[Congressional Record Volume 163, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 28, 2017)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1458-S1462]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
EXECUTIVE CALENDAR
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the following
nomination, which the clerk will report.
The bill clerk read the nomination of Ryan Zinke, of Montana, to be
Secretary of the Interior.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Washington.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the
nomination of Congressman Ryan Zinke to be Secretary of the Interior.
The Secretary of the Interior is one of the most important jobs in
the Federal Government and even more so for people in the West. I know
the Presiding Officer would agree with that.
The Department of the Interior has an incredibly broad portfolio. It
is responsible for managing our Nation's public lands, our national
parks, our national wildlife refuges, and overseeing mineral and energy
development on our public lands and in our Federal waters offshore,
making sure that the taxpayers of the United States get a fair deal for
the resources that the public--the public--actually owns. The
responsibilities of the Department of the Interior also include
ensuring that tribal trust responsibilities are met, as well as
attending to our insular affairs. The Secretary of the Interior also
manages a large part of water resources in Western States--again, which
I know the Presiding Officer knows so well because there are so many
issues related to drinking water and hydroelectric facilities that
affect millions of our citizens.
So it is a far-reaching and diverse portfolio, and it requires the
Secretary
[[Page S1459]]
to take into account not only the demands of the extraction industry--
the oil, gas, coal, and hard rock mining companies--the Secretary,
above all, must protect the public's interests.
I think the public could probably best understand this by knowing
what happened in the Gulf of Mexico and the implosion that happened
with the Deepwater Horizon well. Here, the Department of the Interior
and minerals management resource agencies, in my opinion, should have
been doing a better job of protecting the public and protecting that
vital resource.
The conclusion of hearings after this fact found that there were many
recommendations to clean up and streamline the minerals management
agency so that it was not catering to the interests of the oil and gas
industry, but making sure that it adheres to what is the public
interest. Now all that has been made famous in a movie, which many of
the public I think should go to see. Taking shortcuts when it comes to
extraction of mineral resources is not a good idea, and having an
Interior Secretary who makes sure we manage these resources well is
critical to our Nation.
Also, the outdoor recreation industry, in and of itself, in my
opinion--and I am sure in the opinion of many others here who
understand it--has become a juggernaut. I will talk about that in a
little bit. It is an economy in and of itself. It is worth preserving.
It is worth fighting for. It is a source of tax revenue, income, jobs,
and, most importantly, a quality of life that so many Americans hold
dear. I have been so touched by the letters I have gotten from
veterans, who have said to me on their returning back from Iraq and
Afghanistan that having the wonders of the outdoors as a place for
peace and sanctuary has been so critical to them. They have argued in
support of important programs like the Land and Water Conservation
Fund, and others, to make sure that our public lands are there for them
to enjoy and for their children to enjoy in the future.
So, in short, the Secretary must balance the short-term demands of
developing resources on these public lands against the need to protect
the environment and sensitive areas and preserve that natural heritage,
as I said, for future generations. It is very important that we have a
Secretary who understands what our Nation's leading stewardship
responsibilities are, understands what those special places are, like
the Grand Canyon, and other places such as Mount Rainier, and makes
sure they are protected.
I had hoped to be able to support Congressman Zinke's nomination
based on his assurances that he would manage the Department of the
Interior as a Teddy Roosevelt Republican. However, I cannot ignore the
Trump administration's plans for our public lands and resources, and I
cannot ignore Congressman Zinke's commitment during our committee
hearings to work to implement President-Elect Trump's energy
independence policy, as well as a variety of positions on returning
Federal land, taking public lands off the protection that they deserve
today. These are very important public policy issues, and I note that
President Trump has said to many people: ``My Cabinet is free to say
whatever they want.'' So the fact that these important policies are
going to be implemented that may erode what has been decades of policy
for us in managing our public resources is quite concerning to me.
What exactly is the Trump administration's plan? Clearly, the Trump
administration intends to pursue an aggressive agenda when it comes to
mining and drilling on our public lands and waters. The President and
his senior advisers have made clear their intention to undo what are
reasonable protections put in place in environmentally sensitive areas.
The administration will renew its efforts to reverse protections of
important onshore and offshore areas. Based on energy plans posted on
the White House website immediately after the President's inauguration,
the President seems to be committed to simply opening up as much
Federal land as possible to coal mining and energy development.
The administration has said it will use money from drilling and
mining on all our public lands and waters to pay for a multibillion-
dollar infrastructure package. My constituents want to know where they
draw the line. Where does that stop?
