    [Senate Hearing 115-508]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                           S. Hrg. 115-508

    THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 13, 2018

                                   __________

                           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
    29-769 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2020

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   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                JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee           MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota            ANGUS S. KING, JR., Maine
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    ROB PORTMAN, Ohio                    CATHERINE CORTEZ MASTO, Nevada
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  TINA SMITH, Minnesota

                          Brian Hughes, Staff Director
                    Patrick J. McCormick III, Chief Counsel
       Lucy Murfitt, Senior Counsel and Public Lands & Natural Resources
                                Policy Director
                    Michelle Lane, Professional Staff Member
                 Mary Louise Wagner, Democratic Staff Director
                    Sam E. Fowler, Democratic Chief Counsel
                    David Brooks, Democratic General Counsel
              Camille Touton, Democratic Professional Staff Member

                                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 of the Interior......................     5

              ALPHABETICAL LISTING AND APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

    Cantwell, Hon. Maria:
        Opening Statement............................................     3
    Murkowski, Hon. Lisa:
        Opening Statement............................................     1
    National Indian Education Association:
        Letter for the Record........................................   110
    Zinke, Hon. Ryan:
        Opening Statement............................................     5
        Written Testimony............................................     8
        Chart titled ``DOI Bureaus--Current Region Boundaries,'' by
          the USGS dated February 20, 2018...........................    34
        Chart titled ``13 Unified Regions--Watersheds, States, and
          Counties with Land Cover--Map 5,'' by the USGS dated
          February 20, 2018..........................................    36
        Responses to Questions for the Record........................    57

    THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET REQUEST FOR THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
                              FOR FISCAL YEAR 2019

                                  ----------

                            TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2018

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 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. The Committee will come to
    order.
        We are here today to consider the President's budget
    request for the Department of the Interior for FY'19. This is
    the first of three budget hearings that we intend to hold this
    year, so we will be looking forward to hearing from both the
    Department of Energy and the U.S. Forest Service in the weeks
    ahead.
        Secretary Zinke, welcome back before the Committee, I
    appreciate you being here this morning with your team. You and
    I have worked closely to chart a path to greater energy
    security which, as you have noted, runs right through the State
    of Alaska. I would like to thank you for all that you have done
    to help Alaska and the nation this past year.
        You made one of your first trips as Secretary up North. And
    I also thank you for just recently sending Deputy Secretary
    Bernhardt and Assistant Secretary Balash to the state last
    week. They were there to engage local communities and
    stakeholders as the Department of the Interior lays out its
    framework for responsible exploration and development in the
    1002 Area, so thank you for sending them up.
        The President's budget request aims to build on the
    momentum created over the past year. The Department has
    requested a total of $11.7 billion in discretionary
    appropriations for Fiscal Year 2019. Overall, that is a
    reduction of more than $1 billion from the current level, but
    in line with the Administration's efforts to shift more funding
    to defense needs.
        While I do not agree with everything in this request, I
    think it is fair to say it is a lot better than we have seen in
    recent years and I thank you for that. It focuses on taking
    care of the lands the Federal Government already owns rather
    than continuing to buy more, and it will help us increase
    responsible production of our abundant natural resources, a
    goal that we both share.
        One highlight in that effort is the Department's new draft
    five-year plan for offshore leasing, which put almost all of
    the areas on the table, at least from the start. I always
    emphasize that that was a starting point. Like a lot of members
    of this Committee, I support a new plan that provides greater
    access, while protecting the areas where development may
    perhaps not be right at this time.
        This request also reinforces our efforts to improve our
    nation's mineral security. Both the President and you,
    Secretary Zinke, have recognized that this is a critical issue.
    We need to continue to address our mineral security this year
    through both continued administrative actions and complementary
    legislation. Within this request, I support the funding
    proposed for modern geologic mapping, which will greatly
    contribute to this effort.
        During your confirmation hearing, Mr. Secretary, you made a
    commitment to work on the backlog of deferred maintenance in
    our national parks. This request reflects that commitment with
    a legislative proposal to create a new public lands
    infrastructure fund, which was recently introduced by Senator
    Alexander. Of course, we are still examining the proposals and
    the details of that bill. Senator Portman has long been a lead
    on many of our parks issues and also has a bill which we
    anticipate that we will be looking at in the weeks ahead. But,
    Mr. Secretary, I do appreciate your effort in reducing that
    backlog priority and working with not only the members of this
    Committee, Senator Portman and Senator Alexander, but others on
    this.
        One thing that we can all agree on is that the Federal
    Government needs to be a good neighbor to those with federal
    lands in their states. And on that front, the Administration's
    proposal to extend and increase the Payment in Lieu of Taxes
    (PILT) program, I think is a good sign. With regard to our
    territories, I was pleased that we were able to authorize the
    2010 agreement to continue financial assistance to Palau as
    part of last year's Defense Authorization bill. I would like to
    fully fund that agreement in the near future and finally meet
    our obligations to our allies in Palau.
        Finally, I would like to take a moment to note some
    interesting data that the Partnership for Public Service
    recently sent our way. According to their survey, the
    Department of the Interior improved on all 10 workplace
    categories in 2017, from ``effective leadership'' and
    ``empowerment'' and ``fairness'' to ``strategic management''
    and ``support for diversity.'' I think we know that the
    Department has not always fared well in these types of surveys,
    but last year showed some bona fide improvements, so I
    appreciate your continued work to improve its culture and
    performance. I think we are seeing that prove out.
        Again, Mr. Secretary, I thank you for being here this
    morning, and I thank you for your leadership. We will all have
    an opportunity for questions after hearing your statement, but
    thank you for appearing before the Committee.
        With that, Senator Cantwell.

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

        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Over the past year, the Trump Administration has overseen
    an attack on our public lands and on our nation's strong
    conservation ethic that, I believe, is unprecedented. This
    budget and Secretary Zinke's actions, I think, represent an
    abandonment of the Secretary's stewardship responsibility of
    our public resource.
        In 1903, the Supreme Court described the Secretary of the
    Interior as, ``the people's guardian over our public lands.''
    Secretary Zinke assured us during his confirmation hearing that
    he would manage the Interior Department like a Teddy Roosevelt
    conservationist. I believe his actions and public policies have
    been the exact opposite.
        In the past year, President Trump and Secretary Zinke have
    abandoned the responsibility of stewardship of our public lands
    and undermined the public trust by removing over two million
    acres of the Bears Ears National Monument and Grand Staircase
    in Utah. It has proposed opening up drilling on the Outer
    Continental Shelf waters to oil and gas leasing in places that
    the United States has previously turned down. It is suggesting
    allowing trophy hunters to import tusks and other elephant body
    parts.
        Many of these actions are not popular with the public and
    are being challenged in court. I believe these actions will
    ultimately be overturned as unlawful exercises of Presidential
    or Secretarial power. They also show that Secretary Zinke and
    the Trump Administration have abandoned any pretense of a
    balanced approach to managing federal lands, instead favoring
    industry over conservation and the taxpayer. The President's
    budget proposal for 2019, again, abdicates responsibility for
    stewardship of our natural resources and public good. The
    budget guts key conservation programs and favors energy
    development at any cost.
        At a time when the visitation to our national parks is at
    record levels, the budget proposes cutting management and
    programs at our national parks instead of maximizing the
    opportunities for our citizens and for the public. These
    funding and staffing cuts are made worse by the Secretary's
    ill-conceived proposal to raise park entrance fees to $70 at
    some of our nation's most popular national parks, including
    Mount Rainier National Park and Olympic National Park in my
    state. This is an almost 300 percent increase. How does that
    make sense?
        The two national parks in my state together have more than
    4.8 million visitors a year. Your proposal would increase the
    park entrance fee and cost visitors to these parks an
    additional $215 million a year. The impact on these parks
    impact the livelihood of businesses and communities throughout
    my state.
        Secretary Zinke, while my constituents are hearing about
    private jet rides and expensive doors, they want to understand
    why someone is proposing to raise park fees at this level. I
    have heard from many Washingtonians, and they are concerned
    that they won't be able to afford going to the national park
    and feel that these fees are absurd. These increases imposed on
    American's public lands are also in sharp contrast to the
    millions of dollars of royalty reductions that the Secretary is
    proposing for oil and gas and coal companies.
        The staffing and budget cuts at our national parks also,
    combined with similar budget cuts at virtually all non-energy
    programs within the Interior, show the Administration's failure
    to recognize the importance of the outdoor recreation economy.
    Further proof of the Administration's efforts is that almost
    all appropriated funds for the Land and Water Conservation Fund
    are cut, one of the most successful programs. In fact, the
    budget goes further by proposing to rescind previously
    appropriated Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) funds.
        It also dramatically cuts funding to programs for the
    management of water in the West. And I can tell you this
    Committee has dealt effectively with this issue, but a lot more
    needs to be done. We can't have programs like conservation
    programs, drought resiliency programs and programs to help fund
    rural and tribal communities cut leaving farmers, fishermen,
    tribes, and communities high and dry.
        Secretary Zinke's proposal for offshore leasing is also
    unprecedented, in my opinion. It allows for offshore oil and
    gas drilling in over 90 percent of the coastal waters,
    including off the coast of Washington and Oregon. These are
    things that have been considered in the past and shelved.
        Dramatic increases in offshore oil and gas development in
    our area propose a direct threat to a robust coastal ocean
    economy. The fishing communities and the recreation communities
    in my state are opposed to this idea.
        Secretary Zinke is also playing a political game in
    choosing where to site drilling activities. The Secretary's
    decision on a last-minute exemption for Florida while ignoring
    opposition from at least 10 other states, I think, has made
    this process seem very arbitrary and capricious to taxpayers.
        On top of that, obviously, there are other safeguards and
    regulations that are proposed to be rolled back. The
    President's budget would also gut oil spill and environmental
    research. This is very important as there are important
    questions that we don't have answered on oil.
        And let me talk for one minute about methane. The Senate
    and House have upheld important legislation to make sure we
    have commonsense regulations relating to oil and gas leasing
    and not unnecessarily flare methane gas. Fortunately, the
    courts have continued to say that we need to hold this up,
    making sure that the Administration takes action, but the
    Administration continues to block the implementation of these
    important rules.
        Last year the Senate spoke on this and defeated an effort
    to roll back the methane rule using the Congressional Review
    Act. Senators recognized that wasting $330 million of the
    public's natural resources every year is a bad idea, and yet
    those ideas continue to try to move forward in various ways.
        I am, Madam Chair, disappointed at this budget proposal and
    the actions of this Administration as it relates to these
    important issues.
        Yes, I could talk a lot about private planes, helicopters,
    and doors, but there are also very important public policy
    issues here that I hope to focus on and get answers for my
    constituents.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Collins.
        Collins? Cantwell. Yes, I need a little coffee here this
    morning.
        [Laughter.]
        It is that daylight savings time. We are going to have to
    do something about that.
        Secretary Zinke, welcome back before the Committee. We
    welcome your opportunity to speak to the FY2019 budget request
    for the Department of the Interior.
        Please proceed.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. RYAN ZINKE,
                       SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

