter today saying that you must follow the
    Administrative Procedure Act. You cannot just change this rule
    without notice and without comment. You cannot just make up
    your own new regulation without a due process.
        So clearly, we have a lot to discuss today. I look forward
    to hearing the Secretary's statements, but know that these
    important issues of our public lands will be defended and we
    will have an open discussion about our path forward.
        I thank the Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
        We are joined this morning, again, by the Secretary of the
    Interior, the Honorable Ryan Zinke. He is also joined at the
    table this morning by Ms. Olivia Barton Ferriter, who is the
    Deputy Assistant Secretary of Budget, Finance, Performance and
    Acquisition and also Denise Flanagan, Director of Office and
    Budget. It is my understanding that only the Secretary will be
    offering remarks this morning. Is that correct?
        Secretary Zinke. That is correct.
        The Chairman. Mr. Secretary----
        Secretary Zinke. I have some great help though.
        The Chairman. Good help. We appreciate you being here.
        I will note to colleagues that we are scheduled to have two
    votes commencing at 11:00 am. It is my intention to try to just
    keep the Committee moving throughout that. So when the first
    vote is called, you might want to look around the dais and
    figure out when you are up next and plan your timing to go to
    the Floor around that. But I do intend to keep us moving
    because it is my understanding that we will have to conclude
    the hearing this morning at noon.
        Secretary Zinke, if you would like to present the
    President's budget proposal?
        Welcome.

               STATEMENT OF HON. RYAN ZINKE, SECRETARY,
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

        Secretary Zinke. Well, thank you, and I am honored to be
    before you today to testify in support of the President's 2018
    budget for the Department of the Interior. I do request
    permission to submit my entire statement for the record.
        The Chairman. It will be included as part of the record.
        Secretary Zinke. The President's budget--this is what a
    balanced budget looks like. I want to repeat that. This is what
    a balanced budget looks like. There are tough decisions
    throughout, but if we want to balance the budget, this is a
    starting point of what a balanced budget would look like--there
    hasn't been one around for a while.
        I fully understand my stewardship responsibilities because
    Interior touches the lives of more Americans than any other
    Department. I am the steward of our greatest treasures, and I
    take that responsibility very seriously.
        The President's budget proposes $11.7 billion and it saves
    the taxpayer about $1.6 billion. We make strategic investments
    to ensure our nation's energy and national security and to
    address the core responsibilities that lie within the
    Department.
        The President's budget prioritizes an all-the-above energy
    strategy. It does not favor oil and gas or coal over any other
    strategy, but we also think it's necessary to have a prudent
    focus on boosting revenue through legislative proposals to
    raise about $5.8 billion.
        And speaking of revenue, in 2008 the Department of the
    Interior made about $18 billion a year in offshore alone. We
    were second only to our friends, the IRS. Last year our revenue
    was $2.6 billion--that's a drop of $15.5 billion a year in
    revenue. So when we talk about infrastructure, the parks are
    about $11.5 billion behind, which represents 73 percent of our
    total gap in maintenance and repair. We would have made up
    that, in scale, in one year with the amount of revenue we
    dropped. So I will be looking at revenue.
        One of my first tasks was a Secretarial Order and, thanks
    to the Ranking Member, I did look at revenues across the board
    and looked at royalties, rents--all the above--giving no
    quarter to gas, oil, wind. If you are going to operate on
    public land, then the public should have a say because we are
    all stewards of our public lands and we want to make sure we
    have a fair return. That return should be transparent and it
    should be trust but verify. So I was pleased one of my first
    acts was to write a Secretarial Order to do just that, look at
    our revenues across the field on public land.
        When it comes to infrastructure, the LWCF, when it's
    removed from the budget proposal, is acquisition of new land.
    Clearly, with an $11.5 billion deficit in maintenance repair,
    the priority must be to take care of what we have. And if you
    doubt that, look at our ability to maintain, I invite you to go
    up and look at Arlington. Arlington is a national disgrace, and
    I'm talking about the building up on top--Lee's home. Through
    neglect the shutters are nearly falling off and the gardens are
    in disrepair. The building itself is a national disgrace. I
    invite you to go up and take a look at it, because we have to
    take care of what we own.
        The budget calls for a $35 million increase for a total of
    $766 million in national park infrastructure. This includes $18
    million for the first phase of repairing the Arlington Memorial
    Bridge.
        Of note, of our $11.5 million backlog in the parks, about
    half are roads, and about a third of those roads are outside
    our parks. There is a $260 million bill on the Memorial Bridge
    and on parkways, access, and gateway roads that are outside of
    what most Americans would think would be a park responsibility.
        For the first time in many years, Payment in Lieu of Taxes
    is part of the discretionary budget. As you may remember last
    year, it was part of mandatory budget that did not pass and it
    was zero. This year it is $397 million and the reduction is
    about the same and the savings is as the other programs. But
    it's in the budget. That's different from last year.
        We fully fund fire suppression at a 10-year average.
    Fighting forest fires, particularly in the West, has become a
    billion-dollar problem. And growing up in the West, investing
    and making sure we remove dead and dying trees in our holdings
    is a prudent expense.
        We also support Indian trust responsibilities with a core
    focus on self-governments, self-determination and sovereignty.
        So we found savings by reducing federal land acquisition,
    eliminating redundant programs and allowing states, local
    communities and private partners to take the lead on some
    others. At the end of the day, this is what a balanced budget
    looks like. There are tough decisions. I fully understand the
    responsibility of the Executive Branch, as well as the
    responsibility of Congress. Congress gets a say, and I am glad
    to be here with you today to go through that.
        I understand there are different priorities within each of
    your states, and I will always work with you to make sure we
    have a budget that represents a great nation.
        I can and will maintain our assets, offer a world class
    experience on public lands and deliver savings to the
    taxpayers, whether it is through public/private partnerships,
    encouraging responsible energy development or reorganizing my
    workforce.
        I am thrilled to be with you today, and I look forward to
    your questions and working together.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Zinke follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Secretary Zinke.
        Let me start off by bringing up an issue that we have had
    some discussion on both here in Committee and off Committee.
    And this is as it relates to transfer of federal lands to
    states.
        You have often said that you do not support transferring
    federal lands to states, but you have also acknowledged that
    Alaska is unique, that it has some distinctions, and I
    appreciate that.
        When we look to Alaska's lands and what was granted at
    statehood--the right to acquire more than 104 million acres of
    land roughly equal to the size of the state of California--
    Alaska Natives were also granted lands to settle Aboriginal
    claims. Today, the Interior Department, through the BLM,
    effectively acts as a real estate agent to accomplish these
    land transfers.
        BLM still needs to finish deciding the fate of 38.4 million
    acres and still needs to survey more than 16 million of our
    state's tentative selections before the patents can be issued;
    our Alaska Native Corporations have another 9.67 million acres
    under adjudication; and about 750,000 acres of tentative
    selections await surveys.
        To my colleagues, this is a lot of land that is yet to be
    conveyed. We have been a state now for over 50 years. The
    promises to our Alaska Native people were made over 40 years
    ago.
        It is something I have pushed through successive
    Administrations and just want to make sure that we are on the
    same page here when it comes to land transfers in Alaska. I
    would ask whether you agree that the Interior Department,
    according to federal law, has a role and an obligation to
    convey federal lands to Alaska and to our Alaska Native people?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, thank you, Madam.
        And Alaska is different, I'm concerned about the surveying
    process--I don't know how long we've been at the surveying
    process.
        The Chairman. Too long.
        Secretary Zinke. But it's too long. So we are working with
    the state to use technology and agree how to use the technology
    so we can get it done. There's----
        The Chairman. That still remains a little bit of a rub, but
    I appreciate that you were updated on that on your visit to
    Alaska.
        Secretary Zinke. And I would like to work with you. There
    are surveys that are in the intermediate process. I don't know
    why we can't go forward and view those as final in the process
    and get that moving.
        You have a veteran issue, Vietnam Veterans. Native Alaskans
    served their country. They were either not informed or did not
    take action with that and how to provide their right on land.
    We've talked. There's multiple ways forward, but we need to get
    it done. So I will work with you and commit to work with you
    and get it done.
        I think the best path forward is a conveyance to agree and
    put a timeframe on it and to sit down and look at the best
    technology in order to get it done. Sometimes the 98 solution--
    98 percent solution--today is better than the 100 percent
    solution 15 years from now. And if we both work together, I
    think we can get this done and quickly. Certainly, on the ones
    that have been done on the intermediate, I think we should both
    propose to move to final and get that section of it done.
        The Chairman. Well, know this is something that we need to
    be working on, not only the state lands and the interim
    conveyances that are out there, but again, these allotments to
    our Alaska Native veterans--those lands to those who are termed
    the ``landless Natives.'' There is so much that is yet
    unfulfilled in terms of promises and commitments made to Alaska
    upon statehood and to our Native people, so we need to be
    working to advance them.
        Let me ask very quickly. The Secretarial Order that you
    signed when you were up in the state to help increase energy
    production, again, particularly relevant today in light of the
    40th anniversary of TAPS. Do you have any update for me on the
    implementation of that order, including the revised Integrated
    Activity Plan for the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (NPR-A)
    and just where you are with implementation of that Secretarial
    Order?
        Secretary Zinke. I will get the specifics on it, but I
    wanted just to point out on 1002, specifically.
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Secretary Zinke. That was set aside to assess, and my
    responsibility as the Secretary of the Interior is to do just
    that--assess. I don't have the authority to authorize
    production in the ANWR or the 1002. That authority lies within
    Congress. My responsibility is to make sure I assess.
        And as the steward of our public's lands, I think it's
    important to know what our inventory is because decisions being
    made on production levels investment all should be made on the
    basis of science and fact. So my intent is to move forward
    rapidly and assess exactly what assets the taxpayers in this
    great nation have, in the 1002, as was set aside to do just
    that.