The administration has already suspended rules ensuring polluters on
our public lands don't have to pay their fair share. The President has
signed into law a measure gutting the Obama administration rule that
would have prevented coal companies from dumping toxic chemicals into
our Nation's rivers and streams. So it is clear to me that the new
administration will do everything it can to reverse the responsible
management of our public land and instead pursue an aggressive energy
development policy without regard to the environmental and public
health consequences.
The bedrock principle, I believe, is that polluters should pay and
they should clean up their messes on public lands. We may all have a
different opinion here about how much public land should be developed,
but I think everybody should be in agreement that polluters should pay,
and they should leave our public land in a pristine nature.
It is equally clear that the new administration will be encouraged in
this effort by the majorities in the House and the Senate by some of
the legislation we have already seen, such as enabling coal companies
to dump their mining waste into streams and impacting State drinking
water, enabling oil companies to waste the public's natural resource
without paying royalties on the gas they waste--that is costing
taxpayers money--and reports that the President intends to issue an
Executive order to overturn the current moratorium prohibiting new coal
leases on Federal land. That is an issue about getting a fair deal for
the taxpayer. The taxpayer is impacted by this coal extraction. Coal
companies, instead of doing the job it takes to extract coal without an
impact on the public, are taking Federal resources and making lots of
money without responsibility to the taxpayer.
The previous Secretary, Secretary Jewell, basically said, for the
first time in many years, that they would look at what the industry was
paying as far as coal royalties. That process is underway, and we think
it should be carried out. We think the taxpayer deserves a fair deal.
Unfortunately, I am not convinced that Congressman Zinke will be
willing or able to moderate the Trump administration's extreme views on
exploiting our public lands, and I am not sure he will be willing or
able to stand up to the President to protect the public interest and
ensure that our public lands are managed and protected for the benefit
of all Americans--not just the oil, gas, and mining companies and their
commercial interests.
The Secretary's principal job is to be a guardian, a steward of our
public lands. To me, stewardship is so important. So many of my
colleagues come to the floor and act like they are managing this
resource for their lifetime and their generation. Stewardship is about
managing these resources for future generations as well. If our past
ancestors had been so callus with these Federal resources, where would
we be today? It is so important that we not look at these Federal lands
so narrowly as a source of natural resources that someone has in their
particular State or interest but also to make sure that stewardship
protects these resources for future generations as well. With that in
mind, I have seen several laws and regulations under attack that are
fundamental to keeping that mission of stewardship at the Department of
the Interior, including the Clean Water Act, the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act, the Clean Air Act, the Surface Mining Control and
Reclamation Act, and the Antiquities Act.
While Congressman Zinke said he would oppose the transfer of Federal
lands to the States, which I appreciate, at the same time, he has
indicated he is willing to consider transferring away management of
certain Federal lands to the States.
What does that mean? For example, you could have a monument or a
designation of Federal land--it could be even Mount Rainier or some
beautiful place in the Pacific Northwest--consequently transferred back
to the State and that particular State--it wouldn't happen in
Washington but might happen in some other State--decides to start
managing that land and extracting resources. You might think that
[[Page S1460]]
couldn't possibly happen. I have news for you. That is the debate du
jour. This is exactly--exactly--the debate today.
Last Congress, Congressman Zinke cosponsored and voted for a bill to
transfer to the States management of red snapper fisheries in Federal
waters. He supports transferring Federal management responsibilities to
the States, and it clearly undercuts the commitment to Federal
resources.
We also know he has previously supported efforts to restrict use of
the Antiquities Act to designate national monuments. In fact, he
appears open to efforts to weaken or repeal certain recently designated
national monuments. He has indicated one of his first priorities, upon
confirmation, will be to visit Utah to consider a Republican proposal
to rescind the recently designated Bears Ears National Monument. This
is despite the strong support of many across the Nation and in Utah, as
well as tribal support from the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition,
representing the five affected tribes in the region.
As somebody who enjoys the outdoors, I can state how important it is
to be able to go and recreate. I have not been to Bears Ears, but I
have heard incredible stories from climbers and those interested in
seeing this unique terrain that it is a very special place.
As we enter this debate, the issue of the Bears Ears National
Monument and whether they are going to roll back Federal land
protection will be at the center of this discussion. Created by
President Obama, Bears Ears encompasses 1.3 million acres of beautiful
desert hills, mesas, sandstone canyons, spiritually significant lands
to local tribes, and some of the best crack climbing in the world. The
climbing community loves to recreate there.
