[Senate Hearing 116-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
     DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                  APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021

                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4, 2020

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.

    The subcommittee met at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-124, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Lisa A. Murkowski (Chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Murkowski, Alexander, Blunt, Capito, 
Hyde-Smith, Daines, Rubio, Udall, Leahy, Tester, and Van 
Hollen.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR


              opening statement of senator lisa murkowski


    Senator Murkowski. Good morning, everyone.
    The subcommittee will come to order.
    We are here this morning to review the fiscal year 2021 
budget request for the Department of the Interior. Secretary 
Bernhardt, welcome. This is your second appearance before the 
subcommittee. I appreciate the work that we have done together 
on a host of issues important to my State and to the country 
during your tenure as secretary.
    Today is the subcommittee's first hearing of this budget 
cycle. We look forward to working with you and your team. And 
Senator Udall, you and your team have been very helpful as 
always. We want to build on the successes that we saw on our 
fiscal year 2020 bill which included more than $13 billion for 
the Department's critical functions.
    We know that the Department administers many programs that 
impact and improve the lives of Alaskans. And Secretary 
Bernhardt, I want to thank you for being a reliable partner 
there. We know that there is always more to be done in Alaska. 
Federal land makes up over 60 percent of the State. The 
Department oversees the majority of those lands and is 
responsible for developing our abundant natural resources, 
providing assistance to our Tribal communities by addressing 
climate change impacts, and much, much more.
    The Department's budget request addressed many of these 
responsibilities which we appreciate, but there are some areas 
where we believe you have fallen short in addressing. The 
fiscal year 2020 budget request for Interior is $11.7 billion 
for programs within the jurisdiction of the Interior 
subcommittee. That is almost $2 billion below the enacted 
level, a reduction of 14 percent.
    Again, while I support many components in this budget 
request, I am concerned by others. But like every president's 
budget request, this is just that; it's a request, it's a 
proposal. Congress will work together to enact the final budget 
for the Department.
    I do support the Department's focus on expanding energy and 
mineral security through the development of our Nation's 
natural resources both onshore and offshore. Particularly, I 
appreciate the Department's work on unlocking our onshore 
arctic resources within ANWR and the NPRA. I do want to note 
that the request assumes the Obama era 5-year plan for offshore 
leasing continues, which restricts the significant potential of 
the Arctic OCS in both the Beaufort and Chukchi Sea, so I would 
hope that the Department finds a path forward for a new 5-year 
plan that enables safe Arctic development.
    I have worked for many years on the issue of the need for 
greater domestic critical mineral production, and I applaud the 
Department for the work to develop an OCS critical minerals 
inventory and all the work that it's doing to reduce our 
reliance on foreign sources of these minerals. Energy and 
critical mineral production is not just an economic issue but a 
national security one, as well.
    I would like to thank you and your team for maintaining 
funding in the budget request for the Alaska Conveyance Program 
which is charged with transferring the title to millions of 
acres of land owed to both the State of Alaska and Alaska 
Natives. The request also acknowledges the need to implement 
the Alaska Native Vietnam Era Veterans Land Allotment section 
that was passed recently in the Dingell Act. Proper and 
expedient implementation this program, of course, is very, very 
important to our Alaska Native Veterans. I am going to be 
following up with you on this issue in the months ahead.
    As you know, Alaska is home to one half of all federally 
recognized Tribes. The Bureaus of Indian Affairs and Education 
provide essential programs for Alaska Natives that are 
fundamental to the Federal Government's legal obligations to 
our first peoples.
    And while I am concerned by some of the proposed reductions 
to critical human services, natural resources, and education 
programs, I am pleased to see your proposal maintains Tribal 
court funding for the Public Law 280 States and requests $3 
million to support activities related to Operation Lady 
Justice.
    For the first time in our final fiscal year 2020 bill, this 
subcommittee was successful in providing $6.5 million for 
activities concerning Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women. 
You know that I have worked on this issue for some time, and I 
greatly appreciate your efforts on this and the leadership laid 
down by the President and certainly that of Tara Sweeney at 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, as we work to develop a long-term 
plan to address the high rates of violence, abuse, murder, and 
trafficking that we see unfortunately in many of our rural 
communities and our urban centers when it comes to our 
indigenous peoples.
    We cannot talk about funding needs for public lands without 
discussing deferred maintenance across our national parks. We 
all have our parks that are our favorites, but I think Alaska 
hosts some of the best when you think about Denali, Glacier 
Bay, Gates of the Arctic, Katmai. But we also recognize that 
not only Alaska's national parks but parks across the country 
are struggling to address deferred maintenance challenges.
    In some cases, like with Denali National Park, critical 
deferred maintenance needs must be met in order to mitigate and 
prevent negative economic consequences from impacting our 
entire State, so I am going to bring up the situation with the 
road there in my questions.
    I think we have done our best as a subcommittee to address 
backlog maintenance issues, but really there is not enough 
discretionary funding to meet those needs. You and I have had 
several discussions about the necessity of tackling the 
deferred maintenance backlog at our Nation's park and other 
public lands.
    The principles behind the Public Lands Infrastructure 
proposal contained in the request as well as the Restore Our 
Parks Act which has been championed by my colleague Senator 
Alexander, could certainly help to address the difficulties 
that we face in finding those resources, so we have got some 
work to be doing together there.
    I am looking forward to learning more about how this budget 
proposal fulfills our commitment to science, better prepares us 
for natural hazards, including wildfires, and accomplishes our 
goal of greater stewardship on public lands. I am also eager to 
hear what the Department is doing to ensure funding for 
international wildlife trafficking and conservation issues is 
successfully executed.
    I know we have got a lot of ground to cover and limited 
time this morning. We have got a vote at 10:30, and I know 
Members have many competing committee requirements here this 
morning.
    So Mr. Secretary, I thank you for being here today. Thank 
you for your leadership at the Department. And we look forward 
to the opportunity to discuss the President's budget with you.
    And with that I turn to my colleague and the Ranking 
Member, Senator Udall.


                 opening statement of senator tom udall


    Senator Udall. Thank you very much, Chairman Murkowski.
    And I would like to begin this morning by thanking you for 
your leadership and for working with me so closely on fiscal 
year 2020 appropriations bill. I am very proud of the work we 
accomplished to fund many of the programs we will discuss this 
morning.
    I would also like to welcome Secretary Bernhardt to the 
subcommittee. Good to have you here today. Mr. Secretary, I 
know you are here to discuss the administration's fiscal year 
2021 budget request, but I also want to thank you for visiting 
with me this week and taking time to sit down with the leaders 
of this subcommittee from both chambers to talk about the 
relocation of the Bureau of Land Management.
    Now, it's no secret that I opposed the move, and I still 
have questions and concerns about whether the move will 
actually improve the agency's effectiveness. But the 
reorganization is moving forward, and I am going to do what I 
can to support the Bureau employees during this process.
    One thing I do support is investing more resources on the 
ground in western States, so I was glad to hear that you still 
intend to have more positions on the ground in New Mexico to 
address energy and land management needs. I was also very glad 
to hear that you do not intend to follow through on the threat 
that one of your subordinates made last year to pull resources 
out of my State simply because we had a policy disagreement. I 
appreciate that commitment very much, and so thank you very 
much for that.
    And I want to work with you and with Members of the 
subcommittee to ensure that the BLM has the resources and the 
people it needs to take care of its public lands and to serve 
the public.
    Returning to the budget request, I will say up front that I 
do not plan to focus too much time on the details this morning. 
As you know, and as the Chairman has said, ``President 
proposes, Congress disposes.'' And while I expect that we will 
restore many of these cuts in a bipartisan way, there is no way 
this subcommittee will agree to cut the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund by 97 percent or reduce payments in lieu of 
taxes or cut operating funds for national parks. But this 
budget is a very accurate portrayal of the administration's 
priorities.
    From my perspective, when I look across the landscape, here 
is what I see: In 3 years this administration has actively 
worked to dismantle 50 years' worth of protections from bedrock 
environmental laws, decimated Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monuments, ignoring the voices of Native 
communities; weakened protections for endangered species and 
dismantled migratory bird protections; put an anti-public land 
zealot in charge of managing public lands; adopted a drill-at-
all-cost approach for managing our public lands; and abandoned 
any and all efforts to fight climate change.
    These policy choices are wrong for the environment and 
wrong for the people of our Nation. Simply put, the President's 
vision is moving us backward at a time when we can least afford 
it.
    When the need for us to tackle crises like climate and mass 
extinction have never been more urgent humans are destroying 
nature at a devastating rate, and in the United States we are 
losing a football field of natural area every 30 seconds. Our 
wetlands, forests, and coasts are being destroyed. States have 
identified more than 12,000 wildlife species that need better 
protection. Climate change is threatening every corner of our 
earth. Worldwide, 1 million species risk extinction in the 
coming decades.
    That is why I have called for protecting and restoring 30 
percent of the Nation's lands and waters by 2030. My Thirty by 
Thirty to Save Nature Resolution calls for saving enough of our 
ecosystems before it's too late, and Congress needs to do more 
right now to permanently fund the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund. It sounds like the President now agrees. We talked about 
this momentarily before we came in. And that stands there, and 
it's very good news, I think, for all of us.
    We need to give State, Tribal, and local governments tools 
to address these issues at their level, and we need to invest 
in science programs and then actually listen to what the 
scientists tell us.
    Our country also needs to face down climate change as the 
existential threat to humanity that it is. We must address the 
fact that emissions from fossil fuels extracted on public lands 
account for nearly one quarter of the Nation's greenhouse gas 
emissions. Unfortunately, the Trump administration ripped up 
the 2016 rules to limit methane pollution.
    And we must protect environmentally and culturally 
sensitive public lands from development like the legislation I 
have introduced to protect Chaco in New Mexico developed in 
partnership with New Mexico Tribes who consider this area 
sacred.
    As we transition away from fossil fuels, we must also 
support and protect communities, Tribes, and States that have 
relied on fossil fuels in the process. Transitioning to a clean 
energy economy is for everyone, and no one can be left out.
    Finally, we need to undertake all these actions with equity 
and inclusion as our north star. We cannot ignore the legacy of 
toxic pollution that has harmed so many low income communities 
and communities of color. In particular, we cannot ignore the 
centuries of desecration of Native American sacred sites and 
cultural resources.
    I wish I could say that these practices are in the past, 
but our government literally and tragically desecrated human 
remains by blasting holes in burial grounds and other 
culturally significant sites to construct the President's 
foolish border wall near the Tohono O'odham Nation in Arizona. 
Injustices like these must not be allowed to continue and must 
be addressed through sound policy and out of respect for the 
Federal trust responsibility and the bedrock principle of 
Federal Indian law that have anchored the government-to-
government relationship for more than a century.
    We also need to give Tribes the resources they need to 
protect and conserve their lands and build strong economies for 
their communities, not slash funding from their programs as 
this budget request proposes to do.
    So we have a lot to talk about. So I look forward to 
hearing from you, Secretary Bernhardt, and I hope myself and 
all the Members have an opportunity to ask a number of 
questions here this morning. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Senator Udall. With that, 
Secretary Bernhardt, let's turn to you for your presentation of 
the President's budget request, and then we will have an 
opportunity for the back-and-forth that we look forward to. 
Again, thank you for being here.
STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID BERNHARDT, SECRETARY, 
            DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
    Secretary Bernhardt. Thank you very much Chairman 
Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, Members of the subcommittee.
    I am here today to discuss the fiscal year 2021 budget 
request for the Department of the Interior. I request that my 
written statement be incorporated into the record at the 
appropriate place. Thank you.
    Before I turn to the budget proposal, I want to note that 
171 years ago and one day, on what was the final day of the 
30th Congress, the United States passed the legislation 
establishing the Department of the Interior.
    Therefore, it is notable that yesterday, precisely 171 
years later, President Trump called upon this Congress to send 
him, and I quote, ``a bill that fully and permanently funds the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund and restores our national 
parks.'' I believe President Trump is the first president to 
seek mandatory funding for these items from Congress in that 
171-year history.
    The enactment of such legislation would be historic for the 
cause of conservation. His support for this major initiative is 
extremely significant. And with all due respect, Senator Udall, 
the President's vision is moving us forward, not backward.
    In the year and 3 months that I have led Interior, it has 
become clear to me that the President takes in a lot of 
information when making a decision. And once he makes that 
decision, he wants to see it through. He is willing to lean in 
when facing headwinds. I would also be willing to bet that 
there were some bean counters in the Old Executive Office 
Building last night that were having heart palpitations after 
the President's statement.
    There will be folks who have long-held concerns regarding 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), and they will 
express those concerns going forward. Therefore, I think 
everyone who has expressed support for addressing our deferred 
maintenance backlog and fully funding the LWCF with mandatory 
funding should grab an oar and start rowing together.
    Turning to the matter of today's hearing, I would like to 
begin by thanking the subcommittee and its staff for working 
with the Department last year on a number of key issues. With 
your support we have successfully engaged in a process of 
modernizing how we administer the Freedom of Information Act, 
and we have dramatically restructured the Department's ethics 
program. We have more work to do to be firing on all cylinders, 
but I want to publicly thank you for that effort.
    As this subcommittee knows well, the Department's mission 
directly affects Americans across the country, and its mission 
delivery creates economic benefits through direct investment 
and facilitating private sector activities and contributions. 
The President has been clear in his direction and priorities, 
and he set ambitious goals challenging Federal agencies to 
deliver better results. The fiscal year 2021 budget will allow 
us to continue advancing key presidential priorities.
    We estimate that the Department totals about $12.8 billion 
in current authority, and we will continue to have access to an 
additional $310 million in the event of a severe wildfire 
season. In addition to that, we have roughly $7.5 billion in 
permanent authority available.
    In 2021 we are proposing several targeted investments to 
advance specific objectives and deliver tangible results, and I 
would like to highlight a couple of those.
    First, we propose to strengthen the Department's wildland 
fire and active management capacity. We propose a plan to 
transform the firefighting workforce in order to build a more 
stable and permanent workforce to address threats associated 
with wildfire, and I look forward to talking to you about that.
    We are continuing to expand recreation and access on our 
public lands, and we are requesting additional funding to 
support the Missing and Murdered in Indian Country Taskforce.
    Let me close by saying, Chairman, as you stated in your 
opening statement, the President proposes, and you dispose. I 
learned that reality last year here, and I do appreciate that 
there is a $2.4 billion difference between your 302(b) 
allocation and our budgetary parameters.
    The President has to look at the Department's budget in one 
context, and we have to fit within those parameters. And if you 
were to look at it from that perspective, what you'd see is a 
number of things, and our requests are actually up 
significantly from last year's request.
    That concludes my statement, and I would be happy to answer 
your questions.

