[House Hearing, 115 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
POLICY PRIORITIES AT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR AND THE
ADMINISTRATION'S FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET PROPOSAL
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
Thursday, March 15, 2018
__________
Serial No. 115-40
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov
or
Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov
_________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
29-980 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member
Don Young, AK Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Chairman Emeritus Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Louie Gohmert, TX Jim Costa, CA
Vice Chairman Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Doug Lamborn, CO CNMI
Robert J. Wittman, VA Niki Tsongas, MA
Tom McClintock, CA Jared Huffman, CA
Stevan Pearce, NM Vice Ranking Member
Glenn Thompson, PA Alan S. Lowenthal, CA
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Ruben Gallego, AZ
Scott R. Tipton, CO Colleen Hanabusa, HI
Doug LaMalfa, CA Nanette Diaz Barragan, CA
Jeff Denham, CA Darren Soto, FL
Paul Cook, CA A. Donald McEachin, VA
Bruce Westerman, AR Anthony G. Brown, MD
Garret Graves, LA Wm. Lacy Clay, MO
Jody B. Hice, GA Jimmy Gomez, CA
Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS Vacancy
Daniel Webster, FL
Jack Bergman, MI
Liz Cheney, WY
Mike Johnson, LA
Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Greg Gianforte, MT
John R. Curtis, UT
Cody Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director
------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Thursday, March 15, 2018......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Utah.................................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 2
Grijalva, Hon. Raul M., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona........................................... 3
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Huffman, Hon. Jared, a Representative in Congress from the
State of California........................................ 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Statement of Witnesses:
Zinke, Hon. Ryan, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, DC............................................. 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 11
Questions submitted for the record....................... 18
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 88
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Grijalva
Alliance for Retired Americans, Statement for the Record
dated March 15, 2018................................... 80
American Society on Aging, Statement for the Record...... 80
AMVETS, Letter dated March 15, 2018...................... 81
Green Latinos, Letter dated March 14, 2018............... 81
National Disability Rights Network, Statement for the
Record................................................. 82
National Wildlife Federation, Letter dated March 12, 2018 83
Social Security Works, Press Release dated March 15, 2018 83
Vet Voice Foundation, Tweet dated March 13, 2018......... 84
Vietnam Veterans of America, Press Release dated March
14, 2018............................................... 84
Submission for the Record by Rep. Huffman
California Natural Resources Agency, Letter from John
Laird to Speaker Ryan, Rep. Pelosi, and Senators
McConnell and Schumer, dated March 13, 2018............ 85
Submission for the Record by Rep. McClintock
Zinke, Secretary Ryan, Letter to Chairman Bishop dated
October 31, 2017....................................... 86
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON POLICY PRIORITIES AT THE DEPARTMENT OF THE
INTERIOR AND THE ADMINISTRATION'S FISCAL YEAR 2019 BUDGET PROPOSAL
----------
Thursday, March 15, 2018
U.S. House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
[Chairman of the Committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Bishop, Young, Gohmert, Lamborn,
Wittman, McClintock, Pearce, Thompson, Labrador, Tipton,
LaMalfa, Westerman, Graves, Hice, Bergman, Cheney, Johnson,
Gonzalez-Colon, Gianforte, Curtis; Grijalva, Bordallo, Costa,
Sablan, Tsongas, Huffman, Lowenthal, Beyer, Torres, Gallego,
Hanabusa, Barragan, Soto, McEachin, Brown, Clay, and Gomez.
The Chairman. We are happy to welcome all of you here for
this hearing that deals with the Department of the Interior and
their Fiscal Year 2019 budget. The Committee on Natural
Resources will come to order.
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
hearings are limited to the Chairman, the Ranking Minority
Member, and the Vice Chair. This will also allow us to hear
from witnesses sooner. Therefore, I am going to ask unanimous
consent that all other Members' opening statements be made part
of the hearing record if they are submitted to the Subcommittee
on Federal Lands Clerk by 5:00 p.m. today.
I appreciate that. I am going to submit most of my opening
statement--well, the bulk of my opening statement--to the
record.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF UTAH
The Chairman. Secretary, we appreciate having you here.
Thank you, as well to those who are joining you. We appreciate
that opportunity. We want to welcome you back to the Committee,
Mr. Secretary.
I do have some praise I want to give to what you have done
so far, as you have repositioned the Department into looking at
what your core statutory functions are, and new evidence that
the greatest concern is how you actually impact people.
