[Senate Hearing 116-165]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 116-165
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT,
AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS
FOR FISCAL YEAR 2021
=======================================================================
HEARINGS
BEFORE A
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
on
H.R. 7612
AN ACT MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER
30, 2021, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
__________
Department of the Interior
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-186 PDF WASHINGTON : 2022
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, Chairman
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont,
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee Vice Chairman
SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine PATTY MURRAY, Washington
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
ROY BLUNT, Missouri JACK REED, Rhode Island
JERRY MORAN, Kansas JON TESTER, Montana
JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi BRIAN SCHATZ, Hawaii
STEVE DAINES, Montana TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
MARCO RUBIO, Florida CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
Shannon Hutcherson Hines, Staff Director
Charles E. Kieffer, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Department of the Interior, Environment, and Related
Agencies
LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska, Chairwoman
LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee TOM UDALL, New Mexico, Ranking
ROY BLUNT, Missouri Member
MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CINDY HYDE-SMITH, Mississippi JACK REED, Rhode Island
STEVE DAINES, Montana JON TESTER, Montana
MARCO RUBIO, Florida JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
RICHARD C. SHELBY, Alabama, (ex CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
officio)
Professional Staff
Emy Lesofski
Lucas Agnew
Nona McCoy
Rachael Taylor (Minority)
Ryan Hunt (Minority)
Melissa Zimmerman (Minority)
Administrative Support
Anna Lanier Fischer
Teri Curtin (Minority)
C O N T E N T S
----------
hearings
Wednesday, March 4, 2020
Page
Department of the Interior....................................... 1
----------
back matter
List of Witnesses, Communications, and Prepared Statements....... 77
Subject Index:
Department of the Interior................................... 79
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
``absolutely.'' 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:]
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.
SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS
The subcommittee stands in recess.
Secretary Bernhardt. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., Wednesday, March 4, the
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of
the Chair.]
APPENDIX
List of USGS Publications
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
LIST OF WITNESSES, COMMUNICATIONS, AND PREPARED STATEMENTS
----------
Page
Bernhardt, Hon. David, Secretary, Department of the Interior:
Prepared Statement of........................................ 7
Statement of................................................. 5
Murkowski, Senator Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska, Opening
Statement of................................................... 1
Udall, Senator Tom, U.S. Senator From New Mexico, Opening
Statement of................................................... 3
SUBJECT INDEX
----------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Page
105(L) Lease Agreements.......................................... 9
Asian Carp....................................................... 24
BLM Reorganization............................................... 35
Bureau of Land Management Leadership............................. 17
Canaan Valley National Wildlife Refuge........................... 27
Chaco Culture National Historic Park............................. 32
Chronic Wasting Disease.......................................... 28
Climate Change................................................... 20
Cottonwood Decision.............................................. 29
Denali Park Road................................................. 9
Drilling Moratorium Off Florida and Eastern Gulf of Mexico Coast. 18
Endangered Species............................................... 32
Act Regulations.............................................. 30
Everglades Restoration........................................... 18
Freedom of Information Act Regulations........................... 24
Letter from Senators Grassley, Leahy, and Cornyn to Secretary
David Bernhardt Expressing Appreciation for the Changes
Reflected in the Department's Finalized Rule............... 25
International Conservation Grants................................ 12
Invasive Species................................................. 18
Advisory Committee........................................... 26
Land And Water Conservation:
And Restore Our Parks Act
Fund
List of USGS Publications........................................ 37
Migratory Bird Treaty Act........................................ 10
Missing and Murdered Indigenous People........................... 8
Missouri River Management Plan................................... 15
Rural Water Project Funding...................................... 17
Ste. Genevieve National Historic Park............................ 14
The Fiscal Year 2021 Budget...................................... 7
Vicksburg National Military Park................................. 14
White-Nose Syndrome.............................................. 28
Wildfire Prevention.............................................. 18
[all]