        The Chairman. Thank you. We look forward to that. Again, I
    will work with you on getting some kind of an update on the
    other aspects of the plan within NPR-A and other areas.
        Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you and thank you, Secretary Zinke,
    for being here.
        As you know, my state is home to two of the largest
    national parks, Mount Rainier and Olympic. Your proposal would
    cut both parks about seven percent--Mount Rainier would see a
    funding reduction of $881,000, and Olympic National Park a
    reduction of $909,000. So I am trying to understand. These
    parks were already underfunded, and these funding cuts will
    only make the problems worse. Can you explain why you think
    cutting these parks and support functions and park personnel,
    who are on the front lines, is the right strategy in balancing,
    as you say, a budget?
        Secretary Zinke. The infrastructure increased $38 million--
    that's not a cut.
        Secondly is our front lines at our parks. Since I've been
    Secretary I have been to, let me make the list--I think I've
    been to Maine, New Hampshire, let's see, Utah, Montana, Alaska,
    Connecticut, I've toured monuments--and it's clear the front
    line is too thin. So my assessment of it for Department of the
    Interior is we have too many middle management and above and
    too few in the parks. So we are looking at going through a
    process, in coordination with you, of how to push more assets
    to the front line. And we've seen it--every cost-cutting
    measure previous to this has always regionalized assets up and
    we find ourselves too short. Where they're needed is in the
    parks.
        And yes, we need more scientists in the field and less
    lawyers, but also, you look at our stacked on the regions, we
    have to--we're too heavy in the regions. And unfortunately,
    that has taken a toll at our parks.
        The best funds for the parks are through the door, tickets
    to the door. We had 330 million visitors through our parks last
    year. Half our parks didn't charge. And we are divided in a
    tier system and many of our parks don't even follow the tier
    system. So we have to look at revenue as well, and public/
    private partnerships.
        We're looking at some of our parks on transportation. If
    you go to Yosemite, the Yosemite experience is now going up a
    freeway. Rainier has challenges in your park about the
    experience whether it's on I-5, too much traffic.
        So public/private partnerships, how to move people and how
    to maintain the experience in the park, is important and we're
    looking at everything.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, Mr. Secretary, I find the budget so
    focused on the oil and natural gas aspect of revenue that I
    think that you are neglecting the fact that the outdoor economy
    generates $887 billion a year--$65 billion in federal revenue,
    $59 billion in state and local revenue--that is $124 billion to
    the government. So that versus the $2 billion you are talking
    about or $18 billion, depending on price fluctuations for oil
    and gas. I want to make sure that we are putting pedal to the
    metal as it relates to the outdoor economy and the
    opportunities. That is what is going to generate a lot more
    revenue for us as a government.
        I wanted to ask you on this issue of the BLM Methane Rule
    that we voted on in the Senate to keep the existing rule. Do
    you believe that you are responsible for complying with the
    Administrative Procedure Act?
        Secretary Zinke. I know that we entered into the record the
    notification, and we are following and complying with the law.
        Senator Cantwell. Do you think that public notice and
    comment are an important part of reviewing public regulations?
        Secretary Zinke. We are reviewing the methane. As you know,
    there was a CRA that came close to one vote on it. My position
    on the methane is I think it's----
        Senator Cantwell. So does that mean you are free to do what
    you want just because you think it came close?
        Secretary Zinke. No.
        Senator Cantwell. The rule stands, right?
        Secretary Zinke. That's not what I said, ma'am. What I said
    was my position on the methane, I think it's a waste. And we
    both agree that flaring is a waste.
        So we're looking at the rule in order to make sure that we
    can provide incentives to capture it because as a steward of
    your public lands, and they are your public lands, I think just
    flaring it is waste. We have to make sure that we incentivize
    capture systems and make sure that our isolated assets can
    connect and we make sure that the taxpayer is getting a fair
    valuation on our public holdings.
        Senator Cantwell. So my question to you is, do you believe,
    since that is the law, and now you are proposing to change it,
    do you believe that you have to adhere to the Administrative
    Procedure Act? And that you have to have public notice and
    comment as part of that rulemaking?
        Secretary Zinke. We provided public notice and the public
    notice is now open as it sits right now. And we entered into
    the Register the procedure to begin to change the rule. That is
    within the law.
        Senator Cantwell. So you are going to have a public notice
    and comment period as part of that?
        Secretary Zinke. Absolutely, because I follow the law.
        Senator Cantwell. We will look forward to following up on
    that with you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cassidy.
        Senator Cassidy. Secretary Zinke, thank you for being with
    us, I appreciate it. In your comments, you mentioned the
    advantage you have growing up in the West and understanding the
    importance of appropriate measures for fire suppression, well
    worth, I think, the $1 billion or so that you are putting
    forward and I, kind of, compliment you for that. What I bring
    up now is my advantage of growing up on the Gulf Coast and kind
    of a lead-in into that.
        Obviously, the budget takes the Gulf of Mexico Energy
    Security Act (GOMESA) payments for the Gulf states for oil and
    gas leasing and the budget states the Administration proposes
    to repeal these revenue sharing payments to ensure that the
    sale of public resources from federal waters owned by all
    Americans benefit all Americans.
        Now, as you know, beginning in 2018, oil and gas revenues
    for Gulf states are set to increase to $375 million with an
    additional $125 million being distributed to the stateside Land
    and Water Conservation Fund. Now what you may not know, which
    of course I do being from Louisiana, in our state these
    revenues are constitutionally required to be put toward coastal
    restoration.
        Again, I was struck that you mentioned that it is a prudent
    approach to remove dead and dying trees and so it justifies, if
    you will, the money for fire suppression--I totally agree with
    that.
        I guess the point I would make is that it is a prudent
    approach to rebuild the Gulf Coast coastline, otherwise we are
    paying for more Katrina-type recoveries. Just a couple comments
    on this though, if you will. The federal role in this--our
    coastline began to erode when the Mississippi River was dammed,
    if you will, levied, for the benefit of inland commerce. All
    those ports up and down the Mississippi benefit because our
    land is levied and since the year those levies began, our
    coastline has begun to recede.
        So the benefit which is nationwide--and I agree it should
    be nationwide--the penalty for that is borne entirely
    environmentally by our state.
        Now, if you will, that is where I would see the federal
    obligation. Let me just show you since I mentioned that the
    land, the money that we receive has to be used for our Coastal
    Master Plan. Can we put the first poster up?
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        This is our Coastal Master Plan--120 projects which would
    reduce flood damage by $150 billion creating 802 miles of land.
    The green space is where the land will be reduced.
        When the hurricanes come toward New Orleans, every mile of
    wetlands lost allows that storm to be that much stronger--
    destroying, if you will, levy walls and flooding out homes--
    creating obligation for the American taxpayer for that as we
    saw with Katrina. So if we do not have these dollars, this
    cannot happen. When we met before your confirmation you had
    mentioned you had gone to Congressman Scalise's offshore energy
    visits and saw how we used those funds for our restoration.
        We also know that our coastline has refineries and
    pipelines that are the energy coast, if you will, for our state
    so--can we put up charts two and three?
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        This is what is going to happen if we do not take action.
    If we do not have that revenue to rebuild our coastline, this
    is the high-end scenario, 50 years from now, red is the land
    that is lost.
        This is a future medium scenario, that is the worst, this
    is medium. So, even at medium, we can see an incredible
    vulnerability for New Orleans sitting right here, as all these
    wetlands are lost and, therefore, the ability to buffer storms
    hitting our coast.
        By the way, this is all energy coastline so our nation
    depends upon the refineries and pipelines here. The price of
    gasoline rises in the Northeast when our pipelines are put out
    of business by a large storm.
        You have mentioned desiring to be energy secure. That, of
    course, depends upon our offshore revenue and development but
    it also depends upon those pipelines and refineries to take
    that oil and gas. So, my first question. How does removing
    those GOMESA funds away from Louisiana help fulfill that energy
    dominance?
        Secondly, I will say that you have mentioned the need to
    address the debt and deficit. I will point out that if we do
    expand revenue sharing and development off Alaska and the
    Atlantic Coast, which those states are, frankly, incentivized
    to participate in by sharing the revenue with them, we will
    increase revenues for the nation as well as for those states
    and increase the number of good-paying jobs with more people
    paying taxes out of good-paying jobs. So, the second question.
    Would you support legislation that expanded revenue sharing to
    the Atlantic states, Alaska and the rest of the Gulf of Mexico
    if lease sales were scheduled off their coast in the next five-
    year plan?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, thank you for your questions. And
    you know, Montana and Louisiana are very similar in that the
    water starts in Montana and makes its way down the Missouri, or
    Mississippi. And I know more about red snapper than I ever
    cared to sitting next to Congressman Graves.
        But I understand exactly what you're talking about on this.
    And the budget does take the tact, and again, this is the first
    step of what a balanced budget would look like. But the budget
    before you looks at a balanced budget in 10 years and where the
    revenues come from. The position of this budget is the revenue
    goes into Treasury.
        Clearly the position of Louisiana is that--that is
    inappropriate. And I understand exactly, well, you know,
    between the differences on it. What I can say is that I'll work
    with you on it, certainly. I understand the importance to
    Louisiana. We think that taking 94 percent of the offshore
    assets offline has had a significant detriment to revenue of
    Interior. And when you have a lot of money, you know, the
    choices become easier.
        But when you drop $15.5 billion a year in revenue, much of
    it from offshore, much of it from the Gulf, some of it from
    Alaska and other holdings, it has a significant, creates a
    significant issue on funding. So, I'll work with you on it, and
    I'd be glad to.
        Senator Cassidy. Sounds good. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator Franken.
        Senator Franken. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Just one note on climate and sea level rise--I think there
    is a relationship.
        Secretary Zinke, welcome. During your confirmation hearing
    you assured members of this Committee that you took tribal
    consultation and sovereignty very seriously, but I have to say
    what I have heard from tribal nations so far is not promising.