        Secretary Zinke. Thank you, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member,
    and Committee members for the opportunity to offer my support
    for the President's 2019 budget request for the Department of
    the Interior.
        With your permission, I'd like to submit my entire written
    statement for the record.
        The Chairman. It will be included as part of the record.
        Secretary Zinke. The President has made it very clear about
    his priorities. He has spent the first year in office keeping
    the promises he has made to the American people, and there are
    many promises, and there are many promises kept.
        This budget is a major step toward keeping another one of
    the President's promises, rebuilding our infrastructure. The
    President is a builder and the son of a plumber, as I am. I
    look forward to working with the President on restoring
    America's greatness through a historic investment of our public
    lands infrastructure. This is the largest investment in our
    public lands infrastructure in our nation's history. Let me
    repeat that. This is the largest investment in our public lands
    infrastructure in the history of this country.
        Our public lands are our greatest treasures, but they have
    suffered serious neglect from our nation's leaders over the
    years from both sides. Our Interior deferred maintenance
    backlog is $16 billion. $11.6 billion of it can be found in our
    National Park Service alone. This includes everything from our
    roads, bridges, tunnels, visitor centers and restrooms.
        At the Grand Canyon National Park, as an example, visitors
    receive water from an obsolete pipeline that has broken more
    than 80 times since 2010. It has forced emergency rationing,
    costing millions of dollars to fix over and over again.
        The President's budget proposal requires legislation for a
    new Public Lands Infrastructure Fund to address the deferred
    maintenance problem--this is a legislative priority. The fund
    would provide up to $18 billion over 10 years for maintenance
    and improvements in our national parks, our national wildlife
    refuges and Bureau of Indian Education funds. Similar to the
    Land and Water Conservation Fund, it would be funded from
    energy revenues--all energy, not just oil and gas, all energy
    from public lands.
        The budget also includes $1.3 billion for construction and
    repairs. Infrastructure is not merely an expense, it is an
    investment. Improved infrastructure is an economic driver. Our
    public lands should be for the benefit and enjoyment of the
    people, as the Roosevelt Arch in Yellowstone National Park so
    proudly proclaims.
        In 2016, 330 million visitors went through our park system,
    half a billion through Interior lands. It's estimated that
    those visitors spent $18.4 billion in our parks alone and,
    overall, recreation is $887 billion in consumer spending and
    employs 7.6 million people.
        All Americans should have the opportunity to enjoy a
    national park, but without an investment in our infrastructure
    to go along with a record-setting amount of visitors, we are
    loving our parks to death.
        I was pleased to join Senators Alexander, King, Daines,
    Heinrich, Gardner, Tillis, and Manchin this week in introducing
    the National Parks Restoration Act which follows a blueprint
    set in the Department's budget. It is bipartisan.
        Along with being the chief steward of our public lands, I'm
    also responsible for the education of 48,000 American Indian
    students that deserve a world-class education. The Public Lands
    Infrastructure Fund supports 150 Bureau of Indian Education
    schools in 23 states. The school maintenance backlog stands at
    about $634 billion.
        Also across Indian country, the opioid epidemic is a major
    problem, along with drugs. With the President's leadership
    we're cracking down on drug dealers who are selling out to our
    kids. This budget proposal invests in joint federal efforts,
    like an opioid taskforce, that we've already conducted.
        We are also seeing a great opportunity to reorganize the
    Department of the Interior for the next 100 years, just as
    Teddy Roosevelt did a century ago. As a retired Navy Seal
    commander, I believe in giving more authority at the front
    lines where it should reside so the decisions can be made at
    the local level rather than in Washington, DC. Clearly, the
    one-size-fits-all model has been ineffective.
        This budget includes $18 million to begin shifting
    resources to the front line in the field to establish unified
    regional boundaries for Interior bureaus. This organization
    will enable us to achieve our core mission of stewardship.
        In planning this organization I've taken into account
    feedback from Congress, governors, Interior employees, and the
    stakeholders. It's a reorganization based on science.
    Watersheds, wildlife corridors, we brought in our SES
    professionals to look at it, adjust the boundaries to make sure
    they're practical and I've met with the governors. Like
    Roosevelt a century ago, we want to achieve the greatest good
    for the greatest term using best science and best practices.
        This budget also recognizes that American strength relies
    on American energy. Under President Trump we are pursuing an
    American energy dominance policy. Last year was much about
    energy. This year is a pivot about conservation,
    infrastructure, and reorganization.
        The President has delivered on his promise of energy. This
    budget includes $43 million for American energy development to
    continue our mission. Presently, we stand at 10.6 million
    barrels a year in this country. For the first time in 60 years,
    we're exporting liquid natural gas.
        All told, our budget request for Fiscal Year 2019 is $11.7
    billion with a proposed transfer, the Department of Defense for
    Palau Compact, that raises it to $11.8 billion.
        This budget clearly lays out top priorities of the
    Administration and speaks to the priorities of the American
    people, rebuilding our infrastructure, fixing our schools,
    achieving energy dominance, and holding the line for fiscal
    responsibility. Above all, we do it in a responsible manner,
    understanding that we are the steward of our greatest
    treasures.
        With that, I'm happy to take your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Secretary Zinke follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
        Again, I will repeat my thanks for your focus on the energy
    side of the business that you and the President clearly
    addressed last year. We have, I think, a great deal to do to
    fulfill what was begun, but we have made considerable progress
    and I look forward to even more of that.
        I am going to keep my questions this morning relatively
    parochial to Alaska, as I know members will have questions
    about the parks' backlog and the reorganization and I will go
    broader into that in the second round.
        Let me first begin, Mr. Secretary, with the Eastern
    Interior Resource Management Plan. As you know, this came down
    in the last few days of the Obama Administration. One of those
    plans, in particular--this is the Fortymile District--turned a
    management regime that had worked for decades, just literally
    turned it on its head.
        In addition, we have our placer gold miners in the
    Fortymile District that have had some real trouble working out
    standards for revegetation, and this has really been quite
    problematic. The question for you this morning is whether or
    not we have any administrative options to address some of the
    very valid concerns that exist with regards to this Fortymile
    plan, if you are willing to work with us to help restore
    balance to that plan, and then specific to the revegetation
    standards, if we can find a solution to help our miners out in
    that area?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, thank you for that question.
        And restoring trust and being a good partner is what
    Interior should be. A government should not be an adversary.
    And that's been clear across the states, that in some policies
    have been not willing to be developed where you listen to the
    local populations.
        I did have the Deputy Secretary and our senior leadership
    team up there talking to the Fortymile miners. There are some
    administrative procedures we can do. We're looking at
    streamlining it.
        Reclamation and mining, as a geologist, the fair
    proposition is that if you're going to develop on federal land,
    there needs to be a reclamation plan to make sure it's returned
    to as good or better condition than what you found it. There
    are a number of advanced technologies in reclamation that we
    need to incorporate into our regulatory framework to ensure
    that happens. Oftentimes, our regulations do not take into
    account innovation. They don't take into account science or
    best practices. So when our regulatory framework becomes
    punitive on an industry and the local population views it as
    targeting, then there's a breach of trust. So we are aware of
    it and we look forward to working with you and the good folks
    up there to make sure we have a path forward.
        The Chairman. Well, I thank you for the willingness to work
    with us.
        Again, these are, some of them are the smallest of the
    small gold miners that are operating out there and, again, in
    an area and in a manner that is certainly sensitive to the
    environment. They have been able to make it work well for
    decades. We want to be able to return it to that. But we need
    some working with the Administration on this.
        Another effort in rural Alaska is the Ambler Road which
    would help to facilitate not only minerals but jobs in the
    region, and there is an issue that is coming up right now with
    regards to permits and approval for Ambler Road. One issue is
    whether or not the Park Service can complete its ANILCA
    assessment prior to the completion of the NEPA and the EIS that
    comes within it. It has been one of these situations where we
    just cannot seem to get all of the agencies on the same page.
    All I am asking for this morning is your commitment to work
    with the Army Corps on this issue so that we can make sure
    that, basically, our federal agencies are working together,
    instead of a little bit here and a little bit there. It needs
    to be more coordinated, and your assistance on this would be
    appreciated.
        Secretary Zinke. Thank you and I agree with you.
        Part of the frustration has been multiple agencies involved
    in the same project with different objectives, different
    locations, independently producing multiple biological opinions
    which results in delay, arbitrary results.
        Part of the reorganization at Interior is to address just
    that, making sure the arms of the government work together to
    produce the best possible outcome based on science, based on
    best practices, longest good, greatest term. So we are working,
    and I'm happy to report that we're going to have a decision on
    it shortly. We have the lead, and we're working with the Army
    Corps of Engineers.
        The President also has tasked us to look heavily at the
    Army Corps of Engineers to see if we can't look at streamlining
    the process with the Army Corps of Engineers which affects a
    lot of our projects. They're really good people, but the--some
    of it, the way that the system is set up, doesn't allow them to
    move forward and this is an example.
        The Chairman. Well, it is an example and I appreciate the
    focus from within the Department on permitting and some of the
    regulatory overlap that we just get snarled up with. The effort
    that has been made to move forward on a permitting perspective
    has been appreciated. We just need more in that area.
        Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you.
        Mr. Secretary, you are asking working Americans to pay
    higher fees on entering national parks. Is that correct?
        Secretary Zinke. Our proposal looked at multiple options on
    our parks. One of them was to look at our top 10 parks or so
    and look at during peak season. And our proposal also looks at
    our pass.
        I've spent a lot of time in a kiosk. And it's amazing in
    our parks which the maintenance, as you know, is we're far
    behind. But when you give discounted or free passes to elderly,
    fourth graders, veterans, disabled and you do it by the
    carload, there's not a whole lot of people that actually pay at
    our front door, as well as you have a lot of foreign guests, a
    lot of population of them.
        So we're looking at ways to make sure that we have more
    revenue in the front door on our parks themselves because when
    you have a park like Rainier, is that the money they receive
    coming in the front gate, I want to make sure more of it goes
    to that Park Superintendent so he has flexibility in how he
    spends it. Right now, much of it comes back to Washington, DC,
    and the superintendents don't have enough flexibility, in my
    opinion, to spend the money.
        Park fees does not and will not ever address $11.7 billion.
    It just won't. But a lot of our parks have record visitation,
    certainly last year. We expect them to have record visitation
    again, and we're looking at the proposal of many different
    options. One of them is during peak season raising the rate. We
    have not yet concluded and likely we're going to look at it to
    make sure that there's not any unintended consequences.
        Senator Cantwell. So am I understanding from your statement
    that you think we should raise them on veterans and fourth
    graders?
        Secretary Zinke. No, what I'm saying is this, is that we
    subsidize and we allow, by design, a lot of people to go
    through. If you're in a car and you have a veteran in the car,
    everyone, whether they're a veteran or not, is free in that
    car, same thing with the disabled, same thing with the elderly
    on passes. Basically, one person with a pass, everyone in that
    car comes in for free.
        Now whether or not that's correct, we're looking at it, but
    what clearly is the case is we have an $11.7 billion backlog.
    The greatest bargain in America is the $80 a year pass. I just
    took my kids to the theater and after going and paying the
    ticket at the theater and having popcorn, it's more than $80.
    And this is a pass all year around.
        So we're looking at ways to make sure that revenue coming
    in the door of our principal parks is appropriate, making sure
    we still have value because American parks belong to the
    public. They belong to all Americans and everyone should have
    access.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, we definitely think we should be
    increasing access, not disincentivizing it.
        I want to ask you about this issue regarding the agency
    spending money on things that may not be in the public's
    interest. You took a private jet home from Las Vegas. Do you
    think that was a mistake?
        Secretary Zinke. Well first, insults, innuendos are
    misleading. I never took a private jet anywhere.
        The previous Secretary took 80 trips of just under $1
    million. I took three trips. One of them was with the Senator,
    your Chair, on a prop plane. A second one was with the Governor
    of the Virgin Islands and the Prime Minister, again, a prop jet
    in between islands to make sure that we were on time. And the
    third was to take a King Aire, late at night after traveling