For too long we have had people coming back here addressing
us dealing with special interest groups, as opposed to simply
people. We like the way you looked at some of the burdensome
regulations that you inherited from the prior administration.
We will be talking about two elements that I think are
extremely significant. I think some of your proposals have
instituted a new degree of federalism never heard before, which
is very refreshing around this place.
And also, you have some new initiatives that deal with the
backlog. I hope you will be talking to that. It is one of the
things we will be talking about, not just today but in the
coming few weeks at the same time.
It is a significant issue.
With that, I will submit the rest of my statement for the
record.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman, Committee on
Natural Resources
Welcome back to the Committee, Mr. Secretary. We are pleased to
have you here to testify on the Administration's Fiscal Year 2019
budget and its policy priorities for the Department of the Interior.
Let me start by offering my praise for your work on many fronts to
improve land and resource management functions of the Department. Over
the past year, you have worked proactively to reposition the Department
as an ally and advocate to the people it serves, and to restore its
core statutory functions.
The Administration has also prioritized greater American energy
abundance and security, and you have positioned the Department as a
chief contributor in this endeavor. In doing so, you have acted to
address many overly burdensome regulations initiated under the prior
administration that resulted in hindered American energy development on
Federal lands, lost revenues and fewer opportunities for western
communities.
Additionally, the Department has used its existing authorities to
promote the responsible development of our vast onshore and offshore
energy resources, including the Department's proposed National OCS Oil
and Gas Leasing Program.
Whether they know it or not, many of my Democratic colleagues have
become ardent supporters of federalism because of this plan. Imagine
that: Political leaders wanting to decide if and how energy resources
are developed in their states and not be dictated to from Washington.
Unfortunately, their rush to defend local voices is only a priority
when it benefits their own interests.
The Administration and the Department have also demonstrated a
commitment to greater stewardship of public lands. You clearly realize
the importance of conserving and maintaining lands and resources
already under Federal control and have prioritized addressing our
massive maintenance backlog as part of this effort. You have also taken
on a broader reorganization of the Department to improve agency
bureaucracy, elevate local input, and more effectively and efficiently
serve communities and taxpayers.
The Administration's Fiscal Year 2019 budget reflects a commitment
to these priorities and several others. The Administration's nearly
$800 million budget investment in energy related programs demonstrates
your commitment to an ``All of the Above'' energy strategy to promote
both onshore and offshore development.
The budget request includes innovative solutions to tackle the
maintenance backlog, including a Public Lands Infrastructure Fund,
which has garnered bipartisan support. Some have criticized your
proposal for its reliance on oil and gas revenues as its funding
mechanism. Ironically, many of these same special interest groups have
led the charge for permanent reauthorization of the Land and Water
Conservation Fund, a program that is almost entirely funded by oil and
gas development on Federal lands.
Political posturing from a small group of fringe special interests
shouldn't be allowed to detract a proposal viewed by most Members as a
thoughtful and creative legislative proposal. I appreciate your
commitment to this issue and look forward to advancing a solution
during this Congress.
As mentioned, the Department has also outlined an ambitious plan
for reorganization, a concept I wholeheartedly support. The Committee
looks forward to continuing to work with you on this important
initiative, and views the related $17.5 million request within your
budget as a down payment in this endeavor.
Mr. Secretary, you and your staff conducted significant outreach to
Congress, governors, local communities and interested stakeholders on
this proposal. This sort of local engagement is important in all
decisions your Department makes and we hope this outreach will continue
as you formalize next steps in the process.
The President's budget also makes tough choices, balancing fiscal
realities while prioritizing scarce resources. Overall, it reflects a
commitment to restore public access to public lands, improve resource
management and solutions that promote both conservation and economic
prosperity.
This Committee is dedicated to advancing shared goals and working
to provide any additional tools and authorities necessary to achieve
them. I look forward to your testimony and the engagement of our
Members.
______
The Chairman. I will now turn to Mr. Grijalva for his
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAUL M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me join the
Chairman in welcoming you, Mr. Secretary, to the Committee. We
are glad that you are here to discuss the Trump
administration's spending priorities for the Department, and an
opportunity for this Committee to exercise its oversight
responsibilities.
And right now it seems a good time to exercise those
oversight responsibilities. Recently, we have seen several
reports of questionable spending at your Department. These
reports have raised significant questions about your
stewardship of taxpayer dollars. I believe the public deserves
a detailed accounting of these questionable expenses,
particularly now that you are proposing enormous budget cuts
across your Department.