        When it comes to the Department of the Interior's status
    review of the Bears Ears National Monument you said that tribes
    are, ``very happy with your recommendation to reduce the
    boundaries of the monument.'' But this really isn't the case.
        The Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition, which represents the
    five local sovereign nations, has been clear in its unanimous
    position to keep Bears Ears National Monument as it is and has
    condemned your recent recommendation stating, ``the radical
    idea of breaking up Bears Ears National Monument is a slap in
    the face to the members of our tribes and an affront to Indian
    people all across the nation.'' That does not sound very happy
    to me.
        Mr. Secretary, you told this Committee that, ``sovereignty
    should mean something.'' You have also said you consulted with
    tribal nations about your recommendation regarding Bears Ears,
    but they all oppose your recommendation. So can you explain how
    your decision respects sovereignty and self-determination?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, thank you.
        I would invite members to go to Bears Ears and look at what
    it is. It's 1.5 million acres, roughly one and a half times the
    size of Glacier National Park. Within Bears Ears, the present
    monument, there's already a monument, there's national forest,
    there are wilderness study areas of 400,000 acres, there's a
    U.S. National Forest, and there's BLM land.
        My assessment after talking to tribes in Washington, DC,
    and tribes there, I met with the Inner Coalition. But also
    there is a distinct difference between the Utah Navajo and the
    Arizona Navajo which should be respected. There's a
    Commissioner in Utah that represents the Utah Navajo which is
    by--she is an elected official that represents her district. So
    the monument itself is split on whether tribes agree, I talked
    to them all.
        Senator Franken. Does she have official representation in
    the tribe?
        Secretary Zinke. She's mandated by Congress as a
    Commissioner and she's elected in her district and represents
    that district which is Navajo, sir.
        Senator Franken. But does she have representation in the
    tribe or no?
        Secretary Zinke. She is the only representation of that
    Utah Navajo in her district. That is actually where the
    monument is. So to say that Commissioner Benally does not have
    a say or the tribes that I talked to, the members of the tribes
    in Utah, all of them have a say. She is not part of the Inter-
    Tribal Coalition which I'm not sure why she's not.
        Senator Franken. I am sure that, I mean, you said that the
    tribes are ``very happy'' and the Inter-Tribal Coalition has
    said that breaking up the monument is a ``slap in the face.''
    Those seem at odds.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, I did talk to the tribes.
        Senator Franken. And you talked to the tribes but you said
    they were very happy--but we have the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal
    Coalition saying that the radical idea of breaking up Bears
    Ears National Monument is a ``slap in the face to the members
    of our tribes and an affront to Indian people all across the
    country.'' Those seem very at odds, those characterizations.
        Secretary Zinke. I know you probably have talked to the
    Navajo, but I have too.
        Senator Franken. No, I have.
        Secretary Zinke. And the northern Utes. And what they
    really want is co-management, above all is co-management.
        But also, Bears Ears--there's a little thing called the law
    and the law says smallest area compatible to protect the
    object. In the case of the 1.5 million acres of Bears Ears,
    those antiquities that are contained in, can be separated,
    identified and the borders can be revised. But I believe it
    should be co-managed and that's what the tribes want.
        Senator Franken. I am not sure that is what the tribes
    want. Madam Chair, I am out of time, but it seems that the
    Inter-Tribal Coalition speaks for what the tribes want more
    than you do and they say that this is a ``slap in the face.'' I
    am sure that the Senator from New Mexico, Senator Heinrich, may
    have something to add here.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Daines.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member
    Cantwell.
        Secretary Zinke, thanks for being here today and
    congratulations on your first hearing before this Committee
    since your confirmation as Secretary of the Interior. Again,
    the significance of your leadership at the Department to our
    great State of Montana cannot be overstated. I know very well
    that you understand the importance of achieving the balanced
    melody of land use. As we say out in Montana, this blend of
    Merle Haggard and John Denver, that melody, that blend here, as
    we look at our public lands.
        I also understand the critical importance of setting
    priorities within spending constraints. I am happy to see your
    prioritization of energy development. That balance has been
    lacking the past eight years and we know that in Montana, how
    much of our state relies on federal oil, coal and gas for good
    paying jobs and tax revenue that keep many of our rural
    communities afloat that frankly are sinking as we speak. You
    are trying to keep their schools, their teachers, their
    infrastructure funded. However, I remain highly concerned
    regarding the budget's proposed reductions in the PILT program
    and other revenue sharing programs like our wildlife refuges.
        I was just up in your part of the state, up there in
    Columbia Falls, recently. We had some county commissioners,
    Mineral County, Sanders County. We have counties in Montana
    that have over 90 percent owned by the Federal Government. And
    of course, there is no tax base there because the Federal
    Government does not pay taxes. Trying to help these county
    commissioners who are struggling, literally, they are reducing
    their staffing on their road crews. And we have county
    commissioners jumping on graters, plowing snow in the
    wintertime to keep the school buses going because of the lack
    of revenues because we have lost our timber industry on these
    federal lands.
        However, the PILT program, the Payment in Lieu of Taxes,
    because the Federal Government does not pay taxes, are a
    lifeblood for these counties out West. We need to improve the
    land management, but in the meantime we have to provide, I
    believe, full funding for these programs to create certainty
    for our local county budgets.
        Today I also want to ask you about some of these cuts to
    our national parks. I know you are a lifelong neighbor to
    Glacier National Park. I am one to Yellowstone National Park.
    We both know how critical our National Park System is.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for prioritizing the deferred and
    cyclical maintenance in construction accounts in your budget.
    However, the President's budget request proposed cuts of
    $956,000 to Glacier and $2.5 million to Yellowstone in the
    operations accounts.
        I am concerned as we see these national parks receiving
    record levels of visitation. I know we are going to be
    proclaiming the month of June as the Great Outdoors month in
    current visitation. So I am guessing we are going to see
    Glacier Park and Yellowstone Park as having yet another record
    season.
        I believe we do share the goal of strengthening our
    National Park Service for the 21st century. I share your
    commitment to fully addressing maintenance needs on our public
    lands, as you so clearly articulated in your opening statement.
        My question is this: As the Park Service is likely to
    continue receiving high visitation again this year and as we
    share the goal of strengthening our National Park Service, how
    will these cuts in operations funding help ensure the public
    has the sort of experience we all expect from what has been
    called America's best idea?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, thank you for the question. It's
    always a pleasure to work with you.
        First on PILT. PILT, this budget includes $397 million in
    PILT. That is a difference from the last budget, a plus $397
    million to the discretionary side. And I can't tell you what
    the exact amount is going to be because the Secure Rural
    Schools (SRS) still has not been authorized. And it's going to
    be difficult to estimate until that does. But right now, it
    sits in this proposed budget as a 12 percent reduction. And as
    it sits right now, not knowing the certainty of what's going to
    happen to SRS--but it is, unlike the last budget, there's $397
    million in it, I think, which is a good start.
        The parks. Again, I'll go to when you lose $15.5 billion
    worth of revenue it makes a difference. When half our parks
    don't charge, when even the tier system that--many of the parks
    don't follow their own tier system--Interior gives away about
    $5.5 billion worth of grants and a lot of those grants are in
    programs outside of our assets. So I think we had to realign in
    this budget and make sure we fund our core responsibilities.
        The parks are our treasures. I think no one understands
    that more than you and I. But also we are, in my assessment on
    manpower, we are too heavy in middle and upper management. And
    so, to shift those assets forward, we intend to do that in
    working with you in a reorganization that strengthens our core
    parks.
        Senator Daines. Alright, thank you. I am out of time. We
    will see you again tomorrow, I think, at the Appropriations
    Committee. I look forward to exploring other parts of the
    budget request with you then.
        Thanks, Mr. Secretary.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Welcome, Secretary Zinke. As you well know we have had
    these conversations. I so appreciate you taking the time with
    me.
        In Nevada, with over 85 percent of public lands in the
    state, many of our rural communities are reliant upon these
    lands for revenue, local recreation economy, livestock grazing,
    and energy development. That is why our relationship with the
    Department of the Interior over the years has been so crucial
    and why it is important that we have a really good working
    relationship. So I appreciate the opportunities that you have
    had to speak with me and look forward to working with you in
    the future as well, including when you come out to take a look.
        I know you are looking at Gold Butte Basin and Range and we
    have had this conversation as well. You know my concerns and
    about the Executive Order and the letter that I have sent to
    you.
        I want to ask you just initially--I know we had discussions
    about you coming out in the fall and when you do come out, will
    you take into consideration the economic benefit and widespread
    support of Nevada's monuments before making a decision?
        Secretary Zinke. Thank you for the question.
        And right now, my schedule has me in July coming out to
    Nevada, Oregon and New Mexico. And the way that I've looked at
    the monuments--one is, does it follow the law? Is it settled?
    Is the community happy with it?
        That's why I talk to local county commissioners and tribal
    leaders and business folks, because I think taking an all-of-
    the-above. This is the first time, as well, as
    regulations.com--that the public can have their say outside.
        As you know, a monument designation by the President is
    singular. It does not require NEPA, nor does it require public
    comment. But the President has in his Executive Order, he has
    emphasized public comment and economic development as part of
    that. Yes, ma'am.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        And let me turn now to the Bureau of Reclamation. The
    Fiscal Year 2018 request for the Bureau was $1.1 billion, a cut
    of $209 million. The request proposes cuts for WaterSMART
    grants for water recycling, for re-use projects, for drought
    response and rural water projects.
        The State of Nevada gets the least rainfall of any other
    state in the nation, so we have to be incredibly mindful of
    persistent drought conditions as well as infrastructure
    improvements. Why would the Administration propose cuts for
    successful programs that help Nevada and the West respond to
    drought conditions in innovative ways? I am curious how you are
    going to respond to this.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, I'll go back to this is what a
    balanced budget looks like.
        I agree with you on water reclamation, in particular, from
    a kid who grew up in the West. As you know, there's $18 billion
    in the water reclamation, yet we can't appropriate money onto
    core infrastructure to support rural water.