    all the way across Nevada, giving a PILT speech, to meet an
    eight o'clock in the morning meeting with a Governor of Montana
    for the Governor's conference.
        So I resent the fact of your insults. I resent the fact
    they're misleading. I resent the fact of doors. And I'll go
    through line by line.
        And you know what also is, that Sally Jewel, I think she
    was right. I think her travel patterns, even though she took a
    private, chartered airplane, was met by helicopter, did a hike.
    I think she was right because as Interior, she was out hiking
    and doing what she was supposed to be doing.
        So given that a flight from the North Slope down to
    Anchorage, with the Chair, to allege it's a private jet is
    inappropriate, ma'am.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, Mr. Secretary, I have given you
    ample time and I simply asked you a question about the private
    jet trip to Vegas. I guess we will ask you in writing and maybe
    we will get an answer.
        The IG is looking at this issue, and we are looking at the
    larger issue of how time and money is spent. And the reason why
    we are is because our citizens want to know why their park fees
    are going up and they are reading these stories. I think the IG
    said that the agency made a mistake when it was trying to use
    wildfire preparedness money to take helicopter tours in Nevada
    when that wasn't the purpose. What we want is to see the
    answers and transparency within the agency, so we will ask you
    again for the written record and, hopefully, we will get a more
    succinct answer.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Senator Barrasso.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Thank you so much, Mr. Secretary, for being here. It is
    great to see you again.
        I appreciate your testimony and acknowledgement that there
    are many issues facing the Department that are requiring
    immediate attention. Last year during the hearing we spoke
    about the several-billion-dollar problems facing the
    Department: wild horse and burrow management, deferred
    maintenance backlog, and over the last several months the
    Department has offered a series of proposals for raising
    additional revenue.
        I just want to ask if you could talk a little bit about how
    you envision these programs would work together to deliver
    funds on the ground.
        Secretary Zinke. We face a number of challenges in
    Interior. One of them is we have multiple bureaus with
    different regions. We have, the regions are not based on equal
    systems, watersheds, so structurally, as it is very difficult
    for an old Department, like Interior, to work together.
        I give the example of a fish and trout in the same stream.
    Upstream we have a dam, downstream we have irrigation, and that
    stream goes by a Forest Service holding. The salmon are managed
    by bureau, or by Commerce, through NMFS. The fish are a Fish
    and Wildlife by me. Upstream watersheds or temperatures are
    generally Army Corps of Engineers. Downstream irrigation is
    Bureau of Reclamation. A Forest Service holding, surface
    Department of Ag, subsurface is BLM. Same stream. Same issue.
    You can have multiple biological opinions produced
    independently with different results, some of them non-
    reconcilable. So I think we should look at making things like
    recreation, permitting, and NEPA to do it jointly, to rearrange
    our regions to be unified based on watersheds and science. That
    will be enormously helpful. Recreation--our trail systems
    should connect. Our NEPA system--we should be on the same page
    in the original scope at the end. And permitting, NEPA and
    permitting need to be separate because there's a conflict of
    interest, but permitting also should be joint. All
    stakeholders, including the states, should be there in the
    beginning.
        The Department of Defense went through a Reorganization Act
    in 1983, as you know. We fight forest fires this way, jointly,
    but when we manage our lands, we're not in a joint scenario
    which, I think, is the--will be the biggest help in eliminating
    some of the bureaucracy.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
        On January 26th of this year the BLM issued a draft
    Environmental Impact Statement for the Converse County Oil and
    Gas Project. It is a project for Wyoming. The BLM estimates
    that this project is going to bring 8,000 jobs and as much as
    $28 billion in economic activity to the state.
        I have concerns that the BLM's draft Environmental Impact
    Statement (EIS) needs to be revised to maximize the success of
    the project. Specifically, the draft EIS does not include clear
    guidance for year-round drilling and it does not fully
    acknowledge the ongoing work by the State of Wyoming,
    specifically, to implement our guidance on the greater sage-
    grouse core area of protection. The timely correction of these
    errors and completion of the environmental review for this
    project is critical to the state's economy and our nation's
    energy security.
        So I ask you, Mr. Secretary, if you will work to ensure
    that the BLM will complete the final EIS in a timely manner and
    issue a record of decision that is consistent with the
    Administration's commitment to achieving energy dominance?
        Secretary Zinke. We certainly will commit to working with
    you and making sure the EIS is fair and make sure it takes into
    consideration the stewardship responsibilities as well as the
    President's energy dominance policy.
        As you know, Secretary of the Interior, it's really two
    sides. Even Roosevelt said that conservation is as much
    development as it is protection. And as Interior, I have
    responsibilities on both sides. So I am not oil and gas
    centric. I'm American energy centric. And there are places
    where drilling for oil is absolutely appropriate and there are
    places that are not. And so that's why we have NEPA. That's why
    the process of NEPA has been the backbone of what, I think, is
    strong and appropriate policy in this country.
        Weighing into it, we'll--our commitment is to get the EIS
    out, make sure it's done fairly, make sure it's done based on
    science and then from there, we'll make the best determination
    we can.
        Senator Barrasso. Well, thanks.
        Finally, Mr. Secretary, last year when you testified before
    the Committee on the Department's budget, I asked you to take
    steps to ensure that the BLM field offices, like the one in
    Casper, have sufficient resources to process the new oil and
    gas permit applications and to clear the sizable backlog.
        I am encouraged by the progress that the Department has
    made on the issue. I am also encouraged by the attention that
    both you and Deputy Secretary Bernhardt have paid to input from
    our stakeholders in Wyoming on this and on a variety of other
    issues from sage-grouse to cooperation among the agencies that
    you oversee. I look forward to continuing to work with you and
    your staff to resolve the lingering concerns with the
    Department's proposed action for the Moose-Wilson Road in the
    Grand Teton National Park, and I urge you to continue to listen
    to stakeholders across the West as we move forward with your
    ambitious proposals to reorganize the Department.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Barrasso.
        Senator Wyden.
        Senator Wyden. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Secretary, during your confirmation hearing you
    mentioned Teddy Roosevelt nine times. Oregonians have a strong
    appreciation for Teddy Roosevelt as a conservationist and as a
    President. With his signature he created the Crater Lake
    National Park and it is the deepest lake in the United States,
    known for its beautiful blue water. Teddy Roosevelt understood
    that when you sell off or exploit your public lands, you don't
    get them back. Mr. Secretary, that is something you don't seem
    to understand at all.
        First, you pushed the largest reduction of conserved,
    treasured public lands in American history, two million acres
    sacrificed for private exploitation.
        Second, you proposed opening America's precious coast to
    offshore oil drilling, only to walk it back in one state where
    it seemed there was a potential Republican Senate candidate who
    opposed it. I can tell you in our state, Oregonians don't want
    to look out over Haystack Rock and see oil derricks.
        Third, during the most expensive wildfire season in
    recorded history, you played a shell game with a wildfire
    account at Interior to pay for an unrelated helicopter ride,
    and this is another matter that the Inspector General is
    looking at.
        My first question, Mr. Secretary, is: would Teddy Roosevelt
    be sitting where you are today, advocating the virtual
    elimination of the Land and Water Conservation Fund?
        Secretary Zinke. Mr. Senator, I challenge you to give me
    one square inch----
        Senator Wyden. I would like a response to the question, Mr.
    Secretary. Time is short.
        Secretary Zinke. It is short and I challenge you to give me
    one square inch of land that has been removed from federal
    protection. One square inch.
        In the case of Bears Ears, as you stated, Bears Ears, after
    I restored 400,000 acres of wilderness, after I restored almost
    an entire national forest, the boundary of the revised Bears
    Ears is still larger than Zion and Bryce Canyon combined.
        What I did do is increase public access and traditional
    rights. Under the Trump Administration at Interior, we've
    actually increased wilderness last year, specifically in New
    Mexico. And I worked with the delegation in Utah because Utah,
    where Bears Ears and Staircase is, the entire Congressional
    delegation, including your colleagues and the Governor, wanted
    it rescinded. I didn't rescind it, so we revised the
    boundaries.
        Senator Wyden. Mr. Secretary, you've used up now almost
    half my time.
        Could you give me a reason or explanation for whether Teddy
    Roosevelt, sitting where you are, would advocate a budget that
    virtually eliminates the Land and Water Conservation Fund?
        Secretary Zinke. I believe that the Land and Water
    Conservation makes $122 million available. It does not add more
    property into the federal estate, but our budget also has the
    largest investment in the history of this country on three
    critical areas. One is maintenance backlog of our park system;
    two, maintenance backlog of our wildlife refuge system which
    Teddy Roosevelt initiated; and thirdly, making sure that we
    meet the treaty obligations of 48,000 American Native kids.
    That's the largest investment in the history of this country.
    So I believe Teddy Roosevelt would be proud of the focus on
    preserving, protecting and maintaining our treasures.
        Senator Wyden. What I asked you, though, because it is in
    your budget, is whether he would support something that is so
    fundamental to what you said in your prepared statement, which
    is
    increasing access to public lands. I am quite certain that
    Teddy Roosevelt would not be here defending the virtual
    elimination of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
        I want to close on a personal note. Mr. Secretary, you and
    I talked a lot before your confirmation. I felt, in an attempt
    to build a bridge to work with you, particularly in a state
    where the Federal Government owns most of the land, I would
    support your nomination. And I did. I voted for your
    nomination. I will tell you right now, as of today, it is one
    of the biggest regrets of my time in public service.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Senator Portman.
        Senator Portman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Secretary Zinke, thanks for joining us again today. It is
    good to see you.
        We have talked about our shared passion for the national
    parks on a number of occasions, including Cuyahoga Valley
    National Park, the number 11th visited park in the country, and
    also, Ohio is home to other great national park sites,
    including the Dayton Heritage National Historical Park where
    the Wright Brothers' great work is preserved.
        Like you, I am very concerned about the $12 billion
    maintenance backlog at our parks and that is why I am pleased
    that, with the help of Chairman Murkowski and Ranking Member
    Maria Cantwell, we were able to pass the National Park Service
    Centennial Act.
        Now this was at the end of 2016, as you may recall. That
    has worked in the sense that it provides funding that is then
    matched and we think that about $65 million from the Federal
    Government that has gone into this challenge project has
    resulted in about $500 million in non-federal funds. A lot of
    it comes, of course, from the National Park Foundation and they
    have raised $460 million since 2016.
        So that is helping. And again, I thank Chairman Murkowski
    for ensuring that the Centennial Challenge part of this, which
    is the part that can leverage so much private sector funding,
    was included in the FY'17 Omnibus bill, $20 million in '17, $15
    million in '16.
        My question for you is, how can we ensure we have a stable
    level of funding for that Centennial Challenge?
        As you know, in the legislation which codified something
    that Congress had already done by appropriations, we also
    included a funding source and that was to be sure that the
    Senior Pass was reformed so that we would receive some funding
    on an annual basis to be deposited into the Centennial
    Challenge.
        My question for you is, how much has the Centennial
    Challenge Fund received, if you can tell us today, as a result
    of the Senior Pass, and how much do you expect to be deposited
    into the Centennial Challenge Fund in '18 and '19, FY'18 and
    '19, as a result of the Senior Pass increase?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, thank you for your question and in
    the budget is $15 million for the Centennial Park Challenge
    Fund. I have talked to the National Park Foundation. They've
    done a wonderful job. Their target actually of raising private
    funds is just under $1 billion this year, and I believe they'll
    make it. We have a good board.
        As you know, when you're addressing an $11.7 billion
    backlog, even though the Centennial was a great program, it did
    not meet the requirement of our funding of our parks. The last
    great effort was really Mission 66, back from '56 to '66, which
    was a great effort and much of our buildings today are a
    reflection of that program.
        Senator Portman. Yes.
        Mr. Secretary, let me just interrupt you for a second. As I
    look at the FY'19 budget from you all, I do not see any funding
    for the Centennial Challenge, with the exception of the Senior
    Pass. Again, we fought hard to get this funding into the
    appropriations bills and the CRs and now under the Omnibus and
    again, Chair Murkowski, who is here, has been a leader on that.
        Secretary Zinke. I have $15 million in it.
        Senator Portman. In what? In the FY'19 budget?
        Secretary Zinke. In mandatory funding at $15 million in
    2019.
        Senator Portman. Is that from the Senior Pass? Can you----
        Secretary Zinke. That's from the--I'll figure out whether
    it's from the Senior Pass, but it's offsetting collections,
    which I believe it is.
        Senator Portman. The Senior Pass? Okay.
        Secretary Zinke. Yeah.