For example, just last week, it was revealed that taxpayers
are on the hook for more than $138,000 to replace some doors in
your personal office. This, understandably, reminds the public
of the $31,000 dining set that was recently ordered by another
cabinet secretary's office. In your case, your Department has
said that the office's redecorating expenses are
``reasonable.'' I hope you will provide some detailed answers
today explaining why spending $138,000 for office doors is a
reasonable expense for the public to bear.
Going down the list of questionable spending, last month,
taxpayers paid for your travel 1 mile outside Pennsylvania's
18th Congressional District 2 weeks before a competitive
special election where you appeared in a photo-op with the
Republican candidate in that race holding an over-sized
ceremonial check for abandoned mine cleanup. As you know, these
grants are routine, and you could have gone to over 1,000
abandoned mine sites in over 25 states to announce the issuance
of grants for that cleanup. So, the question for the Committee,
should you choose to answer that one, is why this particular
site?
In October, we saw reports that taxpayers paid for several
trips where you attended political fundraisers, including
events at a ski resort in Montana and an upscale Alaskan steak
house. These trips create the appearance that taxpayers are
financing partisan political work. Taxpayer-funded trips to
Santa Barbara and Montana, where you own homes, have similarly
been called into question.
In fact, there have been enough questions about your
taxpayer-funded travels that both the Office of Special Counsel
and the Interior's Inspector General have opened
investigations. This questionable spending is even more
troubling, given the fact that you are simultaneously proposing
significant funding cuts for important programs serving the
American people.
Let me give you some of these enormous cuts in areas such
as the construction of rural water projects which deliver
drinking water to rural and tribal communities without potable,
reliable drinking water; cuts to core climate research and
science programs at USGS; cuts to renewable energy programs;
and a 90 percent cut for land acquisition under the popular,
bipartisan Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Americans expect our Federal agencies to responsibly manage
taxpayers' money. The reports of your spending signal to the
public that maybe we are not meeting that critical standard.
While the Majority does not seem bothered by reports of
ethical lapses and conflicts of interest at the Department, my
Democratic colleagues and I have sent dozens of oversight
requests seeking information about these matters.
Unfortunately, you have not seen fit to respond to any of them.
Last year I, along with other Members, sent two letters
asking about the decision of the Office of Surface Mining,
Reclamation, and Enforcement to halt the NAS study on the
severe health impacts suffered by people who live near
mountaintop removal coal mines. The rationale provided does not
withstand scrutiny, and cancellation would result in the waste
of approximately $400,000 in taxpayer dollars. Yet, there has
been no response. This is a public health issue and I
understand it is not a coal industry priority, but it is a
public health issue to the American people.
I also requested justification for your review of national
monuments, but you did not respond, and it was not until the
Washington Post leaked a copy of the final report that the
public got a chance to see what it was and get an explanation
as to why some monuments were included and some were not.
Last month, I requested information about another secret
plan that BLM has been working on to steamroll the rights of
Americans to an open government and an open process. The policy
changes in the secret report are almost as disturbing as the
process in which it was generated. The comment period was
announced via press release, and comments were entered through
a Google form. Your agency omitted contrary opinions and
handpicked a selection of anonymous supportive comments. By any
measure, that is really far from transparent.
You have an opportunity today to address these and other
concerns to all my colleagues on the Committee, and I sincerely
hope that you will.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Otherwise, everything OK?
Mr. Grijalva. Everything is good.
The Chairman. Good, good.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Raul M. Grijalva, Ranking Member,
Committee on Natural Resources
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome back to the Committee, Mr.
Secretary. I'm glad you're here to discuss the Trump administration's
spending priorities for the Department of the Interior, and I thank you
for being here so we can exercise our oversight responsibilities.
I'm sorry to say, Mr. Secretary, that right now seems to be a good
time to exercise our oversight responsibilities. Recently, we've seen
several reports of questionable spending at your Department. These
reports have raised significant questions about your stewardship of
taxpayer dollars, and the public deserves a detailed accounting of
these questionable expenses, particularly now that you're proposing
enormous budget cuts across your Department.
For example, just last week, it was revealed that taxpayers are on
the hook for more than $138,000 to replace some doors in your personal
office. This understandably reminds the public of the $31,000 dining
set that was recently ordered for another cabinet secretary's office.