        I would love to work with you on finding a way to not have
    to go through the stringent appropriation period/process and to
    streamline it and put money where it belongs--on the front line
    each time.
        So the account, you know, sits. I think there's about $20
    billion ``in the account'' in the water reclamation, that's for
    reclamation that has never been appropriated and the same for
    LWCF. I think there is $18 billion ``in the LWCF fund'' that
    was intended for a purpose that was never used for that
    purpose.
        I would love to work with you and I especially would love
    to work with you on rural water projects.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Then in the Administration's budget there is a proposed 12
    percent cut to the historically-troubled Bureau of Indian
    Education (BIE) serving about 180 BIE schools and about 40,000
    students. The budget also proposes cuts totaling $23.3 million
    for programs that provide social services, welfare assistance,
    and Indian Child Welfare Act protections. How is this budget
    proposal an example of honoring the federal trust obligation
    with the tribes, and can you explain how these cuts will
    endanger these communities, or the challenge that these
    communities will now have?
        Secretary Zinke. Clearly when it comes to Bureau of Indian
    Education, I think we failed. We spend far more money per
    student and get far less in outcome. The statistics I have is
    we spend about $15,391 per student and the Bureau of Education
    compares a national average of under ten.
        So, more money may not produce a better solution, but I'm
    concerned as well as you are because something is not right. I
    am open to working together to figure out a better solution--
    how to do it. I am absolutely committed to making sure that
    every kid has a great education, in particular, to some of our
    Indian nations that are isolated. They're already challenged
    with a multitude of social, economic pressures. I'm committed
    to working with you on it.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you. Thank you for being here.
        Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Gardner.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Secretary Zinke and others, for being here
    today. I appreciate your service.
        This past weekend I had an opportunity to visit the Junkins
    Fire out in Colorado. It is a fire that has not even been
    declared put out yet. This is a fire that was burning at its
    peak, I guess, last fall. Of course, there is really no active
    firefighting taking place, but you can still see smoke from it
    as the snow trickles into the stumps that are burning and other
    things. It is pretty amazing, the work that is taking place
    there. I thank you for the combined efforts of the BLM and the
    work they did with the Forest Service as well on this fire.
        We talked about the important role of USGS and some of the
    flow gauges that they are going to be working with local
    communities on, just to encourage you to continue that kind of
    cooperation with locals as they address the tree flows from
    fires like the Junkins Fire and how they impact flooding and
    others in the way.
        I will just briefly mention to you the Executive Order
    regarding national monuments and the review--13792. We wrote a
    letter to you earlier this year talking about the Canyons of
    the Ancients National Monument and in it we said, ``Canyons is
    an example of what the Antiquities Act was intended to do,
    protect cultural treasures while incorporating the historic use
    of the land and the management of the monument so that
    communities support and promote the designation.'' That is what
    has happened in Colorado with the Canyons of the Ancients
    National Monument. So I would urge you to protect this
    designation in Colorado as it stands. Is there an update at all
    on Canyons of the Ancients National Monument in Colorado?
        Secretary Zinke. There is--it's currently not on our
    priority review list.
        Let me just say a word because I think Bears Ears is
    relevant in this case. What the recommendation on Bears Ears
    was this. There was a recommendation to resize the boundary in
    order to protect the antiquities that are found within it
    because it does say smallest area compatible with protection of
    the object. But there are certain authorities the President
    simply does not have that we're going to request that Congress
    take a look at. There are lands within the Bears Ears that we
    think might be more appropriate as a national recreation area
    or a national conservation area because there is no object, per
    se, but that authority resides in Congress and not the
    Executive.
        We also looked at about 400,000 acres in the Bears Ears
    which is wilderness study area. So when you put a monument over
    the top of a wilderness and that monument has its proclamation,
    do you manage it as a wilderness or a proclamation because in
    some cases a wilderness is actually held to a stricter and
    higher standard of what you can and cannot do in a wilderness.
    So we're asking Congress to take a look at that.
        In cases across the West, there might be some monuments
    that have a wilderness or wilderness study group. We're asking
    what the intent of Congress was on those. Do you manage it as
    wilderness or a proclamation? Co-management was a part of it.
    We don't have the authority to grant co-management. Above all,
    the tribes want co-management, but I don't have the authority
    nor does the President have the authority to grant it. That was
    part of it too.
        Senator Gardner. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. I
    appreciate the fact that the Canyons of the Ancients National
    Monument is not on the priority list, and I hope that
    eventually you will clear up the fact that it is going to
    remain as is.
        During your confirmation hearing we discussed the
    possibility of moving the BLM Headquarters to the Western
    United States because it makes sense to do that with an agency
    that is 99.9 percent public lands that are under its management
    West of the Mississippi River.
        Since your confirmation I have introduced legislation that
    would do just that--direct the Department to submit to Congress
    a strategy involving certain metrics for moving the BLM West.
    The legislation has bipartisan support. Back home, Governor
    Hickenlooper and the Mayor of Denver support the effort; at
    least they have made public comments in support of it.
        Mr. Secretary, given your goal to move some of your
    Department to the front lines, out into the West, how can
    Congress best assist you in this goal to relocate the BLM
    Headquarters?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, we're looking at doing a
    reorganization of Interior, and we're going to need you, quite
    frankly, your help.
        The way we're organized currently is all the different
    bureaus report to their different regions and we're not very
    good at joint operations. So we're looking at appropriately
    moving assets where they should be.
        When I say joint, if you have a stream that has a trout and
    a salmon in the same stream, you're going to probably involve
    NOAA through NMFS, Fish and Wildlife, because we're going to
    look at the trout and NOAA is going to look at the salmon. If
    you irrigate out of it, it's probably the Bureau of
    Reclamation, and if you have a dam, it's probably the Army
    Corps of Engineers. There are four different bureaus and if it
    crosses tribal land you're probably going to have BIA in it.
    You could have actually four different bureaus that have
    different priorities. In order to come up with a plan, you're
    not going to have--the plan won't be reconciled between the
    bureaus. So we're going to have to look at how to be more joint
    and a lot of that is putting the assets where the preponderance
    of, in the case of BLM, the preponderance of land and BLM is
    out West. We are looking at reorganizing to do just that, to
    push the assets where they should be.
        Senator Gardner. Well, thank you, Mr. Secretary. I know I
    am out of time here, but we will have questions to follow up on
    an Arkansas Valley Conduit issue as well as continued funding
    and support for Land and Water Conservation Fund.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Gardner.
        Senator Manchin.
        Senator Manchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Secretary, for being here.
        First of all, there are a couple things I want to go over.
    West Virginia is a little bit different from being out West,
    but we are still wild and wonderful.
        Secretary Zinke. I consider you out West, sir.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Manchin. First of all, you have covered the Payment
    in Lieu of Taxes program and that is very important for our
    state; some of our rural counties really depend on it. The
    reduction hits them very, very hard.
        First of all, on the coal, you all have been very
    supportive of the coal industry and the people that do this
    tremendous work for the people of this country. I am confused a
    little bit as to why the President's Budget for 2018 proposed
    $134 million in payments to the United Mine Workers of America
    from the Health Benefit Plans from the Treasury. Those are
    coming from the money distributed from Office of Surface Mining
    Reclamation and Enforcement. That is a $45 million reduction
    from 2016.
        We just passed a piece of legislation, put 22,000 miners in
    the 1993 fund. We are going to be in serious problems here
    because that AML distribution for the Abandoned Mine Land
    monies and the Treasury--I don't know if you all have looked at
    that, or what challenges it might cause for you.
        Secretary Zinke. We did, sir, and I'll go back. This is a
    starting point.
        Senator Manchin. Okay.
        Secretary Zinke. Chairman Rogers of the House side, you
    know, also is----
        Senator Manchin. Hal watches it very closely.
        Secretary Zinke. ----very focused----
        Senator Manchin. Yes.
        Secretary Zinke. ----on this issue and when I say, I look
    forward to working with you on it, but I understand, certainly,
    the rub.
        Senator Manchin. You see the concern we have right now
    being able to meet the demands that we have.
        Secretary Zinke. I do and I've long respected Chairman
    Rogers and I think he does a great job.
        Senator Manchin. Well, if you will work with us on that and
    make sure that our miners do not get shortchanged, I would be
    very appreciative. We are going to be working together with you
    on that.
        Let me go over to something as far as our national forests.
    I am told that 50 percent of our nation's forests are privately
    owned, but over 90 percent of the timber for our country comes
    from that 50 percent. That means that the remainder of the
    properties that we have in national forests, public lands,
    about 10 percent comes from them.
        Why are we not able to harvest or look at harvesting,
    financially, especially, because we are losing a lot of the
    forests from maturing and falling and strike spikes by
    lightning and things of this sort. I think we could do a much
    better job of managing our forests, also protecting the
    forests, but also having the revenue that would come from it.
    Just the three percent comes from the national forest in West
    Virginia. That provides about 43,000 jobs.
        Secretary Zinke. I could not agree with you more, sir. It
    has been an area of frustration before I was in Congress. The
    Forest Service, alone, has about 71 million acres of dead and
    dying timber that should be removed. We spend billions of
    dollars each year fighting forest fires and we can't harvest
    trees.
        In our holdings, only a small percentage is actually
    available for timber harvest because it's locked up in either
    habitat, the Spotted Owl, or a different species. And so, our
    ability to even go forward on a sustainable yield basis, we're
    going to need some help legislatively to work through it.
        There's a case that we're watching closely in the Ninth
    Circuit that looks at the different balance between the
    legislative intent on sustainable yield vice habitat and other
    things. But we're looking at it and my commitment is to make
    sure we have a healthy forest. And a healthy forest is making
    sure that we are at sustainable, or as close as we can, and
    remove the dead and dying timber and have a healthy industry.
        Senator Manchin. Do people just defy the accuracy or the
    logic of this that do not want anything touched in these areas,
    and these are pristine areas, I understand. But still yet, if I
    am going to preserve a pristine area, I am going to make sure
    that we are able to allow it to flourish and grow and dying
    timber does absolutely the opposite.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, we live in a great nation of a lot
    of opinions.