    [The statement follows:]
               Prepared Statement of Hon. David Bernhardt
    Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, and Members of the 
subcommittee, I am here today to discuss the President's Fiscal Year 
2021 Budget Request for the Department of the Interior.
    Let me begin by thanking the Committee for working with me last 
year on a number of key issues. I appreciate the fact that respectful 
disagreements of policy have not gotten in the way of our efforts to 
put in place successful reform of the Department's Freedom of 
Information Act program; a strengthened and expanded Ethics Program to 
guide employees and promote a culture of ethical compliance and a 
workplace free from harassment; and the relocation of the Bureau of 
Land Management's Headquarters to Grand Junction, Colorado, a reform 
that will better align BLM's functions with available resources.
                      the fiscal year 2021 budget
    The Department of the Interior's mission directly affects Americans 
across the country. Delivering the Department's mission creates 
economic benefits for the Nation through both direct investment and 
facilitating private-sector activities and contributions. According to 
the Department's current Economic Report, in 2018, lands under the 
Department's jurisdiction generated roughly $315 billion in total 
economic output across the country. The Department also grants access 
to public lands and offshore areas for conventional and renewable 
energy development. In fiscal year 2018, Departmental lands and waters 
produced nearly one-fifth of the Nation's energy, generating roughly 
$150 billion in economic output, which included $7.9 billion in direct 
energy revenue disbursements to States and the Treasury.
    President Trump has been clear in his direction and priorities, 
setting ambitious goals challenging Federal agencies--through 
governmentwide Executive Orders (EOs) and Presidential memoranda--to 
deliver better results. The Department has worked consistently to 
implement the President's agenda for the Department. Investments 
outlined in the President's 2021 budget will allow the Department to 
advance the objectives articulated in Presidential directives.
    The 2021 budget advances key Presidential priorities, including the 
Department's new Plan to Transform the Firefighting Workforce, 
investments in active forest and rangeland management to better protect 
communities from fire, increased access to broadband in rural areas, 
advancement of critical minerals exploration and development, and 
provision of law enforcement needs in Tribal communities. While 
investing in key areas, this budget also supports the administration's 
broader fiscal objectives through targeted reforms and program 
reductions.
    In 2021, the Department will continue to make important operational 
reforms--revisiting outdated and redundant processes and regulations, 
strengthening the Department's ethical culture, and transforming 
internal administrative operations to deliver better service to 
customers and employees.
    The 2021 budget for the Department totals $12.8 billion in current 
authority. The Department continues to have access to additional 
emergency suppression resources via the wildfire cap adjustment in the 
event of a severe wildland fire season. The Department estimates there 
will be an additional $7.5 billion in permanent authority available--
including grants and payments--for specific activities that do not 
require annual appropriation.
    The 2021 budget continues to prioritize taking care of the lands 
and resources we oversee, expanding access to those areas for public 
recreation and enjoyment, and investing to improve the visitor 
experience at our sites. Funding focuses on delivering our direct 
mission activities. In 2021, we are proposing several targeted 
investments to advance specific objectives and deliver tangible 
results, which include the following:

  --Bolstering the Department's capability to address the wildfire 
        seasons.
  --Investing in proactive forest and fuels management activities to 
        reduce wildfire risk.
  --Supporting a broadband access initiative to expand coverage in 
        rural and Tribal areas.
  --Proposing a more sustainable Wild Horse and Burro management 
        strategy.
  --Investing in U.S. energy security and ensuring a reliable supply of 
        critical minerals.
  --Expanding public access to the Department's lands for hunting, 
        fishing, and other outdoor recreation.
  --Addressing the problem of missing and murdered indigenous people in 
        Indian Country.
  --Promoting conservation stewardship focused on recovery and 
        promoting collaborative partnerships.
  --Being a good neighbor by continuing support for Payments in Lieu of 
        Taxes, which are relied upon by communities across the country.
  --Implementing important internal reforms in regulation and 
        processes, ethics, workplace culture, Freedom of Information 
        Act programs, and innovation through administrative shared 
        services.

    The President's 2021 budget carries forward two significant 
legislative proposals related to the Department: a package of 
legislative reforms to improve forest management and reduce wildfire 
risk and legislation to establish a Public Lands Infrastructure Fund. 
Detailed descriptions of these legislative proposals and additional 
proposals for new appropriations language that address other Department 
priorities, can be found at: https://www.doi.gov/budget/appropriations/
2021/highlights.
                               conclusion
    The priorities we have addressed in our request reflect a balanced 
and responsible approach to ensure continued economic prosperity and 
resource management. We are focused on taking care of the resources and 
infrastructure that we have. We are also continuing to make important 
reforms that will allow the Department and its programs to deliver 
better service to stakeholders, our customers, and employees.
    Chairman Murkowski, Ranking Member Udall, this concludes my 
statement and I am happy to answer any questions you may have.

    Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciate 
that overview, and I am sure that colleagues heard your request 
for everyone picking up an oar on Restore our Parks and the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund. These are issues I think that 
we as a subcommittee understand and appreciate. As Chairman of 
the Energy Committee, believe me, I understand and appreciate 
it. But we do, of course, need to be conscious of what we are 
putting on the mandatory side. So these are big issues and 
important considerations.

                 MISSING AND MURDERED INDIGENOUS PEOPLE

    I want to start my questions off. First I want to 
acknowledge what you have included in the budget as it relates 
to Murdered and Missing Indigenous Women, the effort there with 
Operation Lady Justice, and what we can be doing moving forward 
on this. So know that I intend to be working with you, with 
Assistant Secretary Sweeney on this, along with our U.S. 
Attorney in the State and so, so many others on this. So thank 
you for that commitment there.

                        105(L) LEASE AGREEMENTS

    I wanted to talk about an issue that from a budget 
perspective has become more complicated over these past few 
years. We routinely discuss the estimates for these 105(l) 
Tribal lease agreements with Indian Health Service, but this is 
really our first foray into this with the Department of the 
Interior. We knew that we were going to be dealing with this; 
we just were not sure when.
    So the budget proposal includes a request for $21.6 million 
and legislative language for new indefinite appropriations 
accounts similar to what we have done with contract support 
cost.
    But what I am trying to get a handle on is the numbers that 
we are talking about. How many lease agreements that DOI has 
entered into, what the agreements are for, whether they're for 
schools, detention facilities, what's the type of facility. And 
then this estimate that you have arrived at, the $21.6 million, 
can you give me some sense--is this a guesstimate; how did we 
arrive at this number--and really trying to understand going 
forward are we anticipating fairly what the budgetary impact of 
these 105(l) leases will mean to us?
    Secretary Bernhardt. So our budget estimate, the $21.6 
million that we have in there, really is simply a reflection of 
our current engagement and what we estimate to be potential 
interest in projects. And so it's a very short horizon, is 
maybe the best way to say it.
    You know, we signed our first 105(l) agreement in 2019, so 
we are still learning a little bit. The Tribes that we have 
entered into these agreements with have been great Tribes to 
work with, and so I think it's a very good start, honestly. And 
obviously we have proposed legislation to try and address that 
through what we have submitted to you in terms of a cap in a 
way.
    But my view is that we are a long ways from being able to 
tell you with any clear definity, like, 5 years or 10 years 
out, what these could look like because it could be quite 
significant. But I also think we are going to be cautious as we 
move forward with them even though they're mandatory.
    Senator Murkowski. Well, and on that point, I think we know 
where we ended up with the obligation for contract support 
costs. They were required to be paid, and so at some point in 
time you're going to have to even up on it. What we are trying 
to do is really understand what we are dealing with. So if you 
can work with us to help better define this, I would appreciate 
it.
    Secretary Bernhardt. We are happy to try and do that.