        Senator Portman. That's my----
        Secretary Zinke. I'll check that, but it should be.
        Senator Portman. Yes. That would be a historical level and
    if that happens, great, but I guess what I am asking you is
    whether you would be willing to work with us on ensuring we
    have the appropriations to be able to continue this important
    part of the overall effort to deal with the maintenance
    backlog. I agree with you, it is not enough, but it is
    absolutely critical that we have it.
        A broader question is, how do you get at this $12 billion
    in a more significant way?
        As you know, I have introduced legislation I've worked on
    the last couple years with Senator Warner. It is called the
    National Park Legacy Act. It provides funds from oil and gas
    revenues for maintenance backlog projects.
        My question to you there is, can you commit to working with
    us on the Legacy Act to be sure that we can take these oil and
    gas revenues and provide a funding source to deal with the
    deferred maintenance backlog?
        Secretary Zinke. I certainly can.
        And to be clear, the proposal that's in the budget is
    capped at $18 billion. The proposal that I do support is taking
    and addressing, how do you get to $18 billion and have the
    revenue?
        And I think it's a fair proposition that if you look at
    energy across the board, whether it's wind, solar, mining, any
    energy, then I think if you're going to gain a resource and
    wealth from public lands then a fair proposition is you should
    also contribute to the maintenance backlog and preservation of
    those lands. So that's where the $18 billion comes from. We
    think that we can get there in eight years given the scale of
    what's occurred, especially if Alaska comes online. So----
        Senator Portman. We would love to work with you on that,
    and I hope you will work with us.
        Your proposal, as we look at it, does not have guaranteed
    funding because you are assuming that the Treasury has an
    estimate of what is going to come in and anything over that
    estimate would be provided for maintenance backlog.
        Our legislation is a little different. It provides for that
    funding as a secure source. In other words, it is guaranteed. I
    know you worked with other Senators, apparently, on another
    proposal, but you know, we have been at this a while. We think
    we have a good proposal. It is bipartisan. I hope you would be
    willing to work with us on this proposal as well.
        Secretary Zinke. Absolutely. You have my commitment I'll
    work with you because I think we both share the same issue, is
    that we have to address long-term, so 10 years from now we
    don't look back and we're still behind. So I think it's a long-
    term solution. I do think we're similar on energy. I'm more
    inclusive. I include wind and everything that is on federal
    land, but I would love to work with you on it.
        Senator Portman. Thank you.
        I have another few questions for the record for you, Mr.
    Secretary. Thanks for being here today.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Smith.
        Senator Smith. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Secretary Zinke, it is nice to meet you.
        I would like to ask you about the Lewis and Clark Regional
    Water System which, as I am sure you know, is a critically
    needed water project that serves South Dakota, Iowa, and
    Minnesota.
        Our states have been awaiting federal funding from the
    Bureau of Reclamation to complete this project, which was
    authorized about 18 years ago. When it is finally finished, it
    is going to be a vital source of drinking water and also a very
    important economic development driver in our three states and
    the southern part of Minnesota, where there is actually a real
    shortage of water. The federal funding for this has been
    delayed and, of course, as you know how this goes, that
    ultimately means that it ends up costing more. The estimate is
    that, at current funding levels, we would complete this project
    by 2048 costing the taxpayers an additional $55 million. In the
    meantime, the states, including my state, have been filling
    this gap so that the project can continue.
        My question is this: in the President's budget there is
    $100,000 for this project, which is clearly not a serious
    number. Would you agree with that?
        Secretary Zinke. Overall, the budget includes about $34
    million and the President's infrastructure has a significant, I
    think 25 percent, is in rural.
        But you're right, is at the end of the day, the budget is
    difficult on the Bureau of Reclamation. We think there's some
    flexibility in infrastructure, particularly when it looks at
    Bureau of Reclamation holdings.
        You know, I'm from Montana, and there's a saying that's as
    true is that, ``Whiskey is for drinking. Water is for
    fighting.'' And Montana, too, on the east side, has a number of
    these legacy projects from Bureau of Reclamation that need
    federal assistance. The grand bargain, though, when Bureau of
    Reclamation was put in place, was the Federal Government would
    come in and invest and then over time the land users, the water
    users, would pay for it and that title would be transferred.
        And so, we have an enormous amount of holdings that we have
    not transferred title, even though the water districts have now
    paid for the projects, but we still are responsible for
    maintaining them. And I think in the budget also, we asked for
    some authority, if those projects now are in a good place to
    transfer so we can be relieved of the maintenance
    responsibilities, that will allow us additional funding to do
    what the Bureau of Reclamation was intended to do.
        Senator Smith. I appreciate you agreeing with that, and I
    would just ask for your commitment to continue to work on this.
    I think it is extremely important to all three of our states.
    Coming from, originally from New Mexico, I understand the vital
    importance of water. So thanks for that. It sounds like you are
    willing to work with us on that.
        Secretary Zinke. I'm committed to work. I think rural water
    is so important for a number of reasons, but I've always--and
    I've had the best guys, as far as Brenda and Alan Mickelson, in
    the Bureau of Reclamation team. And they're from rural places
    and they're committed. And I'm committed to work with you on
    this project.
        Senator Smith. Thank you. Thank you very much.
        I was going to touch on the Land and Water Conservation
    Fund, but I think that Senator Wyden has covered that for us.
        So in just the few minutes that I have left, I would like
    to highlight something which I think is important to Minnesota
    that is in the budget, which is the important PILT program.
        Of course, in Northern Minnesota, where we have lots of
    forest land and lots of federal land, that means that our huge
    northern counties suffer because of a lack of property tax
    base. And so, I hear about this from our county commissioners
    all the time and just really appreciate how important the
    Payment In Lieu of Taxes program is for, not only Minnesota,
    but many Western states as well. I just wanted to see if you
    had any more comment on that important strategy.
        Secretary Zinke. We appropriated $600 or--$465 million
    which was the same level.
        And again, I'm from Montana, you know, a timber town at one
    time, but it would be nice if the Federal Government would be
    better partners so our federal lands could be used in a
    responsible manner. But Minnesota, you know, one time we had a
    lot smaller timber mills out there where people could gain some
    land and some wealth off the land. It's challenged when the
    Federal Government is the biggest land holder and there's no
    economic, you know, viable business there.
        So with PILT, we understand and we raised it to the '17
    level. We heard, clearly, from the West last time on PILT, so
    we remain committed to it.
        Senator Smith. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Smith.
        Senator Cassidy.
        Senator Cassidy. Mr. Secretary, congratulations on your
    leadership. The Chair of the Committee mentioned at the outset
    over the last year morale has improved, diversity has improved.
    Not bad for a Navy Seal Commander, man. Good for you. Let me
    thank you for being here.
        Hey, thanks for visiting South Louisiana. Our coastline is
    vanishing. We have had a hard time getting permits to repair
    our delta. By the time we get the permit, the delta is gone. So
    thank you for your commitment to make that work, and thank you
    for the decision under the proposed budget to retain GOMESA
    payments to the Gulf states. We need that money to rebuild our
    coastline. For us, it is existential.
        Let me just get a couple things straight. They are giving
    you heck for taking a private plane from the North Slope to
    where, Madam Chair?
        Secretary Zinke. Anchorage.
        The Chairman. Well, we went to Fairbanks.
        Senator Cassidy. If you had driven that, is it one,
    possible, and how many miles is it from one to the other?
        The Chairman. Well, from where we began, it was not
    possible to fly. We were up in the fields.
        Senator Cassidy. So did you drive?
        The Chairman. Excuse me, it was not possible to drive, so
    we had to fly. There is a haul road for the pipeline.
        Senator Cassidy. But how many miles is that?
        The Chairman. To Fairbanks? It is 400, 350 miles.
        Senator Cassidy. But there is no road? And they are giving
    you heck for that?
        Well, Mr. Secretary, you should take that heck because if
    you have to see the North Slope and there is no road to get
    back to where you need to be, you have to get there somehow.
        Secretary Zinke. Senator, I've been shot at before. I'm
    very comfortable with it.
        Senator Cassidy. Yes.
        Secretary Zinke. Do right, fear no man, do the best you
    can. Everything I do is scrutinized, and I'm willing to take
    attacks on myself. I don't like attacks on my family, my kids,
    which I get raked all the time. But we're pretty tough. We're a
    military family. We're pretty tough about it. Do right. Fear no
    man. Wake up and make sure we're accountable. Everything I do
    is looked at through the whole legal team, Office of Ethics. It
    is what it is.
        Senator Cassidy. Well, let me congratulate you for being so
    gracious regarding your predecessor, Secretary Jewell, who, I
    guess you point out that she took trips totaling $1 million in
    cost. Again, that was very gracious of you. I think you
    recognize your presence would be very important to somebody in
    Las Vegas if they are going over an Interior issue.
        One more thing. We in Louisiana have recognized that you
    cannot be pro-environmental unless you are pro-business and you
    cannot be pro-business unless you are pro-environmental because
    the one sustains the other.
        Now I see that the Interior Department has spoken of
    decreasing the royalty rate for offshore oil and gas for leases
    sold later this year from 18.75 to 12.5. I get that. There has
    been a real difficulty in jump-starting development out there.
    Without the development there won't be money for GOMESA. There
    won't be money for the Land and Water Conservation Fund. So
    there is a national interest in that. But let me say, my
    questions relate to this. How does Interior's analysis project
    GOMESA revenues would be impacted if the recommendation is
    accepted?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, certainly, the Advisory Board is
    just that, an Advisory Board, and they made several
    recommendations, as you point out. One of the recommendations
    was to remove or lower the royalty rates.
        On the Gulf, we are due to put up for lease the largest
    acreage in the history of this country in the Central and
    Western Gulf. It will be interesting to see what the level of
    interest--we think the interest is good on that.
        Senator Cassidy. Now is the interest sparked by the lower
    end of the royalty?
        Secretary Zinke. The data is--I would say you could go
    either way in the data. Lowering the rate, the supply and
    demand, lowering the rate one could say, well, it increases the
    production. What we're seeing though is more production onshore
    than offshore. We saw companies like Exxon, $50 billion in the
    Permian-Wolfcamp onshore. Still, offshore is more risky and
    it's more expensive.
        The Gulf has an advantage that you have subsea
    infrastructure. So the Gulf has advantages as opposed to both
    the East and the West Coast. I think this lease sale will be a
    bellwether on offshore, probably in the next 10 years.
        Senator Cassidy. So in the one sense you could have
    increased revenue if you have more production to offset the
    lower royalty rates. Any modeling of that or, somehow--
    obviously, we in Louisiana are concerned because GOMESA funding
    to rebuild our coastline is linked to that and those who get
    money for the Land and Water Conservation Fund are likewise
    concerned. So any modeling on that?
        Secretary Zinke. We do have modeling. We'll share with you
    what we have. Again, it's a supply and demand model. You'll
    lower the royalties, you make it more attractive, production
    increases and revenue, in some cases, can increase.
        So what you want to do is make sure your royalties are
    fair, appropriate, don't penalize production, incentivize
    overall energy dominance, but make sure that you also
    incentivize reliable, incorporate innovation into a regulatory
    scheme.
        What I'm hearing from the industry is regulation that
    incorporates innovation, best science, and best practices. It's
    not punitive, it is as much of an economic driver as royalty
    rates.
        Senator Cassidy. Got it.
        I yield back. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cassidy.
        Senator Cortez Masto.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Secretary Zinke, it is good to see you again.
        I want to start with renewable energy. I know we have had
    this conversation. In the State of Nevada, 87 percent of the
    land is owned by the Federal Government, so our partnership is
    key. The interaction that we have with all of the federal
    agencies is important to the State of Nevada.
        One of the areas that we have been focused on is renewables
    and responsible development of wind, solar, and geothermal
    energy on public lands. It has long had broad bipartisan
    support, including from you during your time in Congress as a
    co-sponsor of the Public Land Renewable Energy Development Act,
    and it has played a growing role in our economy. Solar now
    supports more jobs than natural gas and over twice the jobs in
    coal, according to a 2017 Department of Energy report. Yet, for
    the second year in a row, the Administration's proposed budget
    looks at cutting DOI renewable programs by almost half, a
    proposed 50 percent cut for Fiscal Year '18 and a 40 percent
    cut for Fiscal Year '19.
        Looking at these numbers, it appears that renewable energy
    development is not an important part of the Department's
    charge. If this Administration is committed to what I have
    heard you say time and again, an all-of-the-above energy
    strategy, then why is renewable energy the only energy program
    that is proposed to be cut?
        Secretary Zinke. Thank you for the question, and that is a
    great question.