        [Laughter.]
        And there are some that believe in the theory of natural
    regulation more than a mirror model where man is an observer
    and the lightest footprint. And they're more than content of
    watching our forests burn down year after year.
        I sit on the Pinchot model of using science and multiple
    use for most of our holdings, which includes timber harvest.
    But you have to do it right and there have been mistakes in the
    past, but we have great people that know how to harvest timber.
        Senator Manchin. My final thing, real quick, my time is
    running out, is the AML, the Abandoned Mine Lands, again the
    funds--what we are using them for and the purpose. A lot of
    that was basically for revitalizing the Power Plus Plan. It was
    to revitalize some of these areas that lost so much and the
    President's budget proposes eliminating the Abandoned Mine
    Lands Economic Development Pilot Program. I would hope you
    would look at that, sir, before you all make that step because
    these communities that gave so much to this great country need
    a little bit of assistance to get back up on their feet, and
    eliminating that would be very harmful to them.
        Secretary Zinke. My commitment is to work with you on that,
    and Chairman Rogers also talked to me, point blank, on that one
    too and I respect him.
        But most of all it will affect jobs and I respect hard-
    working people, whether it's coal or logging or just people
    putting things together and the manufacturing industry. I come
    from three generations of plumbers. I just like people that
    work and so does the President.
        Senator Manchin. Thank you, sir.
        The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Barrasso.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Secretary Zinke, it is great to be with you again, great to
    see you. I was singing your praises along with that of Senator
    Daines, as well as our friend Ryan Lance at both Boys State and
    Girls State in Wyoming in the past week because there you
    were--three young high school students from Montana sitting
    together at Boys State. That is the aspiration for young people
    at Boys State and Girls State all across the country can look
    to you, as well as Senator Daines, as well as Ryan as something
    to look up to and work for.
        Secretary Zinke. I have to say, I was the slacker of the
    three.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Barrasso. Well, you and I have spoken in the past
    about the Bureau of Land Management and the backlog of
    applications for permits to drill for oil and gas on federal
    land. We discussed that permitting delays vary among field
    offices. Some of the offices are having much more substantial
    backlogs than others. Oil and gas permitting delays directly
    threaten our energy security. They threaten American jobs and
    economic stability in small communities.
        The Department's budget proposal includes a $16 million
    increase for the BLM program that is responsible for processing
    oil and gas drilling permits. The budget proposal states that
    this funding increase will ``help ensure BLM has sufficient
    administrative staff capacity to quickly process applications
    for permits to drill.'' I am encouraged by your proposal.
        BLM needs to have the necessary resources at its disposal
    to process the oil and gas permits in a timely manner yet we
    must ensure that it allocates its resources to field offices
    greatest in need, such as the field office that we certainly
    have in Casper, Wyoming.
        What steps are you going to take to ensure that the BLM
    field offices have the resources they need to relieve some of
    these significant backlogs of the permit applications?
        Secretary Zinke. Well I would say the backlog is really
    two-pronged. One is the resources, but also the process. We
    want to make sure the process is fair and not arbitrary and
    holds people accountable. I think we all agree with that. But
    if it can go into these loops where all of a sudden you can't
    get an answer for 18 months, two years, you don't have any
    chance to actually talk to the individual that's doing it or it
    can be pigeon-holed--there's a problem. I would think in 45
    days, given where some of the fields are, you should have a
    feeling whether that permit is going to be authorized or not or
    whether it can be mitigated.
        So a lot of it is restoring trust in our system, that we're
    going to do what the public expects us to do, is do a review.
    The review should be straightforward, trust but verify, make
    sure their permit process is not arbitrary. And we should work
    with people and be more of a partner than, in some cases, an
    adversary.
        That's a tall order given that a lot of the government or a
    lot of the folks out there, whether it's industry or private
    landowners, don't trust the Department of the Interior. And my
    number one job is to get back there and talk to communities and
    be an advocate and restore trust.
        Senator Barrasso. You know, the Department is facing
    several billion-dollar issues which are going to require
    prioritization and management well into the future, beyond the
    upcoming fiscal years. Issues like wild horse and burro
    management, wildfire funding which you described in your
    opening statement as a billion-dollar problem, and deferred
    maintenance costs that cost the Department billions. And they
    are not going to be solved overnight. This is not just a budget
    problem proposal--this is a proposal for one year that you are
    talking about today, to what extent are you examining the long-
    term needs and the issues that are going to require multi-year
    planning, like the National Park Service's deferred maintenance
    backlog?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, we're looking at long-term funding.
    You know, obviously, when you drop $15.5 billion a year, we
    could have caught up on our maintenance, but we don't want to
    go up and down. We want a steady stream. And there's certainly
    opportunities on onshore, new revenue to commit against a
    stable platform of maintenance repair in the out years.
        It was mentioned earlier that we had 330 million visitors
    through our park system last year. We think that's going to
    increase, and so now we have to look at the public lands around
    our parks to make sure things like the trail systems connect,
    watersheds make sense, wildlife corridors connect. Those are
    going to take resources to do that and having a steady fund of
    resources come in to put against our infrastructure is part of
    it. So we are looking at long-term fixes and that will be part
    of, as I understand, the infrastructure bill.
        Senator Barrasso. My final question refers to the Bureau of
    Indian Education. You made some comments about it earlier to
    one of the other questions--that we have failed, something is
    not right, committed to making sure that the education process
    is there. As we go forward, I hope that you continue to work
    closely with tribes, with the Bureau of Indian Education and
    Congress to make sure that the money is used most effectively
    because, as you say, there is a lot of room for improvement.
        Secretary Zinke. Well and one comment about Indian
    education. It's different. You have dorms. You have, in some
    cases, security. So just the funding mechanisms, so just to say
    that we're--that it's more expensive is a little bit deceiving
    in that it's not the same as a public school in some cases.
        But it's certainly a priority of mine to make sure that the
    education experience and the opportunity for a child is
    elevated and highlighted and prioritized but it's going to take
    both of us working together and probably giving more
    flexibility up front to the tribes so that they can look at
    their issue and cater a more flexible approach.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Secretary Zinke, you and I recently
    talked about a plan that sportsmen in New Mexico have promoted
    to provide public access to the only legally inaccessible
    wilderness area in the entire nation. For the very first time
    this year we have the potential to have access to that area.
        Since 2009 when the Sabinoso Wilderness was designated, and
    long before then, actually, when it was a wilderness study
    area, this area has been closed to the public with no legal
    ingress. We have an opportunity to change that with a piece of
    an agreement that is literally sitting in your lap in time for
    this year's hunting season. I have heard from local sportsmen's
    groups as well as the San Miguel County Commission in support
    of this plan, and I am literally getting calls each and every
    day from folks wondering when a decision will be final.
        I have letters here from Backcountry Hunters and Anglers,
    the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, Southwest
    Consolidated Sportsmen, the local chapter of Sportsmen Concern,
    the Wild Turkey Sportsmen's Association and the San Miguel
    County Commission--the list just, kind of, goes on and on.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        We are finally at the finish line in an effort that has
    taken well over a decade. Can I go back and tell New Mexicans
    that they can look forward to hunting in the Sabinoso
    Wilderness this year?
        Secretary Zinke. You and I talked about it, that the
    proposal was, and we both agree, public access--the Interior
    would strongly consider taking it under in public lands. It
    is--the status of the land----
        Senator Heinrich. It is a donation, not a----
        Secretary Zinke. It's a donation, alright, but it doesn't
    meet the standard of what a wilderness typically is, but if we
    can, and I'll work with you because we both agree this is a
    unique opportunity, we both agree that we should have public
    access. I think where the rub is, is that we take it in as
    wilderness or do we take it in something that provides a little
    more access? As you know, wilderness doesn't include a bike or
    a mountain bike or a vehicle or a disabled----
        Senator Heinrich. The challenge with that is there is no
    place to bike to because it is at the end of the road where it
    abuts the existing wilderness area. The donation was actually
    made contingent on the land being added to the existing
    wilderness, and I have spoken to the landowner and they are not
    willing to make the donation under separate terms from that.
        So let's be clear: if you do not accept the donation, the
    reality is we are back to square one. We are where we were
    before with zero public access for hunting, zero public access
    for recreation. There is no Plan B for this. And I can tell
    you, as somebody who actually went out and tried to find
    easements that we could purchase into this area for over 10
    years, there is no alternative. It is either we get access for
    the first time or we go back to the only landlocked wilderness
    in the United States. And that is, clearly, not what my
    constituents desire.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, I don't yield to pressure, only
    higher principle. When someone comes to the table and says
    we're only going to give you this donation under these
    conditions and terms, that doesn't sound to me like a
    negotiation. That sounds like they dictated terms.
        Senator Heinrich. They did negotiate this with the BLM over
    the course of many years. At the time, the BLM was open to
    those terms. Now, there is a new Secretary. I understand that,
    but----
        Secretary Zinke. And we're open to negotiating so we have
    public access. So if they're willing to work with us on making
    sure that the public has access to it, then I'm sure we can
    come to an amenable solution on it. But to come to the table
    and say----
        Senator Heinrich. The irony of these terms is----
        Secretary Zinke. Under these terms and conditions only.
        Senator Heinrich. ----right now we do not have public
    access. Zero. And so, by looking a gift horse in the mouth, we
    are turning back the clock to where we were before.
        I can tell you if this does not get done by this fall,
    there will be an awful lot of people disappointed in
    Northeastern New Mexico who thought this was a slam dunk. You
    had the county commission. You had the local groups on board.
    You had the delegation on board. This is one of those few cases
    where everybody lines up on the same side and says, this is
    good for the community and we can grow our economy with this.
    Let's do it.