                            DENALI PARK ROAD

    Senator Murkowski. I mentioned in my opening the Denali 
National Park road. For those who have not been, you've got one 
road in, and it's the same road out. Its 92 miles, incredibly 
scenic. It is the place that--every tourist who comes to 
Alaska, they want to see Denali, they want to get in on the 
road. It's not an open-access road. You go in by bus so that we 
limit the impact there.
    But what we are seeing, in addition to extraordinary 
visitor participation--600,000 visitors into Denali Park--but 
we have got a situation where that road is experiencing 
slippage. And it's one thing if it's a road on a flat surface; 
it's another thing when it's a road on the top of the side of a 
mountain, and it's quite dramatic.
    So we recognize that this is something that is going to 
have to be addressed in the short term in order to have it open 
for the season coming up in just a couple months; but that long 
term, we have got to have some sustainable options.
    Rerouting is one of the options being evaluated. I know the 
specific route has yet to be clearly determined. My 
understanding is that we have got general contours of the 
possible corridor, but I am hoping that we can, again, figure 
out a way to prioritize this. I know that the President has 
included language within the budget which we greatly 
appreciate, but I need to know that we will be working together 
to ensure that the Parks Service at every level is doing what 
is necessary to ensure that this road remains safe and 
accessible for both the short and the long term.
    Secretary Bernhardt. So I know you had folks up there I 
think last week.
    Senator Murkowski. Yes.
    Secretary Bernhardt. And I have seen some of the contour 
maps. We will absolutely work with you. We have this road and 
we have the road in Theodore Roosevelt, two very similar 
situations where it's the only way in and out. Denali Road, I 
have been up on it on the bus, and I want to make sure that we 
have something that is workable.
    My biggest concern with some of these alternative routes is 
just what is that experience like versus not, and how does that 
relate to the infrastructure that we have at the base. But we 
will absolutely work with you on it.
    Senator Murkowski. Well, thank you. We need to ensure the 
safety of all that are coming into the park there.
    Senator Udall has gone to vote, so I will turn to Senator 
Van Hollen.

                       MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT

    Senator Van Hollen. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Welcome, Mr. 
Secretary. In the past we have talked about the proposed 
changes the Department's making to the Migratory Bird Treaty 
Act. And just to get on the record here, the proposed changes 
you're making would make it impossible for us to have collected 
the $100 million in damages from the Deepwater Horizon spill 
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Isn't that true?
    Secretary Bernhardt. I would have to go back and look at 
that particular settlement agreement. I was not here when it 
was done. I assume that----
    Senator Van Hollen. So you do not--just--just a second--so 
you do not know the answers to whether or not the changes 
you're----
    Secretary Bernhardt. I know full well----
    Senator Van Hollen [continuing]. Suggesting would be----
    Secretary Bernhardt. With all due respect.
    Senator Van Hollen. With respect, just answer the question.
    Secretary Bernhardt. I am sorry.
    Senator Van Hollen. We have gone back and forth on this.
    Secretary Bernhardt. With respect, last year you came 
here----
    Senator Van Hollen. Yes.
    Secretary Bernhardt. And I told you very clearly I would 
love to work with you on legislation if you wanted to go that 
route.
    Senator Van Hollen. Yes.
    Secretary Bernhardt. I have waited a year and not received 
a single phone call. House Members have proposed legislation, 
and we are----
    Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Secretary, I thought you were going 
to reach--I thought we were going to hear from you. I have 
raised this repeatedly not just with you----
    Secretary Bernhardt. Well, I would be happy to meet with 
your staff.
    Senator Van Hollen [continuing]. But with Assistant 
Secretary Wallace. Okay.
    Secretary Bernhardt. I am happy to meet with you at any 
moment.
    Senator Van Hollen. Right, right.
    Secretary Bernhardt. Three circuit courts have taken a 
position that mirrors our position, okay? So at the end of the 
day we are doing this regulation. I would love to work with you 
on this.
    Senator Van Hollen. Okay, Mr. Secretary, I can tell you, BP 
has some really good lawyers.
    Secretary Bernhardt. That's great.
    Senator Van Hollen. And they would--I can assure that----
    Secretary Bernhardt. I am not BP's lawyer.
    Senator Van Hollen. Yes, but you're--well, sometimes you 
are acting like BP's lawyer, and that is the problem here 
because the reality is that BP was fined and then other folks 
$100 million under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act because of the 
massive loss in bird life.
    Secretary Bernhardt. I actually really question----
    Senator Van Hollen. You----
    Secretary Bernhardt. I would have to go----
    Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Secretary----
    Secretary Bernhardt. I'll go back and look----
    Senator Van Hollen. I am asking the questions.
    Secretary Bernhardt [continuing]. But I think it's a 
settlement agreement, with all due respect.
    Senator Van Hollen. Okay. Yes. And how many companies do 
you know----
    Secretary Bernhardt. I do not know.
    Senator Van Hollen [continuing]. Settle if there is no 
legal basis for the argument? So you have essentially 
eliminated--you're eliminating the legal basis that was used 
for getting this fine. I mean, that's a reality. So I am happy 
to work with you.
    Secretary Bernhardt. It's a position taken by multiple 
circuit courts.
    Senator Van Hollen. No, no.
    Secretary Bernhardt. With all due respect----
    Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Secretary, that is not true.
    Secretary Bernhardt. It's absolutely true.
    Senator Van Hollen. No. All right. We will pursue this 
further. Okay? Let me turn to another issue.
    Let me just say on this, Madam Chairman, because we have 
been going back and forth. Your predecessor also sort of dodged 
this question.
    Secretary Bernhardt. I am not dodging. I would love to----
    Senator Van Hollen. Well, you----
    Secretary Bernhardt. I do not believe we have legal 
authority to do it. I am happy to work with you to create that 
authority.
    Senator Van Hollen. Okay. Okay. The reality is $100 million 
was collected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act in the 
Deepwater Horizon case, and I can assure you that if there had 
not been a legal basis for that collection, those who were sued 
under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act----
    Secretary Bernhardt. There was a strict liability, which--
--
    Senator Van Hollen. No, and there are issues. That's 
absolutely--but you've taken it to a whole different place 
where you----
    Secretary Bernhardt. The area where the law requires us to 
go rationally.
    Senator Van Hollen. It does not.
    Secretary Bernhardt. Why are you proposing a new rule if 
the existing rules--well, actually you're incorrect further in 
that we discussed a legal opinion last year, not a ruling.
    Senator Van Hollen. Yes. No, no.
    Secretary Bernhardt. And so we have proposed rulemaking 
to----
    Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Secretary, I'm----
    Secretary Bernhardt [continuing]. To codify that legal 
opinion.
    Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Secretary, we talked about the M-
Opinion.
    Secretary Bernhardt. Right.
    Senator Van Hollen. That was the first step you took.
    Secretary Bernhardt. That was the legal authority.
    Senator Van Hollen. Yes, it is. Exactly. Obviously----
    Secretary Bernhardt. What we are talking about now is a 
rule.
    Senator Van Hollen. Madam Chairman--Mr. Secretary, look. 
That is a legal opinion.
    Secretary Bernhardt. Correct.
    Senator Van Hollen. Okay. Obviously the Department does not 
think that's sufficient, right?
    Secretary Bernhardt. Obviously the Department thinks it 
would be a good practice to codify that legal interpretation 
and rule. And the reason we do what we do----
    Senator Van Hollen. No, the reason, Mr. Secretary, is you 
know that that reinterpretation, the M-Opinion, is on very thin 
legal ground which is----
    Secretary Bernhardt. I actually--I think that's completely 
wrong.

                   INTERNATIONAL CONSERVATION GRANTS

    Senator Van Hollen. But let me ask you about some of your 
programs in Central Africa.
    Secretary Bernhardt. Sure.
    Senator Van Hollen. Maybe we can have some common----
    Secretary Bernhardt. Absolutely.
    Senator Van Hollen [continuing]. Understanding here because 
the Department took the right action, I think, last year. 
Around September there were some reports of some of your 
important antipoaching efforts. Some of the folks who were 
getting contracts were engaged in wrongdoing, and I salute the 
Department for stopping the funding at that point. That was 
last September.
    I guess my question is that there is still $12.3 million 
from fiscal year 2018, and there is also the fiscal year 2019 
and fiscal year 2020 funding. I asked Assistant Secretary 
Wallace about this issue when he was in front of the 
Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee. We plan to get 
together. Do you have a sense of what the plan is to renew 
those?
    Secretary Bernhardt. Yes. Let me be very clear with this 
for you since we had a little dispute on the last one. 43 
U.S.C. 1457 says that I supervise all public business at the 
Department of the Interior, number one.
    Number two, your concept of wrongdoing is really a synonym 
for rapists and murders. Okay? That's where the money went.
    Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Secretary--and it was a good thing 
you stopped it.
    Secretary Bernhardt. So----
    Senator Van Hollen. It was the House of Representatives 
that reached out to----
    Secretary Bernhardt. Absolutely.
    Senator Van Hollen. Which was the right thing to do.
    Secretary Bernhardt. And here's what we're doing.
    Senator Murkowski. Gentlemen----
    Secretary Bernhardt. We are doing a programmatic review----
    Senator Van Hollen. Yes.
    Secretary Bernhardt. And when I get that review done, 
either we will have the ability to prevent that from happening 
or not. I am not sending money where I think it's going to go 
for those types of things.
    Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Secretary, nobody is suggesting 
that.
    Secretary Bernhardt. Actually----
    Senator Van Hollen. And the fact that you would jump to 
that----
    Senator Murkowski. Gentlemen----
    Secretary Bernhardt [continuing]. Is just an example of the 
fact----
    Senator Murkowski. Time is expired.
    Secretary Bernhardt [continuing]. In the heat of your--in a 
confrontational mode I understood you took the same tenor with 
respect to the Ranking Member. If we are going to ever make 
progress on these issues, then we need to be able to have a 
civil conversation.
    I have been back and forth with you and the Department has 
on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act for a long time. I look 
forward to talking with Assistant Secretary Wallace. I am happy 
to talk with you about any legislation.
    Senator Van Hollen. But at least we should be getting 
straight answers with respect to the legal impact of your 
opinions.
    Thank you, Madam Chairman.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you.
    Let's go to Senator Hyde-Smith.