In your case, your Department has said your office's redecorating
expenses are ``reasonable.'' I hope you'll provide some detailed
answers today explaining why spending so much for your office's doors
is a reasonable expense for the public to bear.
Going down the list of questionable spending, last month, taxpayers
paid for you to travel 1 mile outside Pennsylvania's 18th Congressional
District 2 weeks before a competitive special election, where you
appeared in a photo-op with the Republican candidate in that race
holding an over-sized ceremonial check for abandoned mine cleanup. The
grants you were announcing are routine and you could have gone to over
a thousand abandoned mine sites for a photo-op. You will need to
explain to the Committee how you chose that one.
In October, we saw reports that taxpayers paid for several trips
where you attended political fundraisers, including events at a ski
resort in Montana and an upscale Alaskan steak house. These trips
create the appearance that taxpayers are financing your partisan
political work. Taxpayer-funded trips to Santa Barbara and Montana,
where you own homes, have similarly been called into question.
In fact, there have been enough questions about your taxpayer-
funded travels that both the Office of Special Counsel and Interior's
Inspector General have opened investigations. This questionable
spending is even more troubling given the fact that you're
simultaneously proposing significant funding cuts for important
programs serving the American people.
To take just a few examples, you've proposed enormous cuts: for the
construction of rural water projects, which deliver drinking water to
rural and tribal communities without reliable drinking water; to core
climate research and science programs at USGS; for renewable energy
programs; and a 90 percent cut for land acquisition under the popular,
bipartisan Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Americans expect our Federal agencies to responsibly manage
taxpayers' money. The reports of your spending signal to the public
that you are not meeting this critical standard.
While the Majority has not seemed bothered by reports of ethical
lapses and conflicts of interest at the Department, my Democratic
colleagues and I have sent dozens of oversight requests seeking
information about these matters. Unfortunately, you have not seen fit
to respond.
For example: Last year, I sent two letters asking about the
decision of the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement to
halt an NAS study on the severe health impacts suffered by people who
live near mountaintop removal coal mines. The rationale provided does
not withstand scrutiny, and cancellation would result in the waste of
approximately $400,000 in taxpayer dollars. Yet, there has been no
response.
I also requested a justification for your ``review'' of national
monuments, but you did not respond and it wasn't until the Washington
Post leaked a copy of the final report did the public get any
explanation as to why some monuments were included and some were not.
Last month, I requested information about another secret plan that
BLM has been working on to steamroll the rights of Americans to an open
government. The policy changes in the secret report are almost as
disturbing as the process in which it was generated--the comment period
was announced via press release and comments were entered through a
Google form. Your Agency omitted contrary opinions and handpicked a
selection of anonymous supportive comments. By any measure, this is far
from transparent.
You have an opportunity today to address these and other concerns,
and I hope you will.
Thank you, I yield back.
______
The Chairman. We want to welcome the witnesses that are
here today.
First of all, the Honorable Ryan--do I have to say
honorable all the time here--the Honorable Ryan Zinke, who is
Secretary of the Department of the Interior.
He is accompanied by Olivia Barton Ferriter--we appreciate
you--who is the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget, Finance,
Performance, and Acquisition--long title, but is here to answer
specific questions on details of the budget, as well as Ms.
Denise Flanagan, who is the Director of the Office of Budget
within the Department of the Interior.
[Pause.]
The Chairman. Apparently there is another statement from
the Democrat side. We do allow the Vice Chairs. We are going to
waive that on our side.
Mr. Huffman, apparently you want to make a statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. JARED HUFFMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome to
Secretary Zinke and our witnesses.
We are here to examine the President's Fiscal Year 2019
budget request for the Department of the Interior, a budget
that many of us find deeply disappointing. It is not just the
huge cuts that would hamstring critically important programs
like western drought funding, climate research, endangered
species conservation, and land acquisition through the Land and
Water Conservation Fund (LWCF).
This is a budget that places the exploitation of our public
lands above any other uses. It undermines national parks and
cuts land and water conservation. It turns back the clock on
our Federal Government's role to a time before Teddy Roosevelt,
John Muir, and Gifford Pinchot.
This is a budget that prioritizes the profit that oil, gas,
and coal companies can dig, drill, and otherwise wring out of
our public lands, with no consideration of future generations
or the long-term impacts to health and the environment. We are
producing more oil and natural gas today than ever before, and
now we have so much that we export millions of barrels of crude
and billions of cubic feet of gas overseas every day, and yet,
according to the priorities in this President's budget, the
Interior Department still isn't doing enough favors for oil and
gas companies.