        Secretary Zinke. I'll work with you on it but define public
    access. Is it your definition of public access? Is it only you
    can walk through the wilderness without--either walk or
    horseback--or is it public access where it provides amenities
    like a parking lot for people that are, maybe, disabled or
    can't walk through----
        Senator Heinrich. It is easy enough to provide a parking
    lot under this arrangement, but you are not going to be able to
    provide mechanized access to the area that is designated as
    wilderness.
        I am all for additional access for mountain bikes, for
    other forms, but this is not the place. I mean, have you been
    there? The canyon walls go straight up on either side. There is
    no place to go to unless you are willing to put a pack on and
    it is worthwhile then because there are big mule deer, there
    are Barbary sheep, there are elk, there are turkey. It is some
    of the best habitat in northeastern New Mexico and right now,
    what I know is that there is zero, zero, zero public access.
        Secretary Zinke. I think we both agree that we should move
    forward on public access.
        The Chairman. Senator King.
        Senator King. Thank you. Before the witness, a couple of
    comments.
        I want to invite Senator Cassidy to join the climate change
    caucus and I want to use his charts the next time I am on the
    Floor talking about climate change. Although, I know in
    Louisiana part of the problem is subsidence rather than
    necessarily sea level rise. But that is coming.
        Also, Senator Daines, we are going to have to change the
    name of that park to the park formerly known as Glacier because
    there were 150 glaciers when the park was founded and there are
    now 26. They have retreated 39 percent in the last 50 years and
    that is accelerating. We just, kind of, take cognizance of what
    is happening. Our national parks are one of the, I guess, the
    canary in the coal mine and Glacier is probably the most
    prominent.
        Secretary Zinke, first I am not going to lobby you. I want
    to thank you for visiting our beautiful Katahdin Woods and
    Waters National Monument that is already having positive
    economic effects in our region. But I am not going to lobby
    you. I really want to thank you for going, sincerely.
        I once went on a Congressional trip and an old man in a
    foreign country said, ``I know why you're here.'' I said, ``Why
    is that?'' And he said, ``Because one day of seeing is better
    than 30 days of reading.''
        You went to see, and I deeply appreciate your committing.
    You met a commitment to me you made at the hearing to go to
    Maine, and I am just delighted that you did that. So I want to
    thank you for that.
        Secretary Zinke. It was a wonderful experience, and I'm
    sure you're going to be enthusiastic about the recommendation.
        Senator King. Well, that is as much as I can ask.
        Secretary Zinke. As well as the Governor, I've talked to
    the Governor, so I think we have a reasonable approach and a
    recommendation that all parties will be satisfied with.
        Senator King. I congratulate you on that and look forward
    to the recommendation.
        In terms of the cuts to the national parks, many people
    have talked about it. You mentioned that a substantial part of
    the cuts will take place in regional, in the bureaucracy if you
    will, as opposed to the individual parks. Are there cuts at
    individual parks that will hit the operating budgets?
        Secretary Zinke. On the reorganization, again, what I see
    is the front line of the specific parks are too short.
        In the case of the monument in Maine, there's only one
    superintendent there. You can add one superintendent plus, you
    know, a detailed person. And when you go up there, and clearly
    the infrastructure required there with bathrooms and signs and
    working together with the state--when you incorporate something
    under a public trust, in the Park Service or a monument, then
    there's also an obligation on our side to make sure that it is
    done right.
        Bears Ears, in that conversation, there is no doubt some
    antiquities there that are well-deserving of federal
    protection. But what I didn't see is, I didn't see any signs, I
    didn't see any bathrooms at the trailheads, I didn't see any
    parking lots.
        In one case, in Escalante, I saw a German van with three
    Germans in it with kayaks looking for the Grand Staircase
    which--there's no staircase by the way--this is not a kayak
    thing.
        But if we're going to assume the primary responsibility of
    preserving something, then we have to also assume the
    responsibility to make sure we preserve it and that's
    infrastructure, signage, monitoring and those things that are
    necessary to do that.
        Senator King. And in the individual parks, as we are
    looking around the country, whether it is Yellowstone or
    Olympia or Acadia in Maine, do you anticipate operational
    budget cuts or are you talking about simply regional
    administration cuts?
        Secretary Zinke. What I anticipate, I don't, individually,
    very doubtful, parks, probably we're--what I've done in the
    Headquarters is, as far as the hiring freeze, I maintained it
    in Washington and maintained it in Denver so we could push
    bodies to where they belong out in the front. And you'll see a
    movement to make sure we shore up and expand the front line.
        The regional scientists, they're all in the USGS, and that
    was a decision from a couple secretaries ago. What we're
    looking at is how to return the scientists back out to the
    field to where they do more field work rather than headquarters
    work.
        But there are some minor adjustments in the budget, but I
    think as we go through the process and coordinate with you on
    reorganization, what our goal is, is to make the parks not only
    whole, but get more assets on the front line and reduce the
    middle and upper management side.
        Senator King. In the Armed Services Committee we talk about
    tooth-to-tail. We are talking about more tooth and less tail,
    and I don't necessarily object to that point of view.
        A final question or final comment. One of the items in the
    budget, or in the plan, is a suspension of the advisory
    commissions to the national parks and they are under review. I
    cannot speak for other parks, but I can tell you that the
    advisory commission at Acadia in Maine is very important. It
    makes a great contribution. They are volunteer members. There
    are some administrative costs--I understand that is what we are
    talking about--but I think this is a case where the value to
    the Park System in terms of good relations with its neighbors
    outweighs the fairly minor savings from the administrative
    costs associated. So I commend to you, from personal
    experience, the value of the advisory commissions.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, and I have 220, which I was
    surprised at the number, and this is what I asked, you know,
    rather than going to individual advisory groups and say, well,
    I'm going to suspend this. I suspended them all with this
    caveat: tell me who is in your, on your board; tell me what
    you've done in the last year; tell me what you've done in the
    last five years; tell me what your budget is; and tell me what
    your goal is. And if you had an issue, they could ask for an
    exemption to meet.
        As far as Acadia they did not request an exemption yet, but
    it was really about two pages maximum because now I'm
    responsible for the 220 boards, to a degree, and I just want to
    know. And I would think the overwhelming number of boards do
    great things and it just was an opportunity to me to know who
    was on the board. I'll look through what their goals are, which
    I think is important, and then if I had any questions I could
    ask. But I assume that we'll have all the paperwork on those
    boards.
        If Acadia is meeting, which I understand they want to meet
    in the summer, all they have to do is put in a request for
    exemption and certainly I would understand that.
        Senator King. It sounds like the national park version of
    trust but verify.
        Secretary Zinke. Trust but verify. I just want to know, you
    know?
        We spend about $15 million which, on the scale of the
    overall budget is not much, but if you're a plumber, $15
    million is a lot of money.
        So as the steward of the taxpayers' dollars, I just want to
    know the great things the boards are doing, who is on the
    board, what they've done in the last year, what they've done in
    the last five years, and then I'll be glad to write them a card
    and say thank you for your service and then invite them to DC
    to talk to them.
        Senator King. Good. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator King. I appreciate you
    bringing up that question because I, too, have heard from a lot
    of folks back home. We have a couple advisory committees that
    are pretty important; one impacts the NPR-A in the 1002 area.
    There are two groups under the BLM, the NPR-A Working Group and
    the NPR-A Subsistence Advisory Panel. So, obviously, very key
    to what we are trying to do up North.
        Hearing your explanation, Mr. Secretary, about what your
    intent was in just conducting this review and how, if there is
    work that is underway, there is an opportunity for, again,
    those groups to be up and running and doing the work that I
    think we all recognize is important. But oversight is always
    appreciated around here.
        Let me go back to another issue relating to land
    conveyances. The BLM conducted an inventory at Congress'
    request last year looking into the contaminated lands that had
    been conveyed to Alaska Native Corporations and additional
    contamination that had been on lands pending conveyance. They
    have identified over 600 contaminated sites and the ownership
    is, kind of, a mixed bag here. But what we know is that these
    sites are contaminated and they need remediation.
        The Federal Government is moving very slowly and part of
    the problem is, we just do not have a single agency that is
    overseeing and coordinating the cleanup. So you have a
    situation where you have lands that are formally held by the
    Interior, Army Corps lands, you have FAA lands, you have DoD
    lands, and everybody is kind of pointing the finger saying, you
    be in charge. As a consequence, it is just not happening.
        Now BLM, we have had long discussions with them. They say
    that they cannot compel federal agencies to clean up these
    contaminated sites. But it seems to me that because of DOI's
    trust responsibility to Alaska Natives, it seems that at a
    minimum we ought to be able to get Interior to coordinate a
    working group of these responsible agencies so that we can get
    the cleanup started on 600 sites.
        Again, this is a different issue than the legacy well
    cleanups which you have already been briefed on up North. We
    are trying to cut through that backlog as well. But when you
    think about the situation right now, again, you have Alaska
    Natives that have not had the commitments under the Alaska
    Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) fulfilled. You have not
    had the commitments to our Alaska Native Veterans fulfilled.
    And then on some of the lands where they did receive
    conveyances, they got contaminated lands. It is not a good
    deal. It is not right.
        So I would ask if you can have your team go back and see
    what they can do to work with us on how we can address this
    issue of contaminated lands. Maybe we need to look at whether
    Interior could allow ANCs to trade back contaminated lands for
    selections of new, clean lands. But I need to make some
    progress on this, and I am asking for your assistance on it.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, the good news, at least on the
    Alaska legacy wells, is I think we're down to 31 now as opposed
    to 50. By the end of 2018, I think we're going to be at 25
    wells in the legacy.
        But I share your frustration. And this is why we're looking
    at a reorganization based on a joint model of combatant
    commands because, you're absolutely correct, is that the
    different bureaus within the government agency, whether it's Ag
    or Interior or Army Corps of Engineers, don't work very well.
        The Chairman. Right.
        Secretary Zinke. And you can't task each other without
    going to the Secretary and we've created a bureaucracy that we
    can't get anything done.