                    VICKSBURG NATIONAL MILITARY PARK

    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And Mr. 
Secretary, first let me thank you for the work you've done for 
the past year at the Department of the Interior.
    I today would like to focus my time on a very significant 
historical site in Mississippi that I am very attached to. The 
Vicksburg National Military Park in Vicksburg National Cemetery 
is located in west central Mississippi within sight of the 
Mississippi. This national park is Mississippi's most visited 
tourist attraction with more than 500,000 visitors a year. But 
more importantly, it is the burial site of more than 17,000 
soldiers from the Civil War Era.
    Over the past 28 months, 28 inches of rain has fallen 
there. The National Park of the Soldiers of the Civil Rights 
Era is suffering tremendous damage from that. The 28 inches of 
rain has caused significant erosion, road damage, and road 
collapses in various sections of the park. This unprecedented 
rainfall has forced park officials to close about 30 percent of 
the park. But even more disturbing to me is the damage that has 
occurred in the Vicksburg National Cemetery.
    Currently there are 64 gravesites of the United States 
African American Troops and other unknown burials that have 
been compromised due to soil erosion from the excessive 
rainfall. I visited the park personally on February the 21st 
and was astonished by the magnitude of damage and the way those 
graves have just slidden into piles of mud.
    Since my visit you have dispatched personal resources to 
begin assessment of the damage of the park, and I sincerely 
thank you for the attention to this issue. But more work has to 
be done, and the Vicksburg Military Park and National Cemetery 
are vital parts of American history. And, of course, the local 
economy has been affected; but more so, those graves have been 
disturbed.
    And I am just asking for your commitment. Will you commit 
to me that you will explore all available resources within your 
Department to address the damages at the Vicksburg National 
Military Park and Cemetery as soon as possible?
    Secretary Bernhardt. So as you said, we have a team there. 
Resources are focused on it. It's obviously a very dynamic 
situation right now, but we are 100 percent there, and we will 
be there, and I will personally work on it. We have a big 
interest in making this right too.
    Senator Hyde-Smith. Thank you very much.
    Secretary Bernhardt. You bet.

                 STE. GENEVIEVE NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK

    Senator Blunt. Well, Secretary, thank you for being here.
    I am glad we continue to talk about the park that's getting 
put in place at Ste. Genevieve. I think Mike Ward, who is the 
superintendent at the Gateway Arch Project has been great at 
keeping an eye on that. There is a new superintendent that's 
designated and onsite now. I think the legislature is moving 
forward with what they need to do to really get that park in 
place.
    I look forward to you having an opportunity to visit. 
Sometimes we get a little more of that put together. I think 
it's going to be one of the great walking historic parks in the 
whole park system and look forward to that.

                     MISSOURI RIVER MANAGEMENT PLAN

    On a topic that's not developed quite as well is our 
Missouri River flooding challenges. About this time last year, 
almost exactly--I think it was around the 12th to the 14th of 
March--we had flooding start earlier than it normally does in 
the very northern corner of the State that affected Kansas and 
Nebraska as well. A lot of what happened then has not been 
remediated because of high water during most of the summer.
    We are talking to the Corps on this, but one of the 
projects that I continue to be concerned about is the Corps' 
focus on some of the fish issues, the pallid sturgeon issue, 
frankly before the Corps knows what would work. Already a 
number of breeding chutes were put in. It turned out they did 
not work. Now the proposal is maybe we do 12 intercepting 
rearing complexes along the course of the river. I think there 
is no particular reason to believe they would work either.
    And what I am wondering is, what can we do to better 
monitor whether something would work before we go full-fledged 
into a dozen locations? And believe me, every minute that's 
spent on that is a minute that's not spent on getting ready for 
what would be this year's flooding challenges.
    Secretary Bernhardt. So one of the things that we are doing 
with the Endangered Species Act implementation is to better 
inform our folks of what our regulations require in terms of 
reasonable certainty and likelihood so that we can be working 
with proposing agencies like the Corps in a way that offers 
them more flexibility.
    I would be happy to have the Service make sure that they 
are communicating with the Corps to ensure that they are 
thinking about these items and with our entire toolkit because 
we really have made some changes to improve that process.
    Senator Blunt. Well, one of the things I would like you to 
for sure communicate is to be sure that you're also talking 
about the impact on flood control and navigation issues as part 
of the discussion as to how to move forward here. Those are 
still priority issues in the whole management plan, but they 
never seem to get the priority considerations over the last few 
years.
    Another thing I would like you to look at is what kind of 
metrics would Fish and Wildlife use to determine, one, if this 
is really a workable plan; and two, if any part of the plan is 
put into place, how do you measure the success?
    So far, again let me repeat, it's taken a lot of time, a 
lot of effort, a lot of Federal money to put things in place 
that then we found out did not work. If you know something's 
going to hurt people and property and you do not know that it's 
going to produce the result, I think there should be more of an 
effort to be sure that you've really tested this in a way that 
the results would be at least positive on the wildlife side if 
you know it's going to be negative on the people and property 
side. And of course all the people involved would believe that 
this should not be a choice that's being made.
    Also, the fish hatcheries, Neosho, I think there is one 
other one on the Missouri River--seem to do a fine job of 
repopulating pallid sturgeon, but I would like a commitment 
from you that we are going to look carefully at the metrics of 
how we measure whether this might work or not and then if you 
try it somewhere, whether it really does work or not.
    Secretary Bernhardt. So I will give you that commitment. I 
will also tell you that the President has expressed that view 
to me multiple times in a broader setting. And we are very 
interested in utilizing human interactions with proposals of 
hatcheries and other things in a number of places.
    Senator Blunt. Good.
    Secretary Bernhardt. So I'll get back to you on it, sir.
    Senator Blunt. All right. Thank you, Secretary.
    Senator Udall [presiding]: Senator Tester.

                    LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

    Senator Tester. Thank you for being here, Secretary 
Bernhardt. I appreciate your representation here for the 
Department of the Interior.
    For four consecutive years this subcommittee has either met 
with you or someone in this position to review President 
Trump's budget and more specifically previous budgets, 
including this one, to get LWCF. And I am pleased that the 
administration has reversed course and is now backing 
permanent, full funding for the best conservation tool we have 
at the Federal level, Land and Water Conservation Fund.
    As you well, know, I have been a supporter of this fund 
since I joined the U.S. Senate, and I am encouraged where we 
are today, very encouraged. I am pleased that some of my 
colleagues who in the past blocked strengthening LWCF are now 
on board. It's a good day, no doubt about that.
    I was curious to know if you were aware of the President's 
change in point of view on fully funding the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. He originally presented it at $14 million. 
Yesterday he tweeted out that he wants to fully fund it 
permanently at $900 million. That's a really good thing. Just 
curious if you know about it.
    Secretary Bernhardt. Well, I would say this. You were not 
here for the opening, but we discussed that a little bit in my 
opening. I will tell you this. I do think that there probably 
were a few folks in the Old Executive Office Building that had 
heart palpitations yesterday afternoon. But look, the President 
makes a decision, and this is one that he felt was very 
important, and he did it.
    Senator Tester. Yes. That's good. So it indicates to me by 
that answer that you really did not know anything about it.
    Secretary Bernhardt. I am not going to discuss my 
conversations with the President.
    Senator Tester. Okay. You answered the question. So the 
question I have next is, will you and President Trump do 
everything that you can--you cannot speak for the President. 
Let me specify ``you.'' Will you do everything you can to 
assure clean passage of bipartisan legislation that is about to 
be introduced to fully fund the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund and to address the Nation's national park maintenance 
backlog?
    Secretary Bernhardt. Yes. So I actually, earlier today in 
this committee, encouraged us all who have an interest in this 
to get together and start rowing because I think it's a 
tremendous opportunity for conservation in America. I think 
it's unprecedented that a president has asked for mandatory 
funding for these things, and we should seize the day, sir.
    Senator Tester. I am with you 100 percent. It's almost too 
good to be true, but we will take it for what it is.
    Secretary Bernhardt. That depends on Congress acting.
    Senator Tester. Yes. Well, Congress is going to act. One 
way or the other, we will act; or if it's held up, not act. But 
fortunately I think we will act.

                  BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LEADERSHIP

    I am going to talk about your Acting Director of the Bureau 
of Land Management (BLM) who is not just bad but horrible on 
public lands. I think you know it, I know it, the papers show 
where he has proposed selling off public lands. And maybe 
that's the goal behind----
    Secretary Bernhardt. Actually he's not. I mean, let's be 
very clear, Senator. Perry Pendley is a former U.S. Marine----
    Senator Tester. I----
    Secretary Bernhardt [continuing]. A former lawyer-----
    Senator Tester. Mr. Secretary, I think he is a great human 
being and served this country, but do not deny--do not deny the 
fact that he has been front and center on selling our public 
lands.
    Secretary Bernhardt. He has not.
    Senator Tester. That is revision history.
    Secretary Bernhardt. Listen to me. Let me be very clear 
with you. The day he walked into the Department one of his 
first acts was to add land to BLM, and he will not--he will not 
support large-scale sales of Federal land or transfer. He will 
not, under my watch at all. He will not.
    Senator Tester. Okay. So the question is, is why would you 
put somebody in that position if you're going to tell him this 
dog does not hunt?
    Secretary Bernhardt. I have complete faith that Perry 
understands the policies of our President and of me and will 
implement them to a tee. If I did not have faith in that, he 
would not be there. I am very confident of that, and nothing 
he's done since he arrived in August would lead me to believe 
there is anything to the contrary to that. I have a lot of 
faith in Perry, and I also have a lot faith in my willingness, 
if I see a deviation, to deal with it. And it has not happened, 
and I do not expect it to happen.
    Senator Tester. It better not happen.
    Secretary Bernhardt. It will not happen.

                      RURAL WATER PROJECT FUNDING

    Senator Tester. The budget for this year cuts funding for 
rural water projects by 79 percent. This is a budget, by the 
way, that adds $1 trillion to our national debt, and we are not 
investing in critical water projects in rural America.
    Could you address that at all other than saying ``you know 
what, Congress, tack on some more money to the debt and pay for 
this program.''
    Secretary Bernhardt. So I think through the budget of the 
Bureau of Reclamation, which is not before us in this 
subcommittee, does what it can with the parameters that it has. 
And we have been very consistent in maintaining our support for 
projects, and we will continue to do so, and we are trying to 
be thoughtful about it. We are also trying to be innovative 
when it comes to partnering and working with project 
proponents. So that is the reality on water.
    Senator Tester. I can also tell you one other reality, it 
does not get built with my good looks; it gets built with 
money. And I think that if we are going to do things like put 
proposals forward--maybe not from your office but from other 
people--to sell our public lands to pay for infrastructure, we 
have got a big problem.
    Secretary Bernhardt. That has not happened in the 
Department of the Interior.
    Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator.
    Senator Rubio.