        We looked at the expected demand and expected demand by all
    our modeling was about $73 million and that's what we funded it
    at. It's down from 20.
        With solar, there's some projects out West, particularly in
    California, that are proposing 338,000 acres of a solar field
    on federal land--that's 500 square miles.
        So every energy, as you know, every energy source has its
    consequences. Wind chops up birds. I was criticized for saying
    750,000. I have the study that says about, let's see, 800,000,
    over 800,000 bats and 573,000 birds. That's a study from the
    USGS. So wind chops up a lot of birds.
        Solar, when you put a solar field in, it's single use.
    You're not going to hunt on it, you're not going to recreate on
    it, and it's tough for habitat.
        But our policy is all-the-above. There are appropriate
    places for wind, there's an appropriate place for solar, we
    just have to make sure that we understand the consequences and
    have a national dialogue. It is better to produce energy in
    this country under reasonable regulation than watch it get
    produced overseas with none.
        Energy is core to our economic well-being and, quite
    frankly, morally, to produce energy in this country is morally
    right because I don't want to see your kids ever have to go
    overseas and see what I've seen.
        Senator Cortez Masto. So can I just clarify my
    understanding? Your concern is the environmental impacts that
    solar and wind have and that is why you have taken a look at
    cutting this budget for these areas? That is what I have
    heard----
        Secretary Zinke. No, it meets the--our budget reflects the
    expected demand. There was great demand in solar early. Solar
    demand----
        Senator Cortez Masto. Did I not just hear you say in
    offshore oil drilling there is low demand, yet you are
    increasing the budget in those areas? I am just confused with
    the whole, overall energy policy.
        Secretary Zinke. No, what I'm saying, what I said in
    offshore is--no, what I said was, in offshore, we'll see. The
    lease is about in March. I think it's going to be a bellwether
    of interest offshore vice onshore. There's no question that
    offshore oil and gas is riskier than onshore. Secondly is the
    shale plays onshore significantly.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Riskier in what sense? Environmental
    impact or the fact that nobody will come out because it doesn't
    pencil out and is cost prohibitive?
        Secretary Zinke. It's riskier for a number of reasons. One
    is environmentally.
        When BP--it's well over $20 or $30 billion BP has paid.
        Senator Cortez Masto. But yet the budget has increased for
    that. Let me move on because we will submit these for the
    record.
        The reorganization--you and I have talked about this, and I
    so appreciate this is a tough thing to do. I have talked to you
    about the fact that the Duck Valley Indian Tribal Reservation
    is both on Idaho and Nevada state land. The line straddles
    that, right? And so, BLM in Idaho treats them differently than
    the BLM in Nevada. Yet, what I am looking at now on your map is
    cutting Nevada in half for your BLM regions. I don't quite
    understand that.
        What I am asking for is a commitment from you and DOI to
    work with the stakeholders, the Governor, and the State of
    Nevada to address our concerns. Will you be committed to doing
    just that?
        Secretary Zinke. I am. I have talked to the Governor, and
    now I understand he is in support of our plan.
        If--you have a map in front of you. Nevada is already
    divided in multiple regions. We're going to, our plan as of
    right now is keeping the BLM directors because almost all the
    states that have BLM enjoy the relationship with having a BLM
    director, a state director.
        But our larger issue is trying to bring BOR, BIA, Park
    Service, the different bureaus within Interior and realigning
    to make sure we're on unified districts, unified regions based
    on watershed and science. And you can see them. The map on the
    right is our current organization.
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Secretary Zinke. And you look at Nevada, Nevada is carved
    up, probably seven or eight different lines.
        And the map on the left is how our proposal----
        [The information referred to follows:]
        [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Secretary Zinke. What we've done is we looked at science,
    watersheds, wildlife corridors, about 13 variables, equal
    systems, then we brought our SESs in, and these are career
    professionals.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Career professionals.
        My time is running out and I don't want to get into anybody
    else's.
        The Chairman. Your time is up.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Yes.
        Can I just ask for a commitment that you come back to us
    and go through this and be willing to talk to us more about
    what is going on here, because we have not had the opportunity
    to explore this with you and your staff as well?
        Secretary Zinke. Absolutely.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        Secretary Zinke. Congress has a critical role in this, and
    that's why it says ``DRAFT.'' So we're introducing it to you.
    We'll go through--I've just, kind of, outlined the steps we've
    taken thus far.
        We are to the draft of where we are but both the House and
    the Senate have an enormous amount of say in this and we think
    we need to reorganize and unify districts. We're willing to
    work with it and mortar board it out. If there's some
    adjustment that needs to be made, great.
        Senator Cortez Masto. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator.
        I think these are issues on this reorganization that we
    will all be learning more about, but the opportunity to have
    the one-on-ones I do think is important.
        Senator Gardner.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thank you, Secretary Zinke, for your time and service
    today. Thanks to your investment in our public lands. Thanks
    for your support of the National Park Restoration Act, I truly
    appreciate it. That is going to make a huge difference as we
    get and deal with this backlog of maintenance in our National
    Park System.
        Enos Mills, who was the idea behind Rocky Mountain National
    Park that you visited--I am grateful for your visit this last
    year--said, ``Within National Parks is room--glorious room--
    room in which to find ourselves, in which to think and hope, to
    dream and plan, to rest and resolve.'' I thank you for the
    resolve that you are showing to address the backlog and other
    issues facing our public lands.
        Secretary Zinke, I want to talk a little bit about the
    Arkansas Valley Conduit, more of a comment than anything.
        The Arkansas Valley Conduit Project is in Southeastern
    Colorado. Authorized in the 1960s, President Kennedy signed the
    Arkansas Valley Conduit into law. Since then, we have had a
    number of people providing resources, dollars, to this pipeline
    from Pueblo, Colorado, out toward Lamar, Colorado. Hundreds
    plus miles of pipeline providing clean, abundant, affordable
    water to some of the most economically distressed areas of our
    state. The Colorado Water Conservation Board has committed $60
    million to this project. I know you are very well aware of
    this, in rural Southeastern Colorado 50,000 people depend on
    it, would be dependent on it, for their drinking water.
        We have had previous conversations with Administration
    officials and--this Administration as well as previous
    Administrations--the Southeastern Water Conservancy District
    and State of Colorado have joined together in working on this.
    I just would thank you for your commitment to working with us
    as we work through the needs of the Arkansas Valley Conduit and
    just to thank you for that commitment, Secretary Zinke, to work
    with us on that.
        Also, thank you as well on the BLM reorganization,
    headquarters relocation. The Federal Government owns roughly 47
    percent of the land out West. The Bureau of Land Management is
    responsible for administering 245 million acres of federal
    service lands and all but 100,000 acres of those, of that
    number, are located mostly in the 11 Western states, 11
    Westernmost states, and Alaska.
        At the beginning of this Congress I introduced the BLM
    Headquarters Relocation Act, the sole purpose of which is to
    relocate the headquarters of the agency so that the people who
    work there are among the lands they manage. We already have a
    number of field officials, field personnel, out in the states
    where the 245 million acres reside but we can get those
    headquarter agents, headquarter employees there, as well,
    because I believe decisions are better made when they are made
    by those communities, within those communities, that are most
    affected by their decisions.
        I am certainly pleased to see within the budget request
    Interior's planning at modernization of the organization for
    the next 100 years and at the top of the list, I think it
    should be relocating the BLM headquarters out West. And I would
    like to plug, personally, Grand Junction, Colorado. Some others
    may have different ideas, but I think it is a uniquely
    qualified location to host it.
        I just wanted a brief update, if you could, on the agency's
    reorganization, relocation process.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, thank you.
        You'll be happy to know that Anvil Points, which has been
    languishing for decades, has been resolved. The check is in the
    mail.
        Senator Gardner. That is damn big news, Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Zinke. Yeah, it is. It is big.
        Reorganization----
        Senator Gardner. Wait, if you don't mind, let me just speak
    on that for a little bit. That is a big deal.
        Secretary Zinke. It is a big deal.
        Senator Gardner. And I want to thank you for that.
        Secretary Zinke. Swain County in North Carolina and for
    those--there were commitments made that money was in the
    account but never distributed, and you had Swain County in
    North Carolina, you had Anvil Points, and the money was being
    held but never released for some issue.
        So we have looked at it; we resolved it. So the payment, my
    understanding, has been made or is in the process of being
    made. The government check is in the mail.
        Senator Gardner. Secretary Zinke, just for the information
    of the Committee, this is something that has been a broken
    record. Scott Tipton, myself, others in the Colorado delegation
    have been talking to you and to previous Administrations about
    this. Secretary Salazar, Senator Udall and gosh, Senator
    Salazar, everybody has been involved in this. This is $18
    million to the people of Western Colorado. Thank you. Thank
    you. Thank you for that.
        Secretary Zinke. My expert has said the payment is going to
    be made March 28th, so the end of the month. So the check is
    really not in the mail, but it's coming.
        Senator Gardner. Mr. Secretary, thank you for that.
        Secretary Zinke. Oh----
        Senator Gardner. I am just going to yield back my time, and
    call the county commissioners out there who are going to be
    doing some handstands right now.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, on the reorganization, real quickly.
    Sixteen percent of Interior is retirement age today. In five
    years, 40 percent of Interior is at retirement age. And so,
    looking at a replacement as people retire, looking at pushing
    more assets out West, it makes a difference if you're a GS5, a
    GS7, where you live. San Francisco, Seattle, Washington, DC,
    are very expensive cities and, quite frankly, the quality of
    life if you're a GS7, GS5, entry level, it's difficult for a
    number of reasons.
        We are looking at smaller communities out West because
    remember the organization there's three areas that we're
    focused on: recreation, permitting, and NEPA. And we think
    we're going to do those jointly and all those don't have to be
    co-located, but the recreation has to be co-located, the NEPA
    has to be co-located, and the permitting has to be co-located.
        We have 2,600 sites in Interior. But we are looking at
    smaller communities, particularly in areas like BLM, and in
    these different regions where Interior folks, entry level, can
    enjoy a quality of life, have a chance to buy a house, have a
    chance to, you know, have good schools or good hospitals.
        We haven't determined where. We think we'll probably have
    three candidates within the different regions for that and then
    work with Congress, get a metric applied to it so we do it by
    best practices and science. But certainly the smaller towns
    across the West, and there are many in everyone's district, is
    kind of where we're centered on at the moment.
        Senator Gardner. Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Gardner. Congratulations
    on your good news.
        Senator King.
        Senator King. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        A couple of quick questions on this royalty issue. Has the
    decision been made, or is this a proposal to go down by 35
    percent in the royalties in offshore?
        Secretary Zinke. No, the decision has not been made. The--
    --
        Senator King. And are there data to support this change? Is
    there an economic analysis that shows the current rate is
    impairing the ability to lease these properties?
        Secretary Zinke. There is data. There are recommendations.
        Senator King. From whom?
        Secretary Zinke. Yeah, but to be clear, where are we in our
    energy?
        The President signed an EO, an Executive Order, tasking me
    to look at energy and to prepare this.
        Senator King. I am sorry, Mr. Secretary, I have very
    limited time. Are there data to support a 35 percent reduction
    in the offshore drill that indicates that this is somehow an
    impediment to the execution of leases? Yes or no?
        Secretary Zinke. I would say there's an argument.
        Senator King. Argument is not data. In other words, there
    has been no economic analysis to justify this massive cut?
    These are resources that belong to the people of the United
    States. We are taking money out of the pockets of taxpayers.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, I agree with you.
        And so, I haven't made the decision because I have not
    looked at it in detail. There's an argument. There's an
    argument on the other side, too. And the data is not
    conclusive, although I have not looked at it in detail. I've
    just looked at the broad brush----
        Senator King. Has any analysis been made of what the cost
    to the taxpayers would be from this reduction?
        Secretary Zinke. There is no doubt that there--when they
    present the recommendations to me, the supporting data will be
    there.
        Senator King. They, being the Royalty Policy Committee?
        Secretary Zinke. Yeah, the Royalty Committee, which is an
    advisory board.
        Senator King. Could you supply for the Committee the names
    and affiliations of the members of that Committee, please?
        Secretary Zinke. Sure.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        Secretary Zinke. But I can tell you that I think the
    industry, the energy industry, oil and gas, is doing very well.
        Senator King. I would----