Every year, average global temperatures get hotter. The
Arctic ice cap gets smaller, storms get stronger, and droughts
get more severe. Yet, according to the priorities in this
budget, the Interior Department had been previously thinking
and doing too much to combat global climate change.
In over 3,600 pages of budget documents from your
Department, the phrases ``climate change,'' ``climate impact,''
``climate science,'' and ``climate resilience'' are used a
grand total of 31 times combined, with 21 of those times being
references to programs that are being slashed or eliminated.
The new DOI strategic plan eliminates all references to
climate change, but makes sure that the first three words in
the new departmental vision statement are to ``promote energy
dominance.'' That is the kind of vision that leads to opening
both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to unwanted offshore
drilling.
It is the kind of vision that leads to stacking a royalty
collection advisory committee with oil, gas, and coal
executives, which, unsurprisingly, led to recommendations to
give those industries huge discounts and rip off the American
taxpayers for the use of their lands and waters.
That is the kind of vision that leads to a cynical proposal
to pay for maintenance in our national parks through vastly
expanded drilling and mining. You want to fix that leaky roof
at the visitor center? Fine, let's drill a few more oil wells.
We should not have to drill our parks in order to save
them, especially not when the President is continuing to
celebrate the enormous budget holes that he and this Republican
Congress just created with their tax cuts.
The more you look at this budget, the more offensively
misplaced priorities you see. The budget proposes drastic cuts
to programs that have helped the United States to lead the
international fight against wildlife trafficking, replacing
these proven efforts with an ill-conceived International
Wildlife Conservation Council to carry out the wishes of trophy
hunters and the NRA.
And now it has gotten worse. Following a lawsuit by the NRA
and others, unfortunately, Mr. Secretary, your Department has
reopened the door for more elephant tusks and lion hides to be
imported into the United States, lifting the ban on these big
game trophies on a case-by-case basis. President Trump, who
will never be mistaken for a conservationist, rightly described
these trophy hunts as a horror show for elephants.
And while the Department is rolling back protections,
ironically, China is stepping up its work on international
wildlife conservation. So, just when our years of pressure and
leadership are starting to work in the world community, we are
abdicating our leadership role.
This decision to allow elephant trophies to be imported
reflects an administration under the undue influence of the
NRA. And we have seen reports that taxpayers recently paid for
you to stay at the Four Seasons Resort in Dallas to attend a
conference organized by the NRA, where you also reportedly met
with several campaign donors.
I am reminded, too, of the decision by political appointees
in your Department to muzzle the National Park Service's
concerns about the provisions of the NRA-backed silencer bill.
The bottom line is we see a budget here that should uphold
strong environmental protections for air, water, wildlife, and
natural places, areas where we have been a world leader. But
instead, this budget would dismantle those things. In so many
ways right now, this great agency is mired in chaos, cronyism,
and at least the appearance of corruption. That, and the
upside-down budget priorities surely have TR rolling in his
grave.
With that, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Jared Huffman, a Representative in
Congress from the State of California
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And welcome back to the Natural Resources
Committee, Secretary Zinke.
We're here to examine the President's Fiscal Year 2019 budget
request for the Department of the Interior, a budget that is deeply
disappointing. It's not just the huge cuts that would hamstring
critically important programs, like western drought funding, climate
research, endangered species conservation, and land acquisition through
the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
This is a budget that places the exploitation of our public lands
above any other uses. It undermines national parks and cuts land and
water conservation, and it turns back the clock on the Federal
Government's role to a time before Teddy Roosevelt, John Muir, and
Gifford Pinchot.
This is a budget that prioritizes the profit that oil, gas, and
coal companies can dig, drill, or otherwise wring out of our public
lands, with no consideration of future generations or the long-term
impacts to health and the environment. We are producing more oil and
natural gas than ever before in our Nation's history, and we now have
so much that we export millions of barrels of crude and billions of
cubic feet of gas overseas every day, yet according to the priorities
in this President's budget, the Interior Department still isn't doing
enough favors for the oil and gas companies.
Every year, average global temperatures get hotter, the Arctic ice
cap gets smaller, storms get stronger, and droughts get more severe,
yet according to the priorities in this President's budget, the
Interior Department had been previously thinking and doing too much to
combat climate change.