                         EVERGLADES RESTORATION

    Senator Rubio. Thank you. First, let me thank you and the 
President for historic funding for Everglades Restoration, $250 
million. I hope we continue to sustain that. It's an enormous 
project, an important one.

                            INVASIVE SPECIES

    I want to thank you for working with us on Invasive Species 
which is a growing problem.

                          WILDFIRE PREVENTION

    And I want to also just point to something you talked 
about, wildfire prevention in Florida. We are very proud of how 
we manage our forests. Every year we are going to burn about 
over 2.1 million acres, and we are going to do it responsibly. 
So thank you for all that.

    DRILLING MORATORIUM OFF FLORIDA AND EASTERN GULF OF MEXICO COAST

    We have a very big issue in Florida we have discussed in 
the past, and that is the existing but soon-to-expire 
moratorium on oil and gas drilling off of Florida and eastern 
Gulf of Mexico. Opposition to drilling and exploration, 
extending and/or making permanent this moratorium has unanimous 
support among all Floridians, both political parties at the 
State level, at the Federal level. And the reason is really not 
because of energy per se; it's because of the circumstances in 
Florida that are very unique.
    We have a very important military testing and training 
complex, the Joint Gulf Range Complex, out in the Gulf. And by 
all accounts, without dispute, having exploration out there 
would absolutely undermine this critical resource of the 
country but also important to Florida.
    The House has passed a permanent extension. I think only 
one Member of the delegation voted against it, and it was 
because it was permanent. I, on the other hand, have offered or 
suggested a 10-year extension of the moratorium as a sort of 
compromise approach that provides more certainty for the next 
decade.
    And the Chairwoman, Chairwoman Murkowski, last year, I 
believe, at this very hearing committed to working with us on 
this, and I thanked her for that. I look forward to working 
with her on it. It's really important.
    And as a side note, my colleague from Florida, Senator 
Scott, and I filed a 10-year moratorium as an amendment to the 
energy bill that's on the floor now. We are hoping we can get 
some action on that.
    What I wanted to ask you is, as you formulate the 5-year 
plan for oil and gas lease and sales in the United States, the 
law will require you to consult with State and local leaders of 
the affected areas.
    So I wanted to once again get the commitment that I believe 
I have gotten from you publicly and in our conversations in the 
past, reaffirming that you're going to talk to our local 
delegation, your Department is going to talk to our local and 
State leaders to see what they have to say about oil and gas 
exploration--which I know what it will be--and that those 
concerns are going to be taken into account as those decisions 
are made.
    Secretary Bernhardt. First off, the simple answer is ``absol-
    utely.'' But as you know and as you said, Senator, the 
law requires us to do that. We absolutely will do it. And it's 
also my personal experience that in the entire life of the 
Outer Continental Shelf program that the ultimate plan always 
has deferred to those views.
    So they will be considered. I will reach out when we get to 
that point, absolutely.
    Senator Rubio. And I thank you again. The point I always 
make to my colleagues is this is for Florida, not really about 
energy independence which I support and most of us in the 
delegation support. It has to do with obviously some concern 
about what impact an accident would have on our beaches and on 
our tourism.
    But I think the overriding concern that everyone shares is 
the impact it would have on our Department of Defense 
operations and a very unique testing range which we, frankly, 
cannot replace. I mean, we just do not have anything else like 
it in the continental United States that we could use for very 
important functions.
    So your commitment is important. I look forward to working 
with your Department and ensuring that all the proper input is 
received. And I hope that we can get action on it here in 
Congress because it would provide a level of certainty that I 
think would be welcome in Florida and be important for 
Floridians.
    I guess the Ranking Member. The Chairman is not back yet. 
She should be on her way. I am done with my question. Thank 
you.
    Senator Udall. Thank you very much, Senator Rubio, for your 
participation and being here today. My understanding is she's 
managing the energy bill, so she may or may not be back. But we 
are happy to have you here.
    We have other Republican Members, I think Senator Daines, 
Senator Alexander, and Senator Capito that will be here and 
maybe a few more Democrats. Anyway, thank you, Senator Rubio, 
for your participation today.

                    LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND

    I am heartened by the President's newfound support for the 
Land and Water Conservation Fund. I have been a champion for 
this program my entire career, and I am proud to join Senators 
Manchin, Daines, and Gardner in this combined bill, and I know 
that Chairwoman is very, very interested in seeing us do things 
on conservation.
    I would like to note that this is something President Obama 
supported in his budget request, both permanent and mandatory. 
And I hope the President is sincere in abandoning this 
administration's previous attempts to gut the LWCF. I would be 
more than eager to work across party lines with him to get this 
done for the American people and for future generations.
    Secretary Bernhardt, there is tremendous excitement in the 
conservation community today. Can you assure us that the whole 
administration is now supporting the President's call for 
permanent, mandatory LWCF funding? And will you work with us in 
a bipartisan way to get this done as soon as possible?
    Secretary Bernhardt. So it's not my recollection that 
President Obama's proposal contained the parks proposal, number 
one.
    Number two, the President made his comment, and I am 100 
percent confident everybody's getting in line.
    Senator Udall. Great. That's great. And my understanding, 
you know, originally the sad thing in looking at commissions 
with vision, Laurance Rockefeller, as you know before we had 
the Land and Water Conservation Fund, chaired an outdoor 
commission, and the recommendation of that commission, I 
believe, was spend $1 billion a year because the needs are 
there and it's going to make us a better country. And now in 
recent times we have had several presidents say we are going to 
do that. So if both of are smiling, then that's a good deal.
    Secretary Bernhardt. Yesterday I was looking through some 
old LWCF material, and there was a photo of you, your dad, and 
I assume your brother on a raft at the bottom of the Grand 
Canyon as your dad's talking about it, so I thought that was 
kind of neat.
    Senator Udall. Yes. He had to end up combining business 
trips and family trips together because as you know----
    Secretary Bernhardt. Yes, that would result in a major 
Inspector General investigation today.

                             CLIMATE CHANGE

    Senator Udall. Yes. In those days you could do them both 
together. And the secretary--we had six children, and so we 
ended up doing that. I would like to ask a couple of questions 
about what some scientists are calling our climate emergency.
    I am extremely troubled by the report in Monday's New York 
Times that at least one Department official tried to insert 
inaccurate language in the studies and reports at the Bureau of 
Reclamation and language that denies the scientific consensus 
regarding climate change including the debunked claim that 
increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is beneficial.
    In fact, that Times report says that by 2018 the Bureau 
had, quote, ``adopted a de facto requirement that studies 
reference climate uncertainty,'' end quote, in contravention of 
established science.
    And this story comes on the heels of other reports that 
officials attempted to censor, a National Parks Service report 
on climate, and retaliated against senior employees for their 
climate work.
    Mr. Secretary, you yourself have testified that the climate 
is changing and that humans are a contributing factor. But 
unfortunately you have denied that your Department has any real 
responsibility for doing anything about it. And now this new 
report raises alarms about what the Department is really doing 
behind the scenes with respect to climate science.
    So let me ask a yes-or-no question. Does the Department or 
any of your bureaus have a position, either officially or 
unofficially, to question the scientific consensus that climate 
change is occurring and is human-caused as part of its decision 
documents?
    Secretary Bernhardt. Coming up here today I pulled----
    Senator Udall. Will you give me the yes-or-no before you go 
into the detail there?
    Secretary Bernhardt. I believe fundamentally that the 
Department regularly, in publications, and here's just a few--
we regularly comment on climate. We regularly comment on the 
fact that the climate is changing. And we try and have the best 
information and the best science to do that. And I am happy to 
insert this into the record as just one quick example of 
hundreds of reports that we do.
    [Clerk's note: See the list of USGS publications in the 
appendix at the end of the hearing.]
    Virtually every EIS that we put out has a discussion 
specifically on climate. And so that is the reality, and we 
follow the best science wherever it leads us.
    Senator Udall. Yes. Were you aware that this Interior 
official attempted to insert language in reports that ignores 
well-established climate science? Do you agree with this so-
called uncertainty language that was inserted into multiple 
Department documents and reports? And were any policy decisions 
reached as a result of these faulty assumptions?
    Secretary Bernhardt. Well, let me say a couple things first 
to clarify the record.
    The employee is a long-term career employee who has these 
views as a career employee. I have asked to see what's been 
edited and what's not. But the reality is in reading the 
article there are some things that more scientists than others 
might disagree with or agree with in that article itself. So 
I'll get to the bottom of that.
    But the reality is that the employee is a long-term career 
employee, he has these views just like other experts within 
their fields tend to have views. And those views are regularly 
debated within the scientific community and the Department.
    Senator Udall. And I know I am up, but just let me follow 
up here just a second. I am very happy you're looking at it. I 
hope you will release something so we can settle this, that 
climate change is an existential threat and is human-caused, 
and we ought to be proactive on it.
    The other thing I would note, though, during this 
administration this career employee had a much more low-level 
position and during your tenure and the previous tenure was 
moved into the Deputy Secretary's office to do this.
    Secretary Bernhardt. That's actually not quite true, and I 
want to be careful about that.
    Senator Udall. Okay. Well, tell me what the truth is.
    Secretary Bernhardt. So it's my understanding that he was, 
at some point early in the administration, was detailed to the 
Deputy Secretary's office. I can tell you this: the day I found 
out about that, I undetailed him. So now he's a career person 
in policy management and budget, and that's where he's been.
    Senator Udall. Thank you for your courtesy, Madam Chair.
    Senator Murkowski. Thank you. We are now going to turn to 
Senator Alexander, and Senator Capito will be the last one 
here. Mr. Secretary, I am going to have to excuse myself. We 
have got the energy bill on the floor----
    Secretary Bernhardt. I know.
    Senator Murkowski [continuing]. And I have got to close out 
this vote. Know that I will have included as questions for the 
record some specifics as they relate to the USGS budget which 
you know is very, very important to us up north. Tribal court 
funding I mentioned as well, something on the invasive species, 
and then where we are with hazards: volcanoes, earthquakes, and 
landslides. We have been seeing more than our fair share. We 
just had a pretty significant landslide in Ketchikan just a 
couple weeks ago--along with the wildfire issues which I 
appreciate your initiative on that.
    To my colleague, thank you for helping to wrap up, and to 
Senator Capito.
    But Mr. Secretary, we look forward to spending a little 
more time with you on some of the specifics----
    Secretary Bernhardt. Absolutely.
    Senator Murkowski [continuing]. Of these with you and your 
good team. And with that, I'll turn to Senator Alexander.

       LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION FUND AND RESTORE OUR PARKS ACT

    Senator Alexander. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. 
Secretary, welcome.
    Let me say first how pleased I was to hear comments at the 
opening of your statement about the President's support for the 
Restore Our Parks Act and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. 
I agree that if we are able to pass those two bills and turn 
them into law that it will surely be the most important 
conservation legislation of the last half century, at least 
since the 1960s.
    And one reason for that is we have been trying to do it for 
that long. The Land and Water Conservation Fund was recommended 
by President Johnson's commission, the Rockefeller commission, 
on which I imagine a Udall served. Is that right?
    Senator Udall. That's correct.
    Senator Alexander. Was that your uncle or your father?
    Senator Udall. It was my father.
    Senator Alexander. It was your father. And that was first 
recommended then, and that commission recommended a number of 
provisions that became law. Wild and Scenic Rivers Bill, it was 
very important.
    And at the time it made a lot of sense to say that we are 
going to take an environmental burden and turn it into an 
environmental benefit. We are going to take drilling offshore 
and take some of that money--$900 million a year--and use it to 
buy conservation land. That made a lot of sense.
    The problem was Congress has never done it. They've done 
some of it. Senator Udall and Senator Murkowski fund it every 
year, but we have never funded the full $900 million a year 
regularly as Congress intended in 1964 or 1965.
    That was not the only presidential commission that 
recommended that. In 1985 and 1986 President Reagan appointed 
the President's Commission on Americans Outdoors. That included 
Mo Udall, and I was chairman of it; Pat Noonan, Gilbert, 
Grover, and a number of others. And we recommended at that time 
that the Land and Water Conservation Fund be fully funded.
    The problem has been the Office of Management and Budget, 
and presidents up to date had not been willing to support that. 
So I congratulate President Trump for his decision to do this. 
I think it'd be greatly appreciated by millions of American. 
It's in a long tradition of conservation, not only the Udalls 
and the Rockefellers but Republicans and Democrats for many 
years have supported. And I am hopeful that we can enact it 
while Senator Udall is still a Member of the United States 
Senate and while I am still a Member of the United States 
Senate.
    Now, on the Restore Our Parks Act I heard what you said 
when you were here before, and I assume you have not changed 
your mind. I asked you could you think of any way to deal with 
the deferred maintenance backlog in the national parks other 
than something like the Restore Our Parks Act, and you said no, 
you could not. Is that correct?
    Secretary Bernhardt. That's still my answer, sir.
    Senator Alexander. Yes, I think of the Great Smoky 
Mountains where we have an annual appropriation of about $20 
million but we have a deferred maintenance backlog of $230 or -
40 million dollars. We will never be able to deal with the 
trails, the toilets that do not work, the campgrounds that are 
closed because there is not enough money for that.
    And again, the President--Secretary Zinke, he came to see 
me a couple years ago and asked me to help with this. Senator 
Warner and Senator Portman already were working hard on it. 
Senator King got involved. And so again, we have a bipartisan 
effort, and we have 52 or 53 senators who cosponsor it.
    About that same number cosponsor the Land and Water 
Conservation Fund. And in the House of Representatives we have 
more than 300 on the Restore Our Parks Act and significant 
support for the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
    So my hope is that with the President's clear support and 
your support that Senator McConnell will put this bill on the 
floor with all these Democratic and Republican Senators singing 
in chorus and harmony for a little while, and we will pass it 
and send it to the House and hopefully send it to the 
President, and he will turn it into law. And so I want to 
congratulate you for that.

                               ASIAN CARP

    Now may I ask you one quick question about Asian carp? Some 
people say, ``Why do you worry about fish?'' I say, ``Well, we 
have more people with fishing licenses in Tennessee than we do 
who vote in the Republican primary, so I can count.'' That's 
one reason I worry about them.
    The Asian carp are destroying our recreational fishing 
areas. Senators Udall and Murkowski and others put significant 
money into the budget. How soon are you going to get that money 
out to the State agencies?
    Secretary Bernhardt. Well, we are really working on it, and 
it's going to go out as fast as we can get it out. We are also 
looking at using contractors to reduce priority population, so 
we are on top of it.
    Look, other than the national parks I interact with more 
Members of the Senate and the U.S. House on the Asian carp than 
anything. So clearly we need to be on top of it, and we will 
get that money out. Fish and Wildlife Service has actually 
gotten much better over the last year and a half about getting 
dollars out the door.
    Senator Alexander. Well, our anglers count on us to deal 
with that. We have good State agencies----
    Secretary Bernhardt. Absolutely.
    Senator Alexander [continuing]. And it's a priority of 
Congress, and I am glad it's a priority of the administration. 
We need to deal with it, and I'll continue to be interested in 
your support for it.
    Secretary Bernhardt. Absolutely, sir.
    Senator Alexander. Thank you very much.
    Senator Udall. Senator Leahy, I think you're next in line 
here.
    Senator Leahy. Thank you.
    Senator Udall. And then Senator Capito, we will come to 
you.

                 FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REGULATIONS

    Senator Leahy. Thank you both. I was listening to your 
comments, and you could probably know I was in agreement.
    A lot of the questions that come from here are of a 
bipartisan nature, as you know. And one of the ones we did, a 
group of us Republicans and Democrats joined together to 
address your Department's draft rule and updating its Freedom 
of Information Act regulations.
    As a result, I believe the FOIA rule which was issued in 
October of last year was significantly improved to comply with 
FOIA. Now, a lot of us across the political spectrum believe 
strongly in FOIA, whether it's a Republican or a Democratic 
administration. I thought this was a chance to show what 
happens when you have interbranch consultations.
    Can you assure me that you will consult with this 
subcommittee and other appropriate congressional committees 
with jurisdiction over FOIA before any future proposed rules, 
guidance, or memoranda impacting FOIA compliance are finalized?
    Secretary Bernhardt. So, Senator, I actually brought my 
letter--your letter--to this hearing because I wanted to thank 
you for working with us on it.

    [The letter follows:]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    I do not know if we would have been able to finalize that 
rule without your help, and I just want you to know, first off, 
thank you for that. And absolutely, I do not contemplate us 
having a proposed rule; but if we do, we will absolutely come 
up here and talk to you about it.
    Senator Leahy. I thank you for that, and I appreciate it. 
Obviously you knew I would raise this issue because FOIA is 
very important to all of us, openness in any administration. 
And the people I worked with in FOIA on the other side of the 
aisle would have taken exactly the same position whether it's 
been a Democratic administration or a Republican administration 
because the American people should know what any administration 
is doing.
    Now, fiscal year 2020 we appropriated $1 million to expand 
the Department's FOIA staff because there are chronic backlogs 
and delays. How many additional FOIA-related staff has been 
hired with the $1 million we gave your Department, and what's 
the current backlog?
    Secretary Bernhardt. Well, the current backlog remains 
significant. I can get you those numbers specifically. I 
actually met with the FOIA team last week, but I do not have 
the numbers we have hired; but I know we had many new hires in 
there, and I am happy to provide that to you.
    Senator Leahy. Could you provide that, say, within the next 
week?
    Secretary Bernhardt. Well, it's a factual question. I 
should be able to provide it pretty quickly.
    Senator Leahy. And what the backlog is.
    Secretary Bernhardt. Oh, well, that we can give you at the 
same time. Let me tell you, though, the backlog is very, very 
significant. And about five requesters make up, I think, almost 
20 percent of our requests. So we have people that are just 
filing nonstop. But it's also a significant issue for us in the 
field. I mean, we have been inundated in the field. But I am 
happy to get you the numbers.
    Senator Leahy. Thank you.

                  INVASIVE SPECIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE

    And we have talked about invasive species, and you say you 
get a lot of calls on that. In my State of Vermont we believe 
in environmental stewardship. Again, something that's not a 
Republican or Democrat; we all believe it. Outdoor recreation, 
billions of dollars to our State annually. Lake Champlain, a 
major economic driver. But I see the erosion of environmental 
laws and protections. I see a number of unqualified science 
deniers in your Department.
    The Department announced the discontinuation of the 
Invasive Species Advisory Committee, which worked for 20 years. 
Now, I believed that saved about $30 thousand. Invasives have 
created more than $120 billion of damage to our economy 
annually. What did we save by getting rid of that?
    Secretary Bernhardt. So from my perspective, Senator, it's 
really not a question of savings. When the task force was 
originally set up, invasives were sort of a novel concept. And 
since then our thinking on invasives has changed dramatically 
over the last 20 years. And so we have very robust programs and 
very robust partnerships within each of our bureaus as they 
relate to invasives. And so it's really a question of need and 
what you get for that expenditure of time.
    Look, we are very committed to work on invasives, whether 
it's in Florida, whether it's in your State, whether it's in my 
home State of Colorado. We face real threats on these, and we 
are making real investments in it, and we have a lot of 
partnerships on it.
    Senator Leahy. Okay. Could you do this: It seems to be a 
catchword ever since the time, unfortunately, many 
administrations ago when the secretary, everything he gave an 
answer to had to use the word ``robust'' in it, the most 
overused word.
    Secretary Bernhardt. Well, I may have done that. I 
apologize. I do not use it very often.
    Senator Leahy. No, but the thing is, ``robust'' does not 
explain what you have. So would you let me know what these----
    Secretary Bernhardt. Like, the total for invasives?
    Senator Leahy. Yes, and let me know what the groups are in 
your Department that are actually working on invasives.
    Secretary Bernhardt. I can absolutely do that. I am certain 
it's well over $100 million. Well over.
    Senator Leahy. Okay. Because we have 50 invasive species in 
Lake Champlain alone, and there has to be some coordination.
    Secretary Bernhardt. I absolutely will get it to you.
    Senator Leahy. Yes, 175 entities working on it. Okay. I 
would like to know that. Thank you very much.
    Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
    Senator Capito.
    Senator Capito. Thank you, Senator. Welcome. And it's great 
to see you again.

                 CANAAN VALLEY NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE

    I think you know what a high priority that visitors' center 
that we visited together with Senator Manchin at the Canaan 
Valley National Wildlife Refuge. And we are going to be 
together again, I think, in early June to see the completion of 
that $7 million facility.
    You know, when you look at the estimation of the economic 
benefit to this facility and also other such facilities in the 
Wildlife Refuge system. It's millions of visitors and has an 
impact of billions of dollars.
    And also, I think as you noticed when we were there 
together, it's a great partnership with the State because of 
the coordinating of resources there.
    So I know that it has slipped a little bit in terms of the 
target date for opening the new visitors' center, and I wanted 
to ask you a status update. Is everything on cue to begin in 
June?
    And also, along with that, I know the Elkins field office 
of Fish and Wildlife is going to be moving there, which will be 
the centralized area. How is that going--do you need to hire 
new people into that, because I know our main person recently 
retired--and the status of the move of Fish and Wildlife to 
that facility.
    Secretary Bernhardt. So you're spot on. I mean, the reality 
is construction is essentially done, and refuge staff will be 
moving in this week. We expect the folks in the Elkins field 
office to relocate to the building over the next two weeks, and 
we will have, basically, a real opening of the office portion 
on or around March 18.
    And then the visitors' center, as you said, will follow 
along. It just needs some internal stuff done to it. So I think 
early summer is right on. But we are on target. In terms of 
hiring----
    Senator Capito. So I would remind you to remember to bring 
your fishing gear.
    Secretary Bernhardt. Absolutely. I am. Or actually we have 
a bigger problem in that I went home and talked to my boy about 
it, and he was, like, well, I need to bring him.
    Senator Capito. Good.
    Secretary Bernhardt. So he will probably be with me that 
day.
    Senator Capito. Great. Great. Well, we look forward to 
that, and that will be a great enhancement to really the entire 
area of the State, and thanks for your commitment to that.
    Secretary Bernhardt. You bet.