        So we're looking at, quite frankly--and Alaska is going to
    be more of a joint model, joint management--rather than
    everybody reporting to their headquarters, reporting to a joint
    command. The same way we fight forest fires, similar to the way
    we fight combatant commanders, and then make sure we have a
    state liaison. We think that model is appropriate when we're
    looking at wildlife corridors, watersheds, cleanup and these
    areas that transcend one isolated bureau but are multi-bureau,
    or would be joint in this case.
        We think that that model is more appropriate and we're
    going to need to work with you to make that happen. Most of the
    authority relies on the Secretary, but there's some things that
    we go through, that will be required. No doubt we want to work
    with you anyway on it, but we're going to need your help in
    order to bring the ball to the field.
        The Chairman. Just so much of this is interagency
    coordination and it gets very frustrating, again, when you have
    one agency pointing the finger at the other one saying, you do
    it first. So we need to work with you on that.
        Let me turn to Senator Franken.
        Senator Franken. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Secretary, my first set of questions was about tribal
    affairs, and I have heard a great deal of concern from tribal
    leaders about the role that James Cason at the Department of
    the Interior is playing. Now during his time at the Department
    of the Interior during the Bush Administration he earned a
    reputation for his opposition to putting land into trust. And I
    am now hearing that land decisions that were previously made at
    the Assistant Secretary level will now be made by Mr. Cason. In
    fact, I have heard that Mr. Cason has been delegated a great
    deal of decision-making that normally is within the Secretary's
    purview.
        What is the scope of Mr. Cason's role at the Department?
    Does it include overseeing the Cobell Agreement and putting
    land into trust?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, I share your, well perhaps not, but
    to date I don't have my deputy. Of all the Senate-confirmed
    individuals, I didn't even have my deputy. So I have about 70
    appointments, 20 or so Senate-confirmed. And to date, I have no
    Senate-confirmed deputy. I have magnificent candidates, BIA
    included, but they're not in the office. Mr. Cason is my Acting
    Deputy at the moment, and he comes with a lot of experience
    from his previous tour in the Bush Administration.
        As you know, I think it was January 19th when I probably
    had an Interior eight or nine decisions based on trust coming
    in, I think I'm in court on two of them, on determinations of
    whether or not it's appropriate to take a trust in. So I would
    love to get a stable platform of--leadership.
        Senator Franken. Okay, I am hearing this across the whole
    Administration in terms of shortage of deputies, et cetera.
        I just want to ask you about your statements on the
    President's budget and whether they reflect a commitment to
    strengthen tribal sovereignty and support self-determination.
        Budget cuts of $371 million from the Bureau of Indian
    Affairs. Those of us who are on the Indian Affairs Committee,
    just know how woefully underfunded the tribes are in Indian
    Country and this, sort of, adds insult to injury. How exactly
    do these cuts support sovereignty and self-determination? And
    how can you build trust in Indian Country when you present a
    budget like this?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, I'll go back to the beginning: this
    is what a balanced budget looks like. We could ignore it.
        Senator Franken. There are other ways to balance budgets--
    --
        Secretary Zinke. And----
        Senator Franken. ----and on the backs of the tribes, to me,
    is not the way to do it.
        Secretary Zinke. And they were to a degree, not across the
    board, some of the cuts were 8 percent, 11 percent, but this is
    what a balanced budget looks like.
        The fortunate thing, or unfortunate depending on how you're
    standing, is that you have a say on it. But in order to present
    a budget that balances, which was the President's charge----
        Senator Franken. I hear you and I am not going to argue
    with you because I want to change quickly to climate change.
        At a House Appropriations hearing last week you had an
    exchange on climate change with my Minnesota colleague,
    Representative Betty McCollum. You talked about glacial
    retreating in Glacier National Park saying, ``The glaciers
    started melting in Glacier Park right after the end of the last
    Ice Age.'' That is true, but you continued, ``It has been a
    consistent melt.''
        In fact, data released last month by the U.S. Geological
    Survey scientists, who work for you, show the glaciers in the
    park have shrunk by 40 percent in just the last 50 years. So we
    are not seeing a consistent melt. Melting is dramatically
    accelerating.
        I am concerned that our Secretary of the Interior, who is
    in charge of our nation's public lands, is unclear--and we have
    this in your confirmation hearing--I am concerned about whether
    you are clear about the magnitude of warming that is occurring
    and the backing out of the Paris agreement.
        I know I am running out of time.
        Can you tell me how much warming government scientists
    predict for the end of this century under a business-as-usual
    scenario?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, the Paris accord, in the President's
    and my judgment, it wasn't about climate change, it was about a
    bad deal. We spent $3 billion, $1 billion in cash.
        Senator Franken. Let me just--I know we are out of time, so
    can you just answer my question? Can you tell me how much
    warming government scientists predict for the end of this
    century under a business-as-usual scenario?
        Secretary Zinke. I don't think the government scientists
    can predict with certainty. There isn't a model that exists
    today that can predict today's weather given all the data.
        Senator Franken. Well, they predict a range and you said we
    have to go with the science--that is what you said during the
    early part of this hearing--you said, we have to go with the
    science. And there is agreement among climate scientists about
    the range of what we would have in warming by the end of the
    century. Do you know what that range is?
        Secretary Zinke. If everyone adhered to the Paris climate
    accord, that change would be roughly 0.2 degrees which is
    insignificant. And yet, people ignore the fact that China----
        Senator Franken. No, no, no.
        No. No. No.
        Secretary Zinke. That was an MIT study. We can give you----
        Senator Franken. That was what the change would be under
    the period covered by the agreement. That is not what the
    change would be in the end of the century if they continued it.
    So you're really mixing apples and oranges.
        I just want you to answer the question that I asked you.
    That is all I want you to do. Can you tell me how much warming
    government scientists, working for our government, predict for
    the end of the century under a business-as-usual scenario?
        Secretary Zinke. Can you tell me, sir, whether or not China
    increased its CO2 between now and 2030 under the agreement and
    by what? But I will be glad to give you that answer.
        Senator Franken. And that answer is?
        The Chairman. Senator Franken.
        Secretary Zinke. I will be glad to give you that answer.
        Senator Franken. So you will give it in writing?
        Secretary Zinke. In writing.
        Senator Franken. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        You said a number of times in response to our questions
    that this budget is what a balanced budget looks like. So does
    this budget balance resource extraction with conservation?
        Secretary Zinke. The budget balances fiscally in a 10-year
    program. The budget does not favor one energy solution over
    another, nor does it favor extraction over non-extraction--it
    doesn't favor. It's a budget that produces a stewardship of our
    public lands.
        Senator Hirono. On the other hand, you also talked about
    the need to raise revenues and that one of the ways that you
    would raise revenues is to increase what we get, what you get,
    from resource extraction. And so, it does appear as though,
    from a very pragmatic standpoint, that that is one of the ways
    that you are going to create additional funds to keep the
    Interior Department going.
        I would say that if we look at this budget it probably
    reflects more of a bend toward resource extraction over
    conservation.
        Let me give you an example. When you were here for your
    confirmation hearings you were a big supporter, and when I met
    with you also prior to that hearing, you were a big supporter
    of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). That fund is
    supposed to be a conservation program that is funded by oil
    drilling revenues and yet, this fund is cut by 84 percent. That
    is an example of how we are moving toward extraction as opposed
    to conservation.
        The reason that I am particularly interested in the
    strength of the Land and Water Conservation Fund is that it is
    a very bipartisan-supported fund and Hawaii has submitted a
    proposal that obtains funding from the LWCF. Our proposal is
    called Island Forests at Risk and it protects water resources,
    improves ecosystems, et cetera. So, has your commitment to the
    LWCF changed?--because this fund is cut by 84 percent in the
    President's budget, which you support now.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, it's funny that the source of LWCF
    is offshore oil and gas. So when we drill offshore for oil and
    gas we put more into the fund. What is cut from the budget is
    more land acquisition in the LWCF.
        Senator Hirono. Yes.
        Secretary Zinke. But as you know the LWCF Fund itself has
    about $18 billion over a period of time that has not been
    appropriated. And so, I think we're supportive of looking at
    LWCF expansion on onshore too. Some of that is to provide some
    infrastructure relief.
        It's hard to fathom how you would take land in if you can't
    afford to maintain it. I think we should look at ways to
    maintain when we have our conservation easements and all the
    good things the Land and Water Conservation Fund has provided.
    We need to make sure we have a revenue stream to make sure that
    we can maintain those holdings.
        Senator Hirono. Well, in the case of our proposal, Island
    Forests at Risk, it is for the acquisition of properties that
    the private landowners--because we do not have any national
    forests in Hawaii, we are one of ten states that do not. We
    rely on other kinds of resources from the Federal Government to
    support the privately- and state-owned forest areas. And so,
    there are private entities that have been waiting for years,
    and we finally got into the pipeline for support from the LWCF
    and suddenly that pipeline has been closed.
        Now, I would like to understand that. I conclude that you
    do support the President's budget for Interior at this point
    with all of the cuts that many of my colleagues have pointed
    out.
        Secretary Zinke. I do support the budget and I commend the
    President for actually having the focus on providing the first
    step of what a balanced budget would look like. That is a
    tremendous change from the proposition that having a budget
    that doesn't balance really doesn't matter. So at least, if
    nothing else, it provides a good conversation.
        Senator Hirono. Excuse me, I am running out of time--
    because a balanced budget is in the eye of the beholder, I
    would say, because certain other things that are very important
    to many of us will be cut. Did you push back on any of the cuts
    that are reflected in the budget for Interior?
        Secretary Zinke. There were certain areas in the budget
    that I think should be greater prioritized and not----
        Senator Hirono. Such as?
        Secretary Zinke. I've always been a supporter of LWCF
    although, again, the source is offshore oil and gas for it.
        I think that our parks are a treasure, but what surprised
    me about when you become the Secretary and you open up the
    budget is how much revenue we lost. You know, that's a concern
    to me because revenue can pay for a lot of things. If you have
    money in the bank, then a lot of these problems and programs
    and things and the hardship doesn't have to occur.