        Secretary Zinke. So at current rates they're doing very
    well.
        Senator King. Well, you just made my argument.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, and I'll share it, but I have not
    made a decision, but when you're producing as a country 10.6
    million barrels a day, first time in 60 years we're exporting
    liquid natural gas, the oil and gas industry is doing very
    well.
        Senator King. Fine. I appreciate that, and I hope you will
    apply that analysis to this rather significant change.
        Second question, you made a proposal, or the Department has
    made a proposal, on offshore drilling. I hope you will take
    into consideration the interests of the states involved. In
    Maine, during a Northeaster last week, a Nor'easter, we had a
    turnout at a public meeting. I asked my office, I said, I bet
    it was 95 percent opposed. They said, no, you are wrong,
    Senator. It was 100 percent opposed. Our legislature has
    opposed it unanimously. Our delegation is unanimously in
    opposition to it, and the coastal economy of Maine is
    enormously dependent upon fisheries, lobsters, and visitors
    throughout the year. I hope that will be taken into
    consideration, because the benefit we see is minimal and the
    cost, the potential cost, is enormous.
        Secretary Zinke. This is what I did.
        The last Administration took about 94 percent off. What I
    did is zero-based. So I put everything on for discussion.
        Senator King. And I know----
        Secretary Zinke. Knowing----
        Senator King. You took Florida off, and I am just
    suggesting I hope you will do the same for Maine----
        Secretary Zinke. Well, by putting everything on we had a
    discussion.
        Now Florida is different for three reasons. One is that
    every member, both sides of the aisle, wrote me an immediate
    letter and said we don't want it.
        Senator King. That is true of Maine as well, by the way,
    Mr. Secretary.
        Secretary Zinke. Second is your governor, the Governor of
    Maine, is for it. And third, Florida has a federal moratorium
    in place until 2022 which no other state has, a federal
    moratorium. So had I left Florida off in the beginning, it
    would have been arbitrary and capricious.
        Senator King. Well, I am not----
        Secretary Zinke. So I put Florida on, but Florida is still
    in the process.
        Senator King. I am not arguing that you made the wrong
    decision in Florida. I am just arguing for a similar decision
    in Maine based upon our circumstances.
        Next, a different area. Park fees, a significant increase.
        I agree with you that we need to look at park fees. I think
    they should be looked at, and it should be part of the
    analysis. My problem is the park fee proposal. The increases
    are so significant, and I wondered if there has been an
    economic elasticity analysis to determine whether we could end
    up losing more money than we gain by increasing, for example,
    for a person from $12 to $30, and a vehicle from $25 to $70?
    Those are really significant increases, and there could be two
    results: a reduction in visitation, and also a closing off of
    the parks to the people of America who we want to have access.
        Secretary Zinke. I agree. We have several proposals, and we
    have not made a decision yet because of the data.
        But you're right. One of the proposals on the table was,
    you look at the peak season on our top 10 parks and that's
    where the significant increase is.
        Still, the greatest bargain is $80 for a year pass. That's
    the greatest bargain in America.
        Senator King. No, the greatest bargain used to be the
    Senior Pass which I have which was $10 for life.
        Secretary Zinke. For life.
        Yes, and now it's $80 for life.
        Senator King. That is the greatest bargain.
        Secretary Zinke. But part of the value of entrance fees is
    what we want to do is push more flexibility to the park itself,
    the Superintendent. So, we're very aware. We haven't made a
    decision yet. Clearly, it's on both sides of the issue. We want
    to make sure that the parks remain a value and accessible for
    America. That's the promise this country made, and that's the
    promise that we'll keep. We have not made a decision. I am
    aware that an increase hurts some families and the intention is
    not to hurt families.
        Senator King. It is the magnitude of the increase.
        Of course, motorcycles went from $20 to $50. Now for me,
    I'm just kidding, but when you see a motorcycle change, that
    gets my attention.
        I think your answer to summarize on all of these issues
    that we have been talking about today is, data will be
    collected, data will be made available, final decisions have
    not been made, and you will listen to the views of the people
    of the states involved. Is that correct, Mr. Secretary?
        Secretary Zinke. As well as I'll listen to this Committee
    on it.
        So you know, about half our parks don't charge. So there's
    also, we're inconsistent across-the-board on what we charge. A
    lot of our parks either don't charge or there is a tier system
    that they're not adhering to. That's part of the issue.
        And then what represents the best value and how do we do
    it? Some of our parks, when you have Yosemite which is the
    experience--the visitor experience is a parking lot, it is so
    crowded--Yosemite, Yellowstone, some of our principal parks,
    we'll love them to death.
        So also we look at how do we manage people, traffic? Do we
    go to a transporter, a public transportation system? Because it
    is untenable, unsupportable, unsustainable, the way we're
    doing, we're managing our parks, let alone the backlog. So all
    these require discussion.
        The Chairman. We are going to move on.
        Senator King. I just hope it will be done over time,
    systematically and data-driven.
        Thank you.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you.
        Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being here.
        I want to thank you, in particular, for your leadership and
    for the President's leadership in addressing the concerns
    expressed by people in Utah, particularly in Southern and
    Southeastern Utah, issues related to the designation of the
    Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument and the Bears Ears
    National Monument. I note that some criticism has come your way
    and the President's way over this, but what you did was
    courageous and it was the right thing to do.
        Let's take, for example, the people of San Juan County,
    Utah. This is Utah's poorest county. It is our poorest county,
    in part, because nearly all of the land is owned by the Federal
    Government. That was the case before the Bears Ears National
    Monument was designated on December 28, 2016, and it remains
    the case since then. It also was the case before President
    Trump made the modifications to it, and it remains the case
    now.
        What changed with the monument designation was that people
    in San Juan County, the people of Utah, particularly those
    closest to the monument, were even further put outside of any
    process that might determine how that land can be used, how
    they can access that land, sometimes for recreational reasons,
    many times for religious purposes, as the land is considered
    sacred by the Native American tribes residing in San Juan
    County, Utah.
        This was a big move that was made and a move that was much
    appreciated by people across the political spectrum in
    communities throughout Utah, especially Southern Utah. I
    appreciate and applaud you for doing that.
        Secretary Zinke, I would like to talk to you a little bit
    about a topic that I know you and I have discussed a little bit
    in the past that deals with BLM law enforcement. As you know,
    BLM law enforcement has earned something of a poor reputation
    throughout much of the West, and this is particularly true in
    rural Utah because of the agency's history, particularly
    through certain personnel, of intimidation, of heavy-handed
    tactics and a flagrant and, in some cases, well-documented
    abuses of authority. One major problem has been BLM's sometimes
    blatant disregard for state and local law enforcement.
        During the last Administration, for instance, BLM allowed 8
    of 12 cooperative agreements with local law enforcement
    agencies to expire. This flies directly in the face of
    statutory guidance from FLPMA that directs BLM to achieve
    ``maximum feasible reliance upon local law enforcement
    officials.''
        Logic and the law dictates that this is important and its
    logic certainly dictates that minimal help from local law
    enforcement means maximum strain on the Department's resources
    and that also is going to lead to maximum strain with states
    and with local communities affected by these vast swaths of
    land over which the BLM has charge. This is certainly the case
    in many places in Southern Utah where trust between local
    residents and BLM law enforcement officials has completely
    deteriorated.
        I wanted to ask you about what you are doing as the
    Secretary of the Interior and what you look forward to doing to
    change the culture of BLM law enforcement and to maximize
    reliance on local law enforcement within the West?
        Secretary Zinke. Great question.
        I have great respect for law enforcement. It's difficult,
    especially, sometimes, when you're the only guy out there,
    isolated duty stations, a long ways away from help and there is
    a lot of activity that's not good on federal lands. This covers
    BIA. It covers BLM.
        But I am in support of cooperative agreements because when
    you see a BLM truck, the first thing that I would like the
    public to think about is land management. And when you see a
    BLM light go on behind you, I would like the public to think
    about maybe there's a lost kid out there, have you seen a
    grizzly bear, have you seen that--and not getting a ticket on a
    county road.
        We have fired four, to readdress, and it's about public
    trust. Law enforcement individuals have a higher responsibility
    because they have a badge. Because they have a badge they also
    have to make sure that the power that is given them is
    exercised correctly. Heavy-handedness has led to a breach of
    trust, especially out West, and we are very aware of it. We
    have taken action to restore trust. We think the cooperative
    agreements are good.
        When there is an issue, and there's been several issues
    recently out West, I think your first line of defense or first
    action is probably call the local sheriff. He knows the people.
    He's an elected official. He's not an appointed federal agent
    and there's goodness of having an elected official take the
    action and be the face of enforcement. And that certainly is
    the direction that Interior is headed.
        Senator Lee. Wonderful, I appreciate that.
        My time has expired. I appreciate your insight into this
    and I would add to that just that, that is one of the reasons
    why we have a long, proud tradition of local law enforcement in
    this country for precisely the reasons you described. When we
    allow the law to be enforced by people who are accountable at
    the local level, good things happen. Correspondingly, bad
    things happen when we have people who are accountable only to
    someone 2,000 miles away. I appreciate your leadership in this.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Lee.
        Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Secretary, you noted several times that providing up to
    $18 billion to address the maintenance backlog in our parks and
    refuges and to support Indian education schools is the largest
    commitment ever made. It is the largest investment in these
    three areas ever made, but it isn't an investment unless the
    money actually materializes.
        What is the Department's estimate of how much funding this
    proposal would generate on an annual basis for deferred
    maintenance for the next eight years? Because you also
    testified that you think we can get there in eight years.
        Secretary Zinke. If you go back--good question.
        If you go back to 2008, Interior was the number two
    generator of revenue in this country behind the IRS. It was a
    banner year, but we made, just in offshore oil and gas, the
    revenue was about $18 billion a year.
        When we first took office, it atrophied down to about $2.6
    billion. Some was market conditions, some was not. Given our
    growth, our projected income, especially if Alaska comes
    online, given that, we'll see what the interest is. We think we
    can do it, within eight years is our best guess of $18 billion.
    We think we can recover the $18 billion in eight years----
        Senator Hirono. This is based on projections of the
    revenues from new energy projects?
        Secretary Zinke. For new energy.
        And what we did is we took a baseline--well, again,
    Congress has to have--the Executive doesn't have the power.
    It's in the budget, but it has to have a companion bill to it.
    What we did is we looked at in the budget of taking a baseline
    of what we had on in 2017, about $2.6.
        New energy is all-the-above, but also includes wind,
    solar----
        Senator Hirono. Do you believe that it is quite certain
    that you will be able to raise at least $2.25 billion every
    year in basically new money for maintenance and that this is
    something that can be relied upon so that the NPS employees
    will know how much funding to expect for deferred maintenance
    purposes?
        Secretary Zinke. I would say it's a better bet than funding
    LWCF or our Park System at the moment because the reason why we
    have $11.7 billion in backlog is that we, as a country, have
    not been able to address a backlog that we all know is there.
        I don't give criticism of the House and the Senate. I was a
    member of, obviously, the House. But our current system doesn't
    provide any assurity either, so we think it's the better bet.
        Senator Hirono. Well, there is a bill that Senator Portman
    mentioned that would guarantee this kind of funding and I think
    that is probably, possibly, a better way to go.
        You mentioned several times that your organization bases
    decisions on, among other things, science. So do you believe
    that science and scientists within your Department should feel
    free and unafraid of political interference to present their
    science, even if it includes the words ``climate change''?
        Secretary Zinke. I believe, I'm a strong believer of
    science. And quite frankly, I was criticized because I, as my
    right as Interior, to look at a USGS document as it pertained
    to Alaska prior to publication. I didn't change a comma, but I
    did want to know this, given the same data why were the energy
    resources so radically different between one study and a study
    that was done just a few years prior? What methodology did they
    use as a geologist, what methodology did they use for making
    sure those resources are recoverable?
        Senator Hirono. So there was a review. You referred to a
    USGS report wherein the report stated that, ``Global climate
    change drives sea level rise, increasing the frequency of
    coastal flooding.'' This was a scientific study that was done
    by USGS, and your Department released the press release on this
    report, but it excluded the reference to global climate change