                          WHITE-NOSE SYNDROME

    Senator Capito. We are talking about species. The bat 
species is one that West Virginians wrestle with, whether it's 
the little brown bat, the Indiana bat, the northern long-eared 
bat; and the white-nose syndrome has been part of this.
    What are you seeing there? Are you seeing the bat 
population declining? Because the problem is, any time we want 
to do any timbering or anything else, we have to set up 
habitats, and it just prolongs the ability to move forward.
    Secretary Bernhardt. Well, I do think our scientists are 
making strides. The Geological Survey and the Fish and Wildlife 
Service have developed a vaccine that might provide immunity 
against the fungus causing white-nose syndrome.
    USGS is working on some tools to monitor bats and control 
the spread, and we are continuing to research changes to 
hibernation sites, microbes that bats are carrying on their 
skin.
    The budget that we put forward has about $6 million, and 
frankly the 2020 enacted has 12, and we have not spent through 
that. So we have the resources, and I think we are making 
progress on that. I am sorry to get you all choked up.
    Senator Capito. I am going to stop there. Thank you.
    Secretary Bernhardt. I am sorry.
    Senator Udall. Take some water with you, Senator Capito. 
Thank you so much.
    Senator Daines, please?
    Senator Daines. Thank you, Ranking Member Udall.

                        CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE

    Secretary Bernhardt, it's good to have you here today on 
the Hill.
    I want to talk about a couple issue that are important back 
home in Montana. The first is chronic wasting disease. We are 
seeing this emerging across our State. In fact, we call it, of 
course, CWD, a fatal disease. It affects deer, elk, moose 
across the west; and unfortunately Montana is no exception. In 
fact, last year 13 percent of our hunter-harvested or trapped 
deer tested positive for CWD in Libby last year up in the 
northwest corner of our State. CWD threatens the viability, the 
health of the species, the future of hunting, and the hunting 
economies that thrive and drive our conservation programs.
    It's clear from the data the risk now is only spreading. I 
know you are another western guy from Rifle, Colorado. You get 
it. You've had a rifle over your shoulders much of your life 
like I have. I appreciate the attention of the U.S. Geological 
Survey to CWD and am pleased to know they're working with the 
Boone and Crockett Club through its research endowment at the 
University of Montana where my father attended, in fact, many 
years ago.
    My question for you, Mr. Secretary, is this issue also 
falls under the scrutiny and the authority of the USDA and 
States. Could you describe the activities being coordinated 
between these entities to address chronic wasting disease.
    Secretary Bernhardt. Absolutely. Like you, when I got to 
the Department I was stunned at what we were investing in 
chronic wasting disease because I had been there 8 years 
earlier and we had much more resources invested. And the truth 
is, it's spread to many more States than it was then.
    I have tasked my career science advisor, Bill Werkheiser, 
really in the first weeks that I became Secretary, to reach out 
to the State wildlife association, the Association of State 
Fish and Wildlife Agencies. We want to coordinate with them.
    We have also brought the USDA along. And I think that with 
the additional resources you all gave us last year, I think we 
are beginning to turn the page on having a Federal plan that 
coordinates with the various States.
    You're absolutely right that there is, at times, a 
disconnect between State wildlife agencies and State 
agriculture agencies; and sometimes that disconnect exists at 
Ag. But I feel very comfortable that we have Secretary Perdue's 
support. He is a hunter. He gets this issue. He has a 
beautiful, absolutely phenomenal elk in his office. Not quite 
as big as my moose, but it's beautiful.
    And so I think we are on the same page. We are working with 
the States. We want to work with them to the extent that they 
identify best practices. We want to make sure that we are 
applying them on our land. But look, this is a very important 
issue.

                          COTTONWOOD DECISION

    Senator Daines. Speaking of important issues--and thank you 
for continuing to work with Secretary Perdue and the 
coordinated effort here to help us in Montana.
    I want to talk about the Cottonwood decision, the issue. 
While both the Department of the Interior and Forest Service 
have made strides to better manage our forests, the reality is, 
Mr. Secretary, the litigation from these fringe groups is what 
has continued to delay these critical projects.
    One lawsuit is jeopardizing over 130 projects in Montana. 
This particular case is one of many copycat lawsuits that 
follow the 9th Circuit's Cottonwood decision. The Forest 
Service is telling me to clean fix this disastrous--it's 
disastrous. We just lost a mill outside of Townsend, Montana, 
the RY mill. Sixty jobs gone. Surrounded by national forests, 
and we cannot get enough logs into our mills.
    We have had multiple requests for information. I have yet 
to hear the views of the Fish and Wildlife Service as it 
relates to this Cottonwood decision.
    My question for you is, do you believe the Cottonwood 
decision hinders proper Forest and Wildlife Management, and 
would you support a legislative fix?
    Secretary Bernhardt. So we worked on our regulations 
earlier this year to address the decision, I thought, in a way 
that would work. I was recently contacted by the Secretary who 
has some additional concerns with that. But we want to make it 
very clear that way the issue is addressed is through 
legislation. There is no question about that. And so we 
recognize that and certainly would be happy to work with you on 
that.
    Senator Daines. Thank you.
    Could I ask one more question?
    Senator Udall. Go ahead, Senator Daines.

                   ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT REGULATIONS

    Senator Daines. Thank you, because I cannot help but to 
talk about grizzly bears and the Endangered Species Act while I 
have got you here, having spent a good part of Friday up along 
the Rocky Mountain front.
    My grandfather was born in Conrad in 1918. My great-great-
grandma homesteaded 23 miles east of Conrad. And I see grizzly 
bears all over the Plains like they were when Lewis and Clark 
came through as a Plains animal.
    Keeping with this theme of the Endangered Species Act--and 
of course that was tied with Cottonwood--I want to turn to your 
recently published rulemaking.
    Currently less than 2 percent of species listed in the ESA 
have been recovered. And even if a species is recovered, as we 
saw with both the grizzly bear and the gray wolf in Montana, it 
will most assuredly be tied up in litigation for years, 
effectively replacing the expertise wildlife biologists, with 
that, politically appointed judges; and even worse, at the 
mercies of the 9th Circuit Court.
    You've been criticized as gutting the Endangered Species 
Act (ESA) and eliminating protections of the endangered 
species. Could you respond to why that's not the case and how 
your recent regulations actually incentivize conservation and 
will strengthen ESA protections.
    Secretary Bernhardt. Yes. So, you know, the reality is both 
the gray wolf recovery and the conservation situation of the 
grizzly bears are great conservation successes. And I'll be 
talking to you probably early next week about some additional 
ideas we have for problem bears.
    But our regulations maintain in their entirety the 
requirement that we list species and make determinations and 
delisting species based on the best commercial and scientific 
data available. And it requires that we look at the five-
statutory factors and nothing else. So we maintain the 
integrity of the law, unquestionably.
    What we have done is suggest that when we do a threatened 
listing we will tear at each rule to the specifics of that 
species. And I fundamentally believe that enhances conservation 
opportunities because for a particular species, if we can 
target conservation efforts up front, I think we really can 
minimize the hostility and concern that folks have on the 
application of the Act.
    We have also worked very hard to change the regulations we 
have where Federal agencies consult with us to ensure that they 
have a little more flexibility, but the standards of avoiding 
jeopardy, avoiding the destruction of critical habitat or the 
adverse modification of it, do not change. And we will be 
relentless in effectuating that.
    But there are things that were not thought about when the 
regulations were written in 1986 that we learned in 
implementing these regulations, and so we have modernized them.
    And I will tell you this: I spend a lot of time with the 
folks in the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the more they've 
been able to work with these new rules, the more enthusiastic 
they are about them. That maybe does not take care of everybody 
in the peanut gallery, but the reality is the people that 
implement these are seeing the benefits to the species and to 
our program from it.
    You know, grizzly bears are a great example of a great 
conservation success. But you know how it could go south is if 
the problem bears have problems with people and we have a 
really bad interaction. And we want to do everything we can to 
avoid that as these successes are occurring.
    Senator Daines. Mr. Secretary, I spend a lot of time in the 
back country. And in fact, when we are backpacking my wife and 
I take our two mini Australian shepherds. They're part of our 
deterrent. I carry my bear spray.
    Secretary Bernhardt. They're a really good deterrent.
    Senator Daines. They are. They are, so we do not surprise a 
bear. And it is a great success story of what's happened with 
the grizzly bear. And it is time to delist the bear based on 
the science and the quantifiable data----
    Secretary Bernhardt. Undoubtedly.
    Senator Daines [continuing]. And return that authority back 
to the States to manage the species as we have done 
successfully with other predators; for example, the gray wolf.
    If we look at the livestock losses in Montana year after 
year now, I'll tell you that mountain lions are staying 
relative static. Wolves now are not the big-dollar issue. The 
grizzly bears are skyrocketing off the chart.
    This is an issue for our Ag industry. It's an issue for 
parents who early morning they want to walk their kids to the 
bus stop. They're having to carry a sidearm and a flashlight as 
they walk their kids up because we have got so many grizzly 
bears.
    So we should celebrate the success, return the authority 
back to the State of Montana to manage the species as we have 
done successfully with the gray wolf.
    Secretary Bernhardt. We recognize that. We are going to 
work with you. The Service is prepared to put out some 
guidance, and I'll talk to you about that.