In over 3,600 pages of budget documents from your Department, the
phrases ``climate change,'' ``climate impact,'' ``climate science,''
and ``climate resilience'' are used a grand total of 31 times combined,
with 21 of them being references to programs being slashed or
eliminated.
The new DOI strategic plan eliminates all references to climate
change, but makes sure that the first three words in the new
Departmental vision statement are to ``promote energy dominance.''
That's the kind of vision that leads to opening both the Atlantic and
Pacific coasts to unwanted offshore drilling.
That's the kind of vision that leads to stacking a royalty
collection advisory committee with oil, gas, and coal executives,
which--unsurprisingly--led to recommendations to give those industries
huge discounts and rip off the American taxpayers for the use of their
lands and waters.
That's the kind of vision that leads to a cynical proposal to pay
for maintenance in our National Parks through vastly expanded drilling
and mining. You want to fix the leaky roof in that visitors center?
Fine, hope you don't mind the seismic testing outside the front gate.
We should not have to drill our parks in order to save them.
Especially not when the President is continuing to celebrate the
enormous budget holes that he and this Republican Congress created with
their tax cut scam.
The more you look at this budget, the more offensively misplaced
priorities you see. This budget proposes drastic cuts to programs that
have helped the United States lead the international fight against
wildlife trafficking, replacing those proven efforts with an ill-
conceived ``International Wildlife Conservation Council'' to carry out
the wishes of trophy hunters and the NRA.
And now it's gotten worse: following a lawsuit by the NRA and
others, your Department has re-opened the door for more elephant tusks
and lion hides to be imported into the United States, lifting the ban
on these big game trophies on a case-by-case basis. President Trump--
who will never be mistaken for a wildlife conservationist--rightly
described these trophy hunts as a ``horror show'' for elephants.
And while the Interior Department is rolling back protections,
China is stepping up its work on international wildlife conservation.
The decision to allow for elephant trophies to be imported into our
country reflects an Administration under the undue influence of the
NRA. We've seen reports that taxpayers recently paid for you to stay at
the Four Seasons Resort in Dallas to attend a conference organized by
the NRA, where you also reportedly met with several campaign donors.
I am reminded, too, of the decision by political appointees in your
Department to sideline the National Park Service's concerns about
provisions of the NRA-backed Silencer Bill that would prohibit the Park
Service from regulating hunting and fishing within park boundaries.
This is a sad state of affairs. The Interior Department budget
should uphold our strong environmental protections for air, water,
wildlife, and natural places. These are areas where we have been a
world leader.
This budget would instead dismantle that conservation legacy bit by
bit, rewarding extractive industry while ignoring our responsibilities
to our children and grandchildren.
I have a lot of questions about this budget's misplaced priorities
that I hope we'll have time for, but for now I look forward to hearing
the Secretary's testimony, and I yield back.
______
The Chairman. Mr. Gohmert, we will waive your statement so
we can get back to questions, we can hear speeches all the
time. We will waive your speech, going forward with that.
Whether you want to waive it or not, you just waived it.
Mr. Zinke, let me turn the time over to you. You understand
how the system works. You have to turn the microphone on. You
have 5 minutes for the opening presentation, and then we will
launch right into questions for you, if that is OK.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RYAN ZINKE, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC
Secretary Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member,
and Committee members, for the opportunity to offer my support
for President Trump's Fiscal Year 2019 budget for the
Department of the Interior. With your permission, I would like
to submit my entire statement for the record.
The President has been very clear about his priorities, and
he has spent the first year in office keeping his promises he
has made to the American people. And he is keeping his
promises. The budget is a major step toward keeping another
promise: rebuilding our infrastructure.
Our proposal is the largest investment in our public lands
infrastructure in the history of this Nation. Our public lands
are recognized as our greatest treasures, but they have
suffered serious neglect from our Nation's leaders from both
parties over the past.
Interior's deferred maintenance budget backlog is $16
billion; $11.5 billion of that can be found in our beloved
national parks. This includes everything from roads, bridges,
tunnels, visitor centers, and restrooms. It is no way to treat
our national treasures. At the Grand Canyon alone, for example,
a water pipe has broke 80 times since 2010. It has forced
emergency rationing and has cost millions of dollars to fix
over and over.
The President's budget proposes legislation for new public
lands infrastructure to address the deferred maintenance
problem. This legislation is a top priority. It is a
legislation based on all energy, not oil and gas, as our policy
is clear. We are American energy first, all types of energy,
and not just oil and gas.