The conservation community and tribes have fought for many years for
this designation. If and when he is confirmed, Congressman Zinke will
be under intense pressure from some quarters to try to undo this
designation. In fact, heated debate on this subject boiled over just a
week ago as the Outdoor Retailer show decided to leave Salt Lake City,
after two decades and contributing at least $40 million to the economy
in various shows that they had each year there, because of Utah's
stated desire and the congressional delegation's interest in basically
claiming Federal lands and selling them off for extraction from the oil
and gas industry.
I was so proud of retailers, such as REI in my State or others such
as Patagonia, Black Diamond, Outdoor Research and others, basically put
their money where their mouth is. They decided that if a State was
going to attack the very economy that was so important to them in jobs
and recreation, that they were going to do something about moving their
impacted industry somewhere else.
I would like to read what the Salt Lake Tribune editorial board had
to say about this issue.
``In the same week Utah announced that it had topped $8.17 billion in
annual economic benefit from tourism, the $40 million Outdoor Retailer
show announced it was leaving.
``Surely we can take a half-percent hit, right?
``No. The exit of Outdoor Retailer is so much more than just losing
the State's largest convention. There will be hospitality jobs lost,
and hotel rooms from Sandy to Ogden vacant for those two weeks a year.
We're now building a 900-room downtown convention hotel--with public
bonding authority--largely on spec. There is now no convention
currently on Salt Lake City's docket that demands it.
``The reason Outdoor Retailer is leaving--their rejection of Utah's
political leaders' values as shown in the stubborn and pointless fight
against a Bears Ears National Monument--should make this moment a
turning point.
``In the 1960s, Utah found itself at a confluence. One flow was fed
by a collection of downtown Chamber of Commerce types who hatched a
longshot bid to obtain the 1972 Winter Olympics. They knew they
wouldn't win, but they saw it as a chance to sell Utah's ``Greatest
Snow on Earth.'' It was the first time Utah took its outdoor tourism
message to the world, and it was well received.
``The other flow came from a fundamental change in the American
people, who were waking up to the natural world and the treasures in
their own presence. In Utah, there was recognition that we held those
treasures. A national park was created in Canyonlands, and national
monuments in Arches, Capitol Reef were elevated to national parks.
Utahns of all creed and color united in their pride of our shared
national icons.''
I am sure the Presiding Officer also agrees with the concept, being
from the home of the Grand Canyon. Continuing to read from the
editorial:
``Where once we were a peculiar backwater, we became known the world
over. Were it not for pioneering efforts, there would be no ski
industry. No Olympics. No Sundance Film Festival. No Flat Tire
Festival. No steady stream of tour buses climbing to Bryce Canyon. No
$8.17 billion per year.
``Losing Outdoor Retailer over Bears Ears represents a reversal of a
half century of progress in inviting the world to appreciate Utah.''
``The seeds of that failure were shown in the rejection . . . of the
unprecedented unity of five Indian nations coming together to protect
their ancestral homeland. Instead of recognizing the significance, our
leaders emboldened the local pioneer descendants who were claiming
their 150 years of ranching took precedent over centuries of Indian
presence in Bears Ears. The tribes had no choice but to go to the
president.
``That blindness that can be sourced to Utah's one-party political
system that has given us leaders who are out of touch with their
constituents. Dismantling the Bears Ears was a slam dunk in the Utah
Legislature last week, but it's an issue on which every poll has shown
Utahns divided, a division encouraged by the false narrative that the
monument was a trade-off between fat energy jobs and low-paying tourist
jobs.
``The Bears Ears monument may be with us forever, and there is no
bucket of gold waiting if it does go away. The presidential
proclamation bent far toward the same boundaries and shared management
Representative Bishop pursued with his Public Lands Initiative. In that
context, Utah political leaders' vehemence looks to much of the nation
like white rejection of the legitimacy of a black president listening
to Native Americans.''
``The damage may not be over. What does Utah's sports equipment
industry have to look forward to? What are Ogden-based companies
supposed to do when their congressman refuses to acknowledge that
fossil fuel consumption reduces the snowpack upon which their products
glide?
``Are we receding to the backwaters where our superiority is apparent
only to ourselves? Are we bent on separating Americans from their
national identity instead of inviting them to share it?
``This isn't about $40 million. It's about who we are and where we
are headed. To get there, we need leaders with a better appreciation of
the magnificent gifts God has given everyone, not just Utahns.''
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the editorial be printed
in the Record.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[From the Salt-Lake Tribune, Feb. 20, 2017]
Editorial: The World Is Not so Welcome Now, as Outdoor Retailer Exit
Shows
In the same week Utah announced that it had topped $8.17
billion in annual economic benefit from tourism, the $40
million Outdoor Retailer show announced it was leaving.