    driving sea level rise. This is why I asked the question that
    reports that use the terms ``climate change,'' do you edit
    those out? Do you censor that kind of language?
        Secretary Zinke. I don't believe the report itself that
    you're speaking of was edited at all.
        Senator Hirono. No----
        Secretary Zinke. The press release could have been
    interpreted because it is a press release and not the report,
    but any reference and any allegation that one of the reports--
    --
        Senator Hirono. Excuse me, I have to correct you, Mr.
    Secretary, because the paper's abstract did have that sentence
    which you excluded from your press release.
        Now, this is not the first time that the issue of whether
    or not this Administration actually believes that climate
    change is science-based has come up. This is why we have some
    concerns about what the policy of your Department is and
    whether your scientists are able to make certain statements
    based on their science that includes the term ``climate
    change.'' If you are sitting here telling me that you do not
    censor or edit out references to climate change, great. Please
    answer, yes or no?
        Secretary Zinke. So are you suggesting that we changed the
    document itself?
        Senator Hirono. I am asking you whether the words ``climate
    change'' are somehow not acceptable in your Department and your
    various releases and your preference would be, within your
    Department, not to refer to climate change?
        Secretary Zinke. I don't have a problem with climate
    change.
        Senator Hirono. Great.
        Secretary Zinke. I've always said three things: the climate
    is changing as it always has; it's changing in ways we don't
    understand; and man has been an influencer on this. I don't
    think those are in dispute at the Department of the Interior.
        Senator Hirono. Good.
        So you would not be sitting here editing out those kinds of
    references in various publications that you----
        Secretary Zinke. There is no incident, no incident at all,
    that I know that we ever changed a comma on a document itself.
    Now, we may have on a press release, this is how we announce
    it, but I don't know of any document we have changed. And I
    challenge you, any member, to find a document that we've
    actually changed on a report and I read them all. I don't
    change a comma on them, but I can tell you as Secretary of the
    Interior, I think I have, I know I have the right, because they
    work for me, to read it prior to and I have questions on it.
    I'm a geologist. Why did they come up with this conclusion? I
    think I have a right to know. And your staff, your staff, would
    do the same thing.
        Senator Hirono. Mr. Secretary, based on everything we know
    about this Administration's views on climate change, it would
    comport with the view that words such as ``climate change''
    would not be included in press releases from your Department.
        Thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Secretary Zinke, I think you were pretty
    clear in terms of your views on climate and the fact that
    within the Department, you are not altering the reports that
    are coming out from the agencies.
        Senator Daines.
        Senator Daines. Secretary Zinke, always an honor to have
    you before this Committee.
        I want to first start by thanking you for working with me
    and others on and off this Committee in introducing the
    National Parks Restoration Act.
        As Chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, as a
    fellow Montanan, Secretary Zinke, we did not get to pick where
    we got to grow up, but I am so grateful both of us got to grow
    up in Montana. I also want to tell you, I am very proud that
    you are the first Montanan to ever serve on a President's
    Cabinet in our state's history. I am proud of that.
        We both grew up in the shadows of two of our National Park
    System's crown jewels. Secretary Zinke, you grew up in the
    shadows of Glacier National Park. I grew up close to
    Yellowstone National Park. I know addressing the maintenance
    backlog in our National Parks has been a priority for both of
    us.
        I also want to stress the importance of addressing the
    issues of sexual harassment and workforce environment issues
    that I know you are working on at the Department of the
    Interior. With the recent reports of other federal agencies
    and, more particularly, the U.S. Forest Service, there is a
    strong need to take this head-on across the federal agencies.
        I also want to thank you for being a strong ally in the
    forest management space.
        Secretary Zinke, you have been a strong supporter of my
    legislation to essentially reverse the 9th Circuit Courts
    disastrous Cottonwood decision. This decision was so
    disastrous, the Obama Administration supported us and we have
    had bipartisan support to reverse its decision. As you know,
    this decision imposes unnecessary red tape on federal agencies
    that the Obama Administration said, and I quote that
    Administration, ``has the potential to cripple federal land
    management.'' Secretary Zinke, can you elaborate why the
    Department of the Interior and the Fish and Wildlife Service
    believe the Cottonwood decision will needlessly slow down land
    management?
        Secretary Zinke. Thank you.
        The Cottonwood Decision. What it essentially does is it
    halts land management plans when there's a change in species
    status. That's unworkable at the ground level.
        And we have a lot of challenges out West. And thank you for
    your support of, you know, of making sure that our parks, the
    maintenance and infrastructure and the backlog is addressed
    because no one loves public land more than we do.
        But we have to also look at active management. And when
    decisions are made in the court that prevents our professionals
    from managing the land, from reducing dead and dying timber,
    from removing protections of a species as it recovered. We
    should be applauding when species have recovered and we take
    them off the endangered and threatened list because they've
    recovered. We should applaud that the system has worked and
    then divert those assets to another species that is threatened
    that needs some help.
        But the courts have been tough lately about, what I think,
    they're legislating from the bench a lot of times and it's
    hurting our ability to manage and it has a consequence and
    effect on our ability to be stewards of our great treasures,
    both wildlife and the land itself.
        Senator Daines. Thank you, Secretary Zinke.
        Given that we had the Obama Administration supporting us on
    this Cottonwood fix and now the Trump Administration supporting
    us, I hope we get the fix completed here in this Omnibus
    negotiation.
        Secretary Zinke, I want to turn toward this issue of
    workplace environment. Can you update me on what the Department
    is doing to address sexual harassment and other workplace
    environment issues?
        Secretary Zinke. Well Senator, I fired four. I'll fire 400
    if necessary because I, as a former Navy Seal Commander, I
    think you just should have a work environment that is free of
    harassment, free of intimidation.
        It was amazing to me, the lack of process, the lack of
    commitment, the lack of priority about an issue that is a
    virus, it's a cancer that will bring down any organization. So
    we put processes in place. All my leadership team meets and
    talks about it regularly to make sure we're addressing it. I
    think we've made great progress on it.
        I had an advisory board that resigned and one of the
    members stated that they knew about sexual harassment, but it
    wasn't my job to say anything. I'm not sure what type of
    advisory board that is. If I would have known about it, I would
    have fired them before they resigned because that type of
    attitude, when you see sexual harassment, when you see
    intimidation and turn a cheek and don't say anything, that's
    exactly what's happened across this country, you know, starting
    with the Hollywood group. I'm glad Hollywood has addressed the
    problem. I'm glad this country is addressing the problem
    because it's not right. But ``when you see something, say
    something'' is the policy in the Department of the Interior.
        Senator Daines. Secretary Zinke, thank you for your
    leadership. It does start at the top, and I appreciate your
    leadership in that important area.
        I am out of time. I am going to submit for the record
    additional questions, Chair Murkowski, regarding the
    maintenance backlog, as well as the Blackfeet Water Settlement
    funding.
        Thank you.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Daines.
        Just a few more questions here this morning.
        The issue of the advisory committees you just raised, Mr.
    Secretary, I know that with regard to the various advisory
    boards, various advisory councils out there, you had conducted
    a review of the same.
        I hear from people in the state, they want a process that
    allows for their input. Yesterday a report came out announcing
    that BLM has renewed the charters of 21 BLM Resource Advisory
    Councils which had temporarily been suspended. Can you give us
    just a quick update here on your national review process for
    both these internal and external panels and give us some sense,
    in terms of timeline, as to what folks might be expecting
    getting back to regular meeting schedules?
        Secretary Zinke. When I assumed the position--I have over
    200 advisory boards, 200. And so, here's what I asked. I said,
    tell me who is on your board, tell me what you've done the last
    two years, tell me what your expectations are in the next two
    years, tell me what your mission statement is and your budget.
        The Chairman. Reasonable so far.
        Secretary Zinke. And what I did is I suspended everyone
    until they could provide that little information because I want
    to know, because I think a lot of these boards are meaningful
    and those that did not provide that, were in suspension. We
    contacted everyone. As of, where we are today is that they can
    meet again. But I think it was a reasonable expectation to ask
    people on some of these boards, you know, what do you do? Who
    is on your board? What are your goals?
        To one, to give me, if they need assistance, and a lot of
    these boards are volunteers. We do pay about $10 million a
    year, I guess, in administrative costs, but a lot of the boards
    require an enormous amount of commitment, you know, time.
        One is I wanted to know who is on it and what can I do, as
    the Secretary, to help them. And if they can't answer those
    five questions, maybe we need to review what the leadership is
    on those boards or review whether their boards are important or
    not, if they're not doing anything.
        And as it turns out, I think, we're pretty good of the
    boards we have now and we're issuing our reports and they're
    coming back to us with reports as they meet, what are their
    goals. So I'm pretty comfortable with where we are on our
    boards.
        The Chairman. Good. It certainly seems reasonable to do an
    analysis every while and again to just, as you say, see who is
    there and what folks are doing.
        I mentioned in my opening statement mineral security and my
    appreciation, not only for the Executive Order from President
    Trump, but also your Secretarial Order on mineral security.
        You have $19 million within your budget. I know that we
    need an awful lot more to just map out the country here. But
    given that you are putting this priority within the budget, how
    do you see a process for these funds and what steps are you
    taking within the Department to address some of the mineral
    supply chain issues that we have been raising here?
        Secretary Zinke. Well, thank you for the question.
        As you know, the USGS delivered a critical minerals report.
        The Chairman. Yes.
        Secretary Zinke. America should read it because we are----
        The Chairman. They would find out how vulnerable we are.
        Secretary Zinke. We really are and, as a former SEAL, the
    number of components that a modern warrior has that we rely on
    overseas for a lot of it, is a national security issue.
        And also, the USGS hasn't prioritized and focused on basic
    field mapping in a long time. We think we can get there using
    new and modern technology, UAVs, magnetometers. So the, you
    know, 20 years ago when you set out to field map a lot of
    areas, it was labor intensive, it's going to be a long time.
        Modern technology, modern techniques, particularly UAVs, we
    can catch up quickly, but the USGS has to prioritize this. It
    is in their national interest to do so. And some of the
    techniques, quite frankly, are flying over with magnetometers
    because the best field geologists won't be able to see what's
    below the surface.
        So as a geologist I'm pretty confident that we can catch
    up, and we're going to focus on the areas that we think are the
    best value and the greatest potential. It will be a long time
    remapping the United States.
        What I can tell you when you look at our current mapping in
    North America, Canada has done a pretty good job and when it
    gets to the border, it stops.
        We also have to look at critical minerals and make sure we
    do our part of mapping the Lower 48 and Alaska and there's
    great opportunity there, but again it's innovation, best
    science, best practices, greatest good, longer-term.
        The Chairman. Well, I appreciate that. I think we have
    heard in this Committee that we have actually helped other
    countries do their mapping so that they have a better
    understanding and yet we are still deficient here in this
    country. So I appreciate the prioritization.
        Senator King.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        Secretary, thank you for joining us today, and I wanted to
    follow up on that point. I serve on the Armed Services and
    Intelligence Committees, and I commend you on focusing on the
    critical minerals issue because it is a serious national
    security issue. The first thing we need to know is what we have
    and what we don't have and how to proceed because I just think,
    as I say, this is a long-term national security issue and a
    very important role for your Department. So thank you for
    bringing new focus to that.
        Secondly, I also want to thank you for the work on the
    backlog bill and addressing it in a serious way. As you may
    know, I am a co-sponsor of the bill with Senator Alexander. I
    think it is a creative response. It does not guarantee the
    funding, but it makes it likely and basically, I am for
    anything that will seriously deal with the park backlog. So I
    appreciate that.
        Finally, just a detail question on the leases. I think you
    mentioned that there is a lease offering going out later this
    month or fairly soon. I presume that RFP, if you will, will be
    based upon the existing royalty rate, not the new proposed
    rate. Is that correct?
        Secretary Zinke. Yeah, the lease that we're offering, it's
    the largest lease in the history of this country offshore. It's
    primarily Central and Western Gulf.
        The leasing is a little different than the royalty rate on
    it because when you lease it takes about three years to go into
    production on there. But again, the lease, to me, is a
    bellwether of where the market is going which is incredibly