         LAND AND WATER CONSERVATION AND RESTORE OUR PARKS ACT

    Senator Daines. Great. And let me just close with a 
statement.
    I want to thank you for your earlier statement about your 
support with this initiative on the Land and Water Conservation 
Fund and Restore Our Parks Act. This is a great moment for 
Congress. It goes back to 1965 with Land and Water Conservation 
Fund. And looking at the last 10 years, the oil and gas 
offshore revenue has been between $3- and nearly $9 billion a 
year; and by statute is says we should fund it up to $900 
million. It's time to do that with full mandatory funding.
    I thank you for your comments. We have an opportunity. The 
President's fully onboard. Senator Gardner, I met with him on 
Thursday. We showed him wonderful pictures and maps of what's 
going on in places like Montana and Colorado, using land and 
water conservation with these bottom-up driven projects 
supported by our local communities. And I am really pleased to 
see this for the President, the Majority Leader, and it is time 
now for Congress to Act.
    So we will be sharing more today at a news conference in a 
bipartisan way. There are few issues that unite Congress 
anymore. Our public lands still remains one of them.
    Secretary Bernhardt. Clearly you and Senator Gardner were 
very persuasive.
    Senator Daines. Well, thank you. And thanks for being here, 
Secretary Bernhardt.
    Senator Udall. Thank you so much, Senator Daines, and we 
look forward to working with you on the permanent mandatory 
funding on land and water conservation.
    Congratulations on all your good work there, and let's get 
it across the finish line.
    Senator Daines. Ranking Member, did you ever think we would 
ever be having this conversation? We have been pushing and 
pushing, and we have a moment here. And thank you for your 
support, by the way, too, Tom.

                           ENDANGERED SPECIES

    Senator Udall. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your 
questions today.
    And thank you, Secretary Bernhardt, for making the point 
about our successes on endangered species. I mean, I would add 
the bald eagle.
    Secretary Bernhardt. Absolutely.
    Senator Udall. And there are many others where we have had 
really, really great successes. And I think people understand 
and know that as we talk about these keystone species, really 
what we are talking about is ecosystems that are being 
endangered. And everybody knows, you know, that human beings 
get enormous ecosystem services from having healthy ecosystems, 
and it's your Department that oversees and tries to do 
everything it can with you and the career people to push that.
    And the bottom line is, our healthy ecosystems are our life 
support system, and I really think that's very, very true.

                  CHACO CULTURE NATIONAL HISTORIC PARK

    I want to thank you for your willingness to work with me--I 
am talking about Chaco now, changing the subject.
    I just have two final questions, and I think we will have 
you out of here pretty quickly.
    I want to thank you and the Department for your willingness 
to work with me, our New Mexico delegation, the Tribes on 
protecting the area around Chaco Culture National Historic 
Park.
    As you know, this area is a complicated mix of BIA-managed 
land, Indian allotted land, and BLM-managed public land.
    And it's right on the doorstep of a wild and irreplaceable 
landscape that has huge cultural significance to the Tribes. 
It's my understanding that much of the Federal land surrounding 
the park has already been leased, and the development on Tribal 
allotment lands continues to this day.
    But given pressures on the remaining resource values, which 
the Department itself has recognized through an informal 
leasing moratorium and a more recent secretarial order, there 
is a real need for further protections.
    And that's why I was very proud to include language in the 
fiscal year 2020 Interior bill that blocks new oil and gas 
leasing within the 10-mile buffer zone surrounding the Park 
while the Department works with Tribes to prepare a cultural 
resources study guide for future development and to provide $1 
million to the Department to fund the study once the Tribal 
consultation was completed.
    Now, first question: The informal moratorium on the new oil 
and gas leasing in a 10-mile area around Chaco Canyon has been 
in effect since 2014. Is that correct?
    Secretary Bernhardt. That is not my understanding, Senator. 
The reason no leasing occurred over the last year is because I 
went to Chaco with Senator Heinrich and a number of the Tribes, 
and I made that commitment for a year. And we are keeping that 
commitment. So that's why nothing has happened.
    Senator Udall. I think there is been an informal moratorium 
since 2014, and I think you've continued that, which I think 
is----
    Secretary Bernhardt. I honestly do not. I am happy to look 
at that.
    Senator Udall. And this moratorium has not applied. The 
informal one I am talking about has not applied to allotted 
lands, just to Federal lands. Is that right?
    Secretary Bernhardt. So I think you're highlighting an 
issue that has a little subtlety, and I do not want to leave 
you with a misimpression.
    Legislative proposals have tried to make clear that the 
moratorium would not affect allotted land. I think--and this is 
something you can talk to the allottees about because I do not 
want to misrepresent their position--but I think here is their 
concern, is that if operators are able to access certain public 
lands, they will not actually develop their allotted lands. And 
I am not asking you to make a judgment call on it; I am just 
telling you that is my understanding of the concern.
    And so you would see in our proposed plan we have a whole 
series of alternatives, and some of those alternatives--you 
know, at one time I thought there would be a consensus Tribal 
alternative, but it turned out that there are a few views in 
there. I am not trying to weigh in with you one way or another 
on these, but that is the ultimate issue, I think, and that is 
something that people need to weigh in whatever way you weigh 
it.
    Senator Udall. Yes, yes. Well, the allotted lands--my point 
was, is there is nothing that has been done that has prevented 
the allotted lands from continuing to receive their resources.
    Secretary Bernhardt. Well, that would be true with the 
exception that--and I am, again, not making this argument--but 
there are some allottees I know, because I have met with them, 
that fundamentally believe that development is unlikely to take 
place and they essentially will have a stranded asset. I am not 
asking you to agree with that, but that is their heartfelt 
concern.
    Senator Udall. Yes, but all the allottees who were 
producing subsurface rights have received royalty payments 
throughout this time, have they not?
    Secretary Bernhardt. I would have to look at that, but I--
--
    Senator Udall. Well, that's my understanding.
    Secretary Bernhardt. It would not be impacted by the BLM 
leasing.
    Senator Udall. Yes. Yes.
    Now, moving to the relationship between the mandated 
cultural resource study and the current Regional Management 
Plan process. What is the status of the Cultural Resource 
Study? When should we expect the Department to conduct its 
required Tribal consultation? And how soon will work actually 
begin?
    Secretary Bernhardt. So I can get back to you with the 
specific dates, but there is no holdup on our end. We 
understand you provided the money. We want to do the work. So 
there is nothing to my knowledge, and there is certainly no 
direction that's been given that's holding it up in any way, 
shape, or form. I'll get to the bottom of that for you.
    Senator Udall. Okay. Well, we'd be happy to have an answer 
for the record on the timing and everything I asked about.
    Secretary Bernhardt. Okay. Absolutely.
    Senator Udall. The Department just released a proposed 
Resource Management Plan for the Farmington region, including 
the area around Chaco which includes alternatives that would 
limit development within 5-, 10-, and 15-mile zones around the 
park. It appears that this planning is proceeding without any 
direct connection to the cultural resources study that was just 
funded, which does not make much sense to me.
    What's the schedule for finalizing the RMP? If you fit 
those two together----
    Secretary Bernhardt. I do not think they're in conflict at 
all. This is a proposed plan. It's also a plan that's proposed 
by both BLM and BIA, so I think they should fit together just 
fine. And even if the plan were finalized, there is nothing 
that would prevent us from using the work of the study. So I 
just do not see that as items that are on inconsistent pathways 
at all.
    Senator Udall. Yes. I am not arguing with inconsistent 
pathways. I hope the Department waits to finalize the plan 
until the Tribal study is complete so that Tribes can have 
substantial input into the agency's final action.
    Secretary Bernhardt. Well, the Tribes are having input in 
addition to the study by communicating about the plan, which 
they're a cooperating agency on, I believe. But I will go back 
and make sure that those are lined up for you.

                           BLM REORGANIZATION

    Senator Udall. Okay. Just a couple of questions on the BLM 
reorganization. And thank you for getting back to us on that 
and putting that answer in the record.
    Mr. Secretary, we had a good meeting on Monday to discuss 
the Department's decision to move BLM headquarters out of 
Washington, DC. I appreciate your commitment to expanding 
resources in the field in New Mexico.
    I think it would be helpful for you to discuss the status 
of relocation. We have heard that many senior Bureau employees 
retired or left the Bureau in the last 6 months due to the 
uncertainty this decision has caused and that these staff 
losses will make it difficult for BLM to manage its programs 
like the Wild Horse and Burro Program which received a 20 
percent funding increase this fiscal year, and you single out 
for another significant increase in the 2020-2021 budget 
request.
    Please walk us through some of the numbers. How many 
positions are moving out of Washington, DC? How many of those 
are filled? And how many are vacant?
    Secretary Bernhardt. First off, I appreciate the question. 
I am not at all concerned about our ability to implement the 
Wild Horse and Burro Program. Not only the $21 million but the 
additional $14 million on top of that 21 that we have asked you 
for.
    I would be happy to provide the subcommittee with the 
numbers that I provided you with earlier in the week. I do not 
have them with me, and I do not want to misstate a number 
publicly. I will say this, that since Monday I received 
feedback on a number of panels that are doing interviews, and 
the caliber of people and the number of people we have applying 
for these jobs is off the roof and phenomenal. But I will get 
the numbers to you. I just do not want to misstate a number.
    Senator Udall. Okay.
    Secretary Bernhardt. And I do not want to leave people with 
a misimpression in any way, shape, or form.
    Senator Udall. Okay. We'd be happy to get those for the 
record.
    Secretary Bernhardt. Sure.
    Senator Udall. Thank you very much.
    Maybe these are for the record too, but how many staff were 
given directed reassignments, and how many people accepted 
those reassignments and plan to relocate? Is that part of what 
you're going to send?
    Secretary Bernhardt. I can give you the exact numbers, but 
it's roughly--and I can provide those--but it's roughly 173, 
and I think 80 accepted. Some had retired earlier or left 
earlier, and whatever the remainder would be. But I am happy to 
get you those numbers.
    Senator Udall. Okay. And how many senior BLM positions are 
vacant or temporarily filled in an acting capacity?
    Secretary Bernhardt. Well, a lot of those positions were 
filled with acting people well before we began the relocation. 
So I'll go back and get those for you too.
    Senator Udall. Okay. And what is the Department's plan to 
ensure that BLM is fully functional during this transition and 
that its programs have sufficient staffing and oversight 
despite the current level of staffing?
    Secretary Bernhardt. So I feel very confident about that. 
We have already began maintaining an office in Grand Junction. 
We are rotating folks through it to beta test it. I want it 
battle-tested and hardened by the end of the year when the 
lease for M Street expires. And I feel very confident that we 
are headed along a course that we are going to be very 
successful with this.
    We have also ensured that we have backups for our ADAs and 
our divisional chiefs, so I feel like we are in pretty good 
shape right now, honestly.
    Senator Udall. Great. Thank you very much for the answers, 
and we look forward to getting the answers on the positions 
that you did not have off the top of your head, which is fully 
understandable.
    Secretary Bernhardt. Sure.
    Senator Udall. This concludes today's hearing.
    Secretary Bernhardt, we appreciate you appearing before our 
subcommittee today. The hearing record will remain open for 1 
week from today. Senators may submit written questions for the 
record. We ask the Department to respond to them within a 
reasonable amount of time.

                         CONCLUSION OF HEARINGS

    The subcommittee stands in recess.
    Secretary Bernhardt. Thank you.
    [Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., Wednesday, March 4, the hearings 
were concluded, and the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene 
subject to the call of the Chair.]


                                APPENDIX

                       List of USGS Publications

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]