The fund will provide up to $18 billion over 10 years for
maintenance improvements in our national parks, wildlife
refuges, and Bureau of Education, in that I am responsible for
the education of 48,000 American Indian Natives, and they
deserve a world-class education, too. This budget also includes
$1.3 billion for construction and repairs.
Infrastructure is not an expense, it is an investment. Our
budget does just that, it invests in our Nation's treasures.
Our public lands should be for the benefit and enjoyment of the
people, as what is expressed in the Roosevelt Arch at the
Yellowstone National Park.
In 2006, we had 330 million visitors through our parks, and
spent an estimated $18.4 billion in local gateway regions,
nationwide. The economic support of the recreational industry
is at $887 billion and employs approximately 7.6 million
Americans. All Americans should have the opportunity to enjoy
our national parks, but without a significant investment in
infrastructure to go along with a record-setting amount of
visitors we have on a yearly basis, we are simply loving our
parks to death.
Along with being a great steward of our public lands,
again, I am the champion of our Indian Nations, and I take that
responsibility seriously, in that it provides $634 million to
address our backlog of 150 Bureau of Indian Education schools
in 23 states.
We see a great opportunity also to reorganize the
Department for the next 100 years, and have the same courage
Roosevelt did 100 years ago to bring this Nation on a path of
our public lands. As a retired Navy SEAL, I think you will look
at the front lines. Our front lines are too short and the
authority in Washington to make decisions about our public
lands in the field has oftentimes been wrong.
This budget includes $18 million to begin shifting
resources to the front line, where they belong, and establish
unified regional boundaries in Interior's bureaus. This
reorganization will also enable us to achieve our mission of
stewardship.
Our organization is based on science. It is based on
watersheds, wildlife corridors, ecosystems to manage our public
lands and waters according to the best science, best practices,
longest term, greatest good. That is the American conservation
ethic.
This budget also recognizes that American strength relies
on American energy. Under President Trump we are pursuing and
reaching American energy dominance. And yes, I am proud to say
that America produced 10.6 million barrels a day. For the first
time in 60 years we are an exporter of liquid natural gas. I
wish there was a battery. But until we get a battery, we are
going to produce energy here at home. President Trump's tax
cuts and smart regulation are helping to grow the American
economy. We are growing the economy and American energy
dominance is a part of that growth.
All told, our budget request for Fiscal Year 2019 is $11.7
billion, with a proposed transfer--the Department of Defense
for the Palau contract, or compact. It raised it to $11.8
billion.
This budget clearly lays out a top priority of this
Administration of energy, conservation, reorganization, and
rebuilding our park system, our national wildlife system, and
our Indian education opportunities.
With that, I am happy to take your questions.
[The prepared statement of Secretary Zinke follows:]
Prepared Statement of Ryan Zinke, Secretary of the Interior
Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the
Committee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the 2019
President's Budget for the Department of the Interior. The 2019 Budget
Request for Interior is $11.7 billion. The President's budget also
proposes to transfer $111.0 million of discretionary funding from the
Department of Defense to support the 2010 Compact Review Agreement with
Palau, increasing Interior's total 2019 request to $11.8 billion.
2019 Budget Priorities
Interior's 2019 budget prioritizes American interests with targeted
investments to advance American energy dominance, enhance public access
to public lands, and strengthen the economy through infrastructure
investment, regulatory relief, and fiscal responsibility. The
Department's 2019 budget reflects the Administration's commitment to
strike the right balance of development and conservation of America's
resources to advance important national objectives.
A major component of the 2019 budget is the Public Lands
Infrastructure legislative proposal, which will provide up to $18
billion to address Interior's deferred maintenance backlog in the
national parks, national wildlife refuges, and Bureau of Indian
Education-funded schools. The investment in the Interior's
infrastructure will be funded by Federal revenues derived from rents,
rights-of-ways for energy purposes, and royalties collected by the
Department of the Interior. The proposal complements the President's
national infrastructure investment initiative and recognizes the
strategic importance of long-term investment in America's treasures.
GENERATING REVENUE AND UTILIZING NATURAL RESOURCES
Growing America's Economy
Across Interior's diverse mission, the 2019 budget emphasizes the
Department's crucial role in promoting economic growth for America.