    important.
        Senator King. Yes, that was what I was going to suggest. So
    at least the people who are bidding are, I would assume,
    assuming current levels, which would be an indication of a data
    point as to whether or not this lease level needs to be
    changed.
        Secretary Zinke. Yes, sir. I'd categorize that, absolutely,
    as you put it.
        They're, I think they're leasing it without anticipation
    one way or the other, whether there will be an adjustment in
    the royalty, as they should.
        Senator King. Yes.
        Secretary Zinke. Their leasing should be on the basis of
    what the royalty rate is today and not a perceived direction
    shift.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        Final point on the park fees. I think, as I mentioned, some
    adjustments are almost certainly necessary, but I would hope
    that perhaps you could step back and do a more comprehensive
    view. Do some economic analysis, maybe slow down and not impose
    them this visitation season and have a more thorough analysis.
        Again, I don't want to end up with fewer people in the
    parks, lower revenues, and limited access for people that we,
    all Americans, should have to our parks.
        Secretary Zinke. You have my commitment that, believe me,
    Interior is not going to do anything unless it's well thought
    out because there's unintended consequences, sometimes, of
    actions.
        Senator King. Exactly.
        Secretary Zinke. And one of the main reasons we're getting
    more visitors is because there's less--people don't travel
    overseas as much. They've, kind of, found your park, a great
    program. And so, we want to make sure that what we do doesn't
    have any unintended consequences.
        The other thing on a broader scale, we also are looking at
    ways to innovate our park fee collection system.
        Senator King. Well, one of the things that I have been
    pressing for three years is an app. There is a pilot with, I
    think, five parks that has worked very effectively at Acadia in
    Maine. A very significant percentage of the fees were done
    online and that is another way to increase fees, collect from
    those who probably are not even paying them.
        Secretary Zinke. We're looking at kiosks and going online
    and doing it, you know, having lane 1, the standard ranger
    because there's a lot of people that enjoy the visitation of
    the ranger, the greeting, the map, but lane 2, 3, 4 maybe a
    fast track to go through for frequent visitors. So we're
    looking at different innovative ways to use technology and
    integrate into that system. We're not there, but we're also not
    there on a decision.
        Senator King. Good.
        Secretary Zinke. So, and no doubt, this Committee has an
    enormous amount of passion in our park fees and should we go
    forward, this Committee will be notified first and in advance.
    So if you have comments we'll take them into consideration.
        Senator King. Thank you.
        Secretary Zinke. But I would say this season is going to be
    a lot like last season except it's going to be, probably,
    greater visitation.
        Senator King. I believe that is right, and that is a
    testament to how wonderful the parks are.
        Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate it.
        Thank you, Madam.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator King.
        Senator Cantwell.
        Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Sorry I had to step out for other things.
        Secretary Zinke, I wanted to go back to the rural water
    issue. In your budget, there are cuts to the rural water
    programs and projects for communities with a population of less
    than 50,000 people.
        The reason I bring that up is there is so much of my state
    that are in these smaller communities who are being impacted by
    drought and are working very diligently to try to come up with
    ways--I think there are actually three projects in Montana that
    are going to be impacted by this as well.
        It is a 60 percent cut. Why cut at a time when water is
    becoming such a major focus for us on the kinds of resiliency
    programs that are helping our Western states deal with the
    impact?
        Secretary Zinke. I share your concern.
        From a kid who grew up in Montana, especially the Eastern
    side, water is the economic driver. In Eastern Washington
    there's a number of districts that are solely underfunded.
        Part of the re-looking at BOR, is when Bureau of
    Reclamation came in, is that the agreement was federal
    investment would be repaid over a period of time by the water
    users. We have a lot of holdings that have never, the title has
    never been transferred, even though the water districts have
    repaid over time. That is eating our maintenance budget and a
    lot of Bureau of Reclamation projects.
        In the President's infrastructure bill which is, should be
    bipartisan, 25 percent of that bill specifically looks at
    rural, parts of it, in infrastructure and rural, oftentimes, is
    the water.
        But I share your concerns on the water and I'll work with
    you on it, because I understand how important water is,
    especially in Eastern Washington.
        Senator Cantwell. Well, I think the thing that I would say
    deserves a major infrastructure investment is anything that can
    take the existing sources of water and use them more
    resiliently.
        I think that is what you are seeing some communities try to
    do, but when you are the Odessa Aquifer or something that
    small, you need a little bit of help and support in doing so
    in, I would assume, these smaller communities.
        On the oil drilling, will you consider taking the comment
    period and expanding it another 60 days? I think this is
    something we have written to you and asked about.
        Secretary Zinke. On the oil and gas, you should know off
    the coast of Oregon, Washington, most of California, there are
    no known resources of any weight. And again, I put everything
    on so we could have a dialogue and then take what's appropriate
    off.
        I think I'm going to mark down Washington as opposed to oil
    and gas drilling. And I know where every state is, every
    governor, every member of Congress across the board.
        So the comment period has closed. I know where people are
    and I certainly know where the State of Washington is. The
    State of Washington is deeply, passionately opposed to oil and
    gas drilling off their coast.
        And I've committed, and the President is committed, to make
    sure that our plan which will be finished--our first draft, and
    you'll get another bite of it, will probably be late Fall on
    our proposal and our proposal will have the interest of
    Washington reflected in that plan, as well as Florida, the Gulf
    States and where there is enormous opposition.
        Senator King. Maine, Maine.
        Secretary Zinke. We'll do that.
        Maine, also, does not have any resources off the coast. So,
    you can--I'll show you the same maps we have, as far as the
    geology goes, where the areas of interest are and where the
    areas of interest are not.
        Senator Cantwell. So, Mr. Secretary, will that include
    doing no analysis of those opportunities for the future?
    Because one of the things that the communities on the coast are
    worried about, our fishing communities, specifically, is some
    sort of seismic testing that would be done to discover if there
    were new undiscovered sources. The communities are very
    concerned about that.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, a seismic, for many, they've used
    seismic as a predecessor to oil and gas. But seismic also is
    required for wind. Seismic should be required, in many cases
    is, for mining. And the argument is that seismic is
    destructive. A lot of the coast, particularly on the East Coast
    and the Gulf, rely heavily on Reclamation done by offshore
    mining on federal land. I can tell you as a geologist, offshore
    mining of sand is enormously destructive environmentally in
    comparison to seismic. So seismic is not necessarily a
    precursor of oil and gas.
        The other side of it is, I'm pretty confident that we have
    oil and gas reserves onshore to meet our country's needs. I'm
    pretty confident we do. But also, part of my responsibilities
    of Interior is we should know what our reserves are as a
    country. And seismic, using best science, I think, is
    appropriate.
        There are places where seismic is not in the interest of
    taxpayer expenditures, particularly if the geology would
    suggest there is no oil and gas. And so, then you would point
    to seismic if you're going to put a wind field out there given
    that the design of a wind field also affects fishing, so we've
    got to be smarter about how we put our wind apparatuses and our
    fields out there so it doesn't adversely affect.
        Senator Cantwell. I am over my time and I so appreciate the
    Chair allowing me to go.
        I did want to file something for the record. Maybe it is
    something the Secretary and I can dialogue more on, but I do
    believe that when you removed part of Utah's monument that is
    now going to be open to ideas of mining claims and uranium
    development and off-road ATV, you did take an inch of public
    land out of that use.
        So you and I can dialogue on it.
        But again, thank you, Madam Chair.
        The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cantwell.
        Mr. Secretary, I appreciate the time that you have given to
    the Committee, how you have worked to respond to, not only very
    local interests, whether it is what I raised with our Fortymile
    placer miners or Senator Gardner's news that he received that,
    I think it was Anvil Points, is going to have a good day today,
    but also to the broader picture of reorganization that you are
    proposing within the Department, the impacts there on the
    respective regions, how we ensure that we do right by our
    national parks with a focus on the maintenance and the backlog.
        Because this is the first FY'19 budget hearing that I have
    participated in, and it's going to be a long couple months
    between my role on this Committee and as an appropriator, but
    at every Committee as long as I can remember, when we have
    budget requests that come before us, I have to ask the question
    and I will ask the question of you.
        In terms of what, when you look at your budget for
    Department of the Interior, where do you see this
    Administration's priority and focus on the Arctic and Arctic-
    related activity because I am sitting here with my co-chair of
    the Arctic Caucus, Senator King, and we have, I think, worked
    hard and will continue to work hard to raise the interest, the
    awareness and the priority of not only this Administration, but
    Administrations that have preceded you in focusing on the
    Arctic as a place of considerable opportunity, but also
    challenges as we recognize that we have much that is lacking by
    way of infrastructure and how we are able to take full
    opportunity of a changing and of an evolving Arctic.
        That is a long lead up for you, but I put it out there to
    you and everybody else who is going to come before any of the
    Committees that I sit on, that we are going to be continuing to
    ask about the Administration's Arctic priorities to ensure that
    this does continue to be viewed as an area of focus, not only
    from the budget perspective, but in terms of national
    priorities.
        Secretary Zinke. Well, I would think three things. One is
    the Arctic is a national security interest; it is imperative.
    Secondly, energy dominance is not possible unless Alaska's
    resources come to bear. Thirdly is the Alaska Natives. I think
    we need to do better being partners, particularly with our
    wildlife management. I don't, you know, the folks I've met up
    there, whether it's about whaling or seals or walruses, no one
    knows better how to manage those species than our native
    Alaskans.
        And so, I think there's a lot of room of looking at ways we
    can be better partners, co-managing areas, typically, you know,
    they're so much more knowledgeable than we are at doing it.
        So I think the Arctic area, again from national security,
    from oil and gas production, as you know, there's an enormous
    amount of gas on the North Shore and we've talked about
    different approaches on how to recover that gas. And overall, I
    think, liquid natural gas is probably our bridge fuel. Some
    would argue with that. That's my gut feeling on it, but to look
    at how to bring our natural gas resources to bear, certainly
    you have to talk about Alaska on that.
        So, actually I'm very bullish on the Arctic. I don't think
    there's ever been an Interior that has focused more on the
    State of Alaska, certainly in my memory with it. A lot of my
    staff, as you know, we spend a lot of time in Alaska for a
    number of reasons that I've outlined.
        So I think the relationship between Interior and this
    Committee on Alaska will only grow.
        The Chairman. Well, I appreciate that.
        And you mentioned that you feel that this Administration
    has focused more attention on Alaska. We have received a lot of
    attention in previous Administrations, but most of the
    attention has been on how we can, basically, lock up more of
    Alaska, rather than allow the people to work, to not only
    access our resources, but to do so in a balance with a pretty
    special environment, pretty special opportunities that we have
    up there.
        So we appreciate you working with us to allow us to achieve
    that level of independence that any state would want, an
    independence to be able to provide for your people and take
    care of your land. We feel like we do a pretty good job.
        I thank you for your focus on the opportunities that we
    have up there and, in particular, recognizing the great
    benefit, the great value that our indigenous peoples can
    provide whether it is in operations of co-management or just
    consultation, true, true, consultation.
        We have not really had much discussion here today in this
    Committee about your role within Interior with regards to the
    various agencies that have oversight, whether it is through
    BIA, particularly through BIA. We need to get that position
    filled and we are working with you and we are looking forward
    to seeing that Assistant Secretary advance quickly.
        You have a big job in front of you. We have moved several
    of the men and women that you need to help run the Department
    and several of them, unfortunately, have been held through a
    process that is frustrating on all ends.
        My goal is to make sure that you have the team in place
    that you need to do not only execution of this budget that is
    being laid down but really to focus on the public assets, the
    public resources that you are charged with, as well as the
    people, our native people.
        It is a big job. We appreciate the job that you are doing
    and I, particularly, appreciate the positive relationship that
    you have built and the trust that you are working to restore
    with the people of Alaska. It is appreciated, it is noticed,
    and we will welcome you back anytime.
        With that, the Committee stands adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m. the hearing was adjourned.]

                          APPENDIX MATERIAL SUBMITTED

                                  ----------

    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]