        The other thing that is interesting is where we spend our
    money--$5.5 billion worth of grants. Most of the grants are
    absolutely appropriate and good, but looking at it, a lot of
    money was going outside of other things while our
    infrastructure was hurting.
        Personnel-wise, we have good people in the Department of
    the Interior, but we're really heavy on our upper bureaucracy.
    We have about 6,500 people in DC.
        Senator Hirono. Yes, you mentioned that. But I was
    particularly interested if there were any particular programs
    that you really pushed back on cuts to, and it sounds as though
    the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which was something that
    you very much supported, we need to get that back, I would say,
    on track.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Cantwell [presiding]. Thank you.
        Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Secretary, I am always struck with Senator King's
    wisdom, not to mention his measured demeanor, and he said
    something that stuck with me when he was having a conversation
    with you today. He said, ``One day of seeing is often better
    than 30 days of reading.''
        And so, I ran back to the office--and I will leave this map
    with you--but it gives a little bit of impression of the
    Sabinoso because it shows how the donation property is really
    just the gateway to the existing wilderness that, right now, is
    in a sea of public land--or private land I should say--which is
    why public access is not possible.
        [The information referred to follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        It is my understanding that there is an outside-the-
    wilderness boundary location where the local BLM and some of
    the local advocates have hoped to grade and create a parking
    lot for access into the entire canyon system.
        But I thought, given that you said while I was off at a
    vote that you were coming out to New Mexico, what might really
    help for both of us is to see it on the ground. And so, I
    wanted to extend that invitation and see if you might be
    interested in seeing the location on the ground so that we can
    have, sort of, a common place to start in terms of where this
    goes.
        Secretary Zinke. I would be honored to accept your
    invitation. And I will be out there in--one thing good about
    this job is you see a lot of beautiful country and you meet a
    lot of great, great people. I'll commit to go out there, and
    I'll commit to work with you on it.
        Senator Heinrich. Great. That is very much appreciated. The
    first time I went in there it was on horseback because that was
    the most effective way to get in and out.
        Secretary Zinke. And you know I love horses.
        Senator Heinrich. I understand you know something about
    that mode of transit.
        I wanted to go back just for a moment to Bears Ears. You
    said people should see it for themselves and I completely
    concur with that. I was actually in Bears Ears just a few weeks
    ago with my family over spring break. I used to have an
    outfitter guide permit in that area through the BLM when I was
    running educational outdoor expeditions. And you said we have
    to follow the law. I am curious if, as part of your process,
    you have mapped out the locations of the antiquities and the
    objects that were in that proclamation over the landscape of
    the current boundary so as to know how and where it might be
    adjusted?
        Secretary Zinke. Yeah, we're in the process of doing that.
    There are, obviously, high density ones that are easily
    recognizable, and there are ones that aren't. So we're working
    with all parties to go through it.
        But the recommendation was this--we think that the
    antiquities can be identified, segregated and the borders can
    be revised. But to your point, I know you're very appreciative
    and supportive of our wilderness. What happens when you put a
    proclamation with those proclamations in management over the
    top of the wilderness?
        Senator Heinrich. Sure.
        Secretary Zinke. Because as you know, wilderness in some
    cases can be more stringent in its management than a
    proclamation. There are areas in there and within, there's a
    Forest Service or there's a U.S. Forest in there, there's a
    monument----
        Senator Heinrich. Up around Elk Ridge in Bears Ears--
    literally Bears Ears--the Forest Service side. I am familiar
    with that country.
        Secretary Zinke. There's also areas that are probably
    better suited in the--and the request was this, the request
    from Congress, to examine a territory of the areas within it to
    see whether they're more appropriate with a national recreation
    area or a national conservation area because there's difficulty
    to identify an object in those areas.
        Senator Heinrich. I am not trying to cut you off, I am just
    a little short on time here.
        I would point to the example of Bandolier where we have
    both a monument and a wilderness within the monument that is
    consistent with the proclamation. It certainly can be done.
        One of the things I am concerned about is the importance of
    not looking at the Antiquities Act just for the antiquities as
    objects. Teddy Roosevelt was very clear when he created Mount
    Olympus, for example, where the object to be protected was a
    scientific object. It was the Roosevelt Elk. This proclamation
    is very clear in calling out the elk and the mule deer and the
    bighorn sheep as important objects within the cultural context
    of that monument as well. I hope we can make sure that we take
    a look at those as well as the cultural antiquities which are
    clearly important as well.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Heinrich.
        Secretary Zinke, I had a couple of questions for you. I
    wanted to go back to this issue of the Methane Rule, but I
    wanted to ask first about hiring for the Manhattan Project
    National Historical Park in the Tri-Cities area. Are you
    holding up hiring on that position? Is that part of your----
        Secretary Zinke. No, overall what I've done is kept the
    hiring freeze in Washington in the metropolitan area and in
    Denver, our two largest areas, and tried to fill the gaps out
    in the field with that.
        On GS11, I'm sorry, GS12 and above, they just have to get a
    waiver. But I released the hiring freeze on GS11 or GS12 and
    below and with a waiver so we're not holding anything up. But
    what we're trying to do is we're trying to fill some of the
    positions from Denver and Washington with qualified individuals
    first.
        Senator Cantwell. So will you be moving forward on hiring
    for the Manhattan Project park? If you do not know today, you
    can get back to me on that.
        Secretary Zinke. Yeah, I'll get back. I don't think we're
    holding it up, but I'll get back to you.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, it is a new park and to your point,
    if you are saying you want the front line to be manned, then
    this is the front line, but it is a new joint DOE/Interior
    effort. So we----
        Secretary Zinke. Well, and we are also concerned about some
    of our other holdings when you only have one individual.
    Katahdin, it has one supervisor and a monument and then they
    have a detail. So it's really about 1.5 FTXs, or FTEs, up
    there.
        I'm similarly concerned across-the-board on the front line.
    If it's our holding then we need to have a responsibility to
    make sure that the front line, at least, is protected from----
        Senator Cantwell. Well, this is a new front line for sure.
    It definitely will add revenue, I guarantee you because it's
    great, I mean, from a regional perspective, but you can get
    back to me on it because I know it might not be something you
    came prepared this morning to address.
        Okay, back to the Methane Rule. Here is the issue. Congress
    has said this is the law and we want to know how you are
    enforcing it. You were saying, ``Oh, I'm suspending that
    rule.'' Well, if you want to suspend that rule you have to go
    through the Administrative Procedure Act, and the
    Administrative Procedure Act is about proposing a change and
    then having public comment on it before it is finalized. Are
    you telling me that during this process you are going to make
    sure that the current law is implemented?
        Secretary Zinke. We are looking at assessing how to
    implement it because, as you know, it's a little problematic
    exactly on the law which was part of the issue on the methane
    law itself, why it was challenged. I'm going to challenge the
    court with it and we're proceeding.
        My intention, so you know, is we're going to rewrite the
    rule and go through the complete public process on it because
    both you and I agree on this issue that flaring is a waste. I
    think from a steward perspective, I think wasting a public
    asset--which is methane--is just wasteful. So we have to
    incentivize collection systems and make sure that our public
    asset is not wasted.
        Senator Cantwell. So you are going to talk to technology
    people in the meantime about how you can stop the waste in the
    flaring in the ensuing----
        Secretary Zinke. Yes, ma'am. We're talking to all sides on
    that, as well it's part of the royalty issue too. The
    collection of royalties, you know, on that side, because that's
    revenue in the door. You know, how to do it effectively, how to
    not incur undue costs, but how to make sure that we're all on
    the same page about where we're going to go to make sure the
    law is enforced and we do it by the numbers and by the book.
        Senator Cantwell. But you are not going to spend your time
    for the next six months dragging your feet on implementation?
        Secretary Zinke. Ma'am, I don't drag my feet. I just, I
    don't operate that way. As far as the law goes, I support the
    law, as we all should, that's my obligation to do so.
        Senator Cantwell. Alright, well I appreciate that, and we
    will definitely be following up.
        You know, I had this unusual experience when I got elected
    to the Senate. John Ashcroft, a nominee before the Judiciary
    Committee--I asked him this very question. I said, ``You're
    going to be the Attorney General. The last Administration just
    finished the roadless area rule. Are you going to implement it
    or are you going to fight it because you're now going to have a
    new boss?'' He said, ``If it's the rule of law, I will enforce
    it.'' And that is what he did. Now, I will admit there were
    times when I thought that he lagged in enforcing that as a law
    and we called him out on it. I just want you to know I will be
    doing the same here because we certainly feel that this waste
    should not be at the taxpayer expense, but I thank you for
    saying you will work to implement it.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
        Mr. Secretary, I do have some additional questions. One
    relates to mineral security, understanding what it is that we
    have. You mentioned that with the 1002 and up north in the
    North Slope, it is important to know what we have an inventory.
    I have a question relating to that as well as to USGS and
    surveying natural hazards and specifically to the earthquake
    monitors that are slated to be decommissioned as well as
    volcano monitors in the state.
        Unfortunately, we do not have consent to waive the two-hour
    rule, so now that the hour of 12 o'clock is upon us, I am not
    allowed to continue the hearing. You get off the hook that way,
    but I would certainly hope that you can provide me with some
    updates on not only these two areas, but some of the others.
        I would imagine that we will have other colleagues that
    will be submitting questions for the record who were not able
    to be here this morning.
        I thank you for, not only being here, but I thank you for
    your leadership. I hear very clearly your request to this
    Committee to send you help. We would like to get your deputy up
    to you. He has moved out of the Committee, but we need to get
    him moved through the Floor and we need to get the other
    members of your team through that process. You are working
    hard, but you need your team with you, and know that we are
    committed to making that happen just as rapidly as we possibly
    can.
        With that, we thank you for your leadership. Thank you for
    being here this morning. Have a great afternoon.
        The Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]