America's lands hold tremendous job-creating assets. Interior supports
$254 billion in estimated economic benefit, while direct grants and
payments to states, tribes, and local communities provide an estimated
$10 billion in economic benefit. In 2017, the Department collected $9.6
billion from energy, mineral, grazing, and forestry activities on
behalf of the American people. Interior also supports the economy by
eliminating unnecessary and burdensome Federal regulatory requirements.
For example, in 2017, Interior initiated 21 deregulatory actions all
with significant associated savings for the taxpayer, once enacted.
The 2019 budget maintains support for Interior programs that play a
critical role in encouraging national infrastructure development. The
2019 budget includes $98.8 million for the Fish and Wildlife Service's
planning and consultation activities to support development while
avoiding species conflicts. This request enables FWS to meet legal
consultation requirements and avoid logjams that could delay
infrastructure projects and associated economic benefits to
communities, states, tribes, and companies. The request includes $118.7
million for the Bureau of Reclamation's construction of water delivery
systems for tribes and local communities. In addition, Reclamation
continues to explore future water storage opportunities. The budget
also includes $48.3 million for the Bureau of Land Management's
cadastral program, which maps and surveys the lands and resources
needed to permit rights-of-way and other infrastructure project
requirements in a timely fashion.
Advancing Energy Dominance
Interior plays a significant role in the Administration's objective
to achieve America's energy dominance. The budget proposes $792.0
million in current and permanent funding for energy related programs
across the Department. Interior's 2019 budget continues to support an
``all-of-the-above'' energy development strategy, increasing funding
for onshore and offshore oil and gas, expanding coal activities, and
sustaining the current pace of renewable energy development.
A large portion of Interior's energy development activities occur
on the Outer Continental Shelf. The 2019 request includes support from
offsetting collections for a total offshore energy development and
safety program of $379.2 million. The budget includes a total of $179.3
million for offshore oil, gas, and renewable energy development
activities managed by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. It
includes $9.4 million for BOEM to prepare the 2019-2024 National OCS
Oil and Gas Leasing Program. The request for BOEM also includes $28.1
million for Renewable Energy activities across the Bureau. The 2019
budget includes $199.9 million for the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement's programs to streamline the permitting
process, conduct inspections, evaluate emerging offshore technologies,
improve safety, conduct training, and maintain up-to-date policies,
standards, and guidelines.
Onshore, the budget includes $176.3 million in current and
permanent funding for the BLM oil and gas management program which
generated $348.9 million from bonus bids derived from onshore oil and
gas lease sales in 2017. The 2019 budget includes $137.2 million in
appropriated funds for BLM oil and gas management and oversight,
including leasing, permitting, and inspections. This funding will be
used to expand areas available for leasing, expedite permitting, and
improve various aspects of program management. The budget includes
$19.5 million for the BLM coal management program to help reduce
processing times, simplify the lease application process, and improve
the timeliness to complete lease sale fair market value determinations.
The budget includes $16.0 million for BLM to support onshore Renewable
Energy development.
An important component of Interior's natural resource programs is
the collection and disbursement of receipts from development. The 2019
budget includes $137.5 million for the Office of Natural Resources
Revenue. In 2017, Interior held the first meeting of the re-established
Royalty Policy Committee, which includes 20 members representing local,
tribal, and state governments and other stakeholders. The RPC advises
the Secretary on the fair market value and revenue collection from
Federal and Indian mineral and energy leases, including from renewable
energy sources.
Increasing Natural Resource Development
Interior manages a wealth of additional natural resource assets
that require balanced stewardship and management. Maintaining healthy
and productive forests requires active management. The 2019 budget
includes $9.5 million for BLM's Public Domain Forestry program and
$90.0 million for the Oregon and California grant lands. Both programs
support jobs and local economies through timber and timber product
sales. The programs also maintain and improve the productivity and
resilience of forest and woodland ecosystems through sales and forest
development projects such as density management and reforestation.
The BLM actively manages rangeland and grazing activities on public
lands in the West which remain a vital part of local western economies.
The 2019 budget includes $82.1 million for the Rangeland Management
program. The BLM manages nearly 18,000 livestock grazing permits and
leases on the public lands.
Another example is the U.S. Geological Survey Mineral Resources
program which conducts assessments to identify critical minerals and
estimate potential supplies. A recent Secretarial Order directs all
Interior bureaus to identify a list of critical minerals, identify
domestic sources, and streamline permitting to encourage domestic
production of these critical minerals. The 2019 budget for USGS
includes $19.1 million to support this Administration priority. With
this funding, USGS will accelerate nationