[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]