Surely we can take a half-percent hit, right?
No. The exit of Outdoor Retailer is so much more than just
losing the state's largest convention. There will be
hospitality jobs lost, and hotel rooms from Sandy to Ogden
vacant for those two weeks a year. We're now building a 900-
room downtown convention hotel--with public bonding
authority--largely on spec. There is now no convention
currently on Salt Lake City's docket that demands it.
The reason Outdoor Retailer is leaving--their rejection of
Utah's political leaders' values as shown in the stubborn and
pointless fight against a Bears Ears National Monument--
should make this moment a turning point.
In the 1960s, Utah found itself at a confluence. One flow
was fed by a collection of downtown Chamber of Commerce types
who hatched a longshot bid to obtain the 1972 Winter
Olympics. They knew they wouldn't
[[Page S1461]]
win, but they saw it as a chance to sell Utah's ``Greatest
Snow on Earth.'' It was the first time Utah took its outdoor
tourism message to the world, and it was well received.
The other flow came from a fundamental change in the
American people, who were waking up to the natural world and
the treasures in their own presence. In Utah, there was
recognition that we held those treasures. A national park was
created in Canyonlands, and national monuments in Arches and
Capitol Reef were elevated to national parks. Utahns of all
creed and color united in their pride over our shared
national icons.
Where once we were a peculiar backwater, we became known
the world over. Were it not for those pioneering efforts,
there would be no ski industry. No Olympics. No Sundance Film
Festival. No Fat Tire Festival. No steady stream of tour
buses climbing to Bryce Canyon. No $8.17 billion per year.
Losing Outdoor Retailer over Bears Ears represents a
reversal of a half century of progress in inviting the world
to appreciate Utah. We could be Hawaii, and instead our
leaders want us to be Oklahoma. Gov. Gary Herbert, who has
made economic development his reason for living, couldn't get
a very lucrative 20-year visitor to keep coming.
The seeds of that failure were sown in the rejection--first
by Rep. Rob Bishop and later by the governor and the
Legislature--of the unprecedented unity of five Indian
nations coming together to protect their ancestral homeland.
Instead of recognizing the significance, our leaders
emboldened the local pioneer descendants, who were claiming
their 150 years of ranching took precedent over centuries of
Indian presence in the Bears Ears. The tribes had no choice
but to go to the president.
That blindness can be sourced to Utah's one-party political
system that has given us leaders who are out of touch with
their constituents. Dismantling the Bears Ears was a slam
dunk in the Utah Legislature last week, but it's an issue on
which every poll has shown Utahns divided, a division
encouraged by the false narrative that the monument was a
trade-off between fat energy jobs and low-paying tourist
jobs.
The Bears Ears monument may be with us forever, and there
is no bucket of gold waiting if it does go away. The
presidential proclamation bent far toward the same boundaries
and shared management Bishop pursued with his Public Lands
Initiative. In that context, Utah political leaders'
vehemence looks to much of the nation like white rejection of
the legitimacy of a black president listening to Native
Americans.
The damage may not be over. What does Utah's sports-
equipment industry have to look forward to? What are Ogden-
based companies supposed to do when their congressman--
Bishop--refuses to acknowledge that fossil-fuel consumption
reduces the snowpack upon which their products glide?
Are we receding to the backwaters where our superiority is
apparent only to ourselves? Are we bent on separating
Americans from their national identity instead of inviting
them to share it?
This isn't about $40 million. It's about who we are and
where we are headed. To get there, we need leaders with a
better appreciation of the magnificent gifts God has given
everyone, not just Utahns.
Ms. CANTWELL. Mr. President, I think that editorial puts this debate
squarely in front of my colleagues. We have a nominee who has been all
over the map as it relates to public lands, and, certainly, he has been
on record that he will implement the President's strategy. I know he
plans to visit this area, and I am so concerned that it will be the
first of many areas in which people run over the larger public and
national interests in order to preserve special places just for
immediate extraction when, in reality, the jobs from the outdoor
economy are just as important and, if you add up numbers, may be more
important economically in both the near term and the long term.
I should also note that those of us in Washington would gladly
welcome the outdoor retailers with open arms. I am sure they will
consider many different places, but we understand that protecting our
most treasured places not only preserves them for this generation but
for future generations, and it helps drive an economy.
In Utah, outdoor recreation is responsible for $12 billion in
consumer spending--more than twice the value of oil and gas produced in
that State. If we are talking about top dog economics, the outdoor
industry wins. In Washington State, the outdoor economy supports
227,000 direct-paying jobs and wages of $7.1 billion. Nationwide, it is
6.1 million jobs and $646 billion in revenues from outdoor recreation,
so this is a very valued part of the U.S. economy. It is also a very
valued part of the American spirit.
Not only do the Bears Ears National Monument and others like it
benefit county, State, and Federal coffers, but they also offer access
to our shared heritage. As I said, it is that spiritual connection to
nature that is so valuable to all of us, but I hold so dear that our
veterans cherish it so much too. They deserve the relief of being able
to go to our greatest and beautiful places and have some solace.
A second major responsibility of the Secretary is to manage the
mineral resources that are on public lands and waters. One of the
fundamental principles of the public resource management is that the
American people should receive a fair market value for the energy and
minerals that are extracted from our public lands. These resources are
owned by every American.
I think, sometimes, people get confused that these are the rights of
these industries, that they own them. We have allowed that extraction
and the leasing of that extraction, but we need to make sure that the
taxpayers' interests and the costs of impact are well represented and
that extraction is done in an efficient manner--that it protects the
resources for the future, that it cleans up its mess, and that
polluters pay.
An important principle is that our public lands be managed so that
their use will not permanently harm the land or the environment and
that, in allowing companies to mine on public land, they must minimize
the harm they do, clean up the messes they make, and repair and pay for
the damage. ``Polluter pays'' should be a basic principle.
The Secretary of the Interior must be committed to preserving and
enforcing those important principles and to making sure that the
taxpayers get a fair deal. The previous Secretary, as I said--Secretary
Jewell--took important steps to advance those principles. On her watch,
the Department issued its new stream protection rule, its methane
venting and flaring rule, its mineral valuation rule, and the
comprehensive examination of its coal leasing program.
Most of these initiatives involve updating existing policies that
have been in place for 20 or 30 years. That is just another way of
saying that whether the taxpayer is getting a fair deal by allowing
these companies to mine these Federal resources has not really been
evaluated for 20 or 30 years, so I am sure my colleagues could
understand that that kind of updating should take place. During these
three intervening decades, technology has improved and science has
advanced, and we need to make sure technology recognizes that, when
pollution happens, it needs to be cleaned up.
Attacks on Secretary Jewell's public health and taxpayer initiatives
are already underway, and I am concerned that Congressman Zinke will
not stand up to make sure that the policies of ``polluter pays'' are
followed and that the good work that has already been established is
continued. At his confirmation hearing, Congressman Zinke stated that
the war on coal is real and that he supports lifting the coal leasing
moratorium. This is completely contrary to the rational view of energy
market dynamics, and it is at odds with the energy policies our
constituents expect.
While Federal coal leasing is an issue of national concern, it is
also critically important in my State. They want to make sure that
taxpayers get a fair deal for the leasing of that land. As people have
discussed here on the floor, the advent of natural gas and its cheap
value has done more to drive down the use of coal than any of this
discussion about whether taxpayers are getting a fair deal.
Finally, the Secretary of the Interior must be committed to upholding
our trust and treaty obligations for our country's 567 federally
recognized tribes. That Secretary must be committed to recognizing
tribal sovereignty and self-determination, protecting tribal lands and
waters and mineral resources, and supporting adequate resources for
tribal education, social services, and infrastructure.
Congressman Zinke has been a strong advocate of the Crow Tribes' coal
resource in his home State; and while I respect his responsibility to
his district, he will be required as Secretary of the Interior to have
a much different position in representing all tribes across the United
States.
I know that some of my colleagues think that one can be expedient on
any
[[Page S1462]]
of these issues whether it is on the Antiquities Act or on coal leasing
or on making sure that we live up to tribal sovereignty. In reality, it
takes very little to sign an Executive order; it takes a lot to
overrule the law of the land. Many of these issues will end up in
court, and many of them will be battled for several years. I would
suggest to my colleagues that we find a common interest in preserving
our stewardship, in preserving our natural resources, and in continuing
to develop this kind of economy moving forward.
I am not convinced that Congressman Zinke is going to show the
leadership on these resources that is necessary, given his very
different views on public lands as a Congressman--on all sides of the
issue. We need someone who is going to stand up, just like those in
Utah did, and say that the outdoor economy is worth it. The designation
of public lands, as done by the President of the United States, should
be preserved, and we should continue to fight for something that is
providing so many jobs and such a great connection for so many
Americans.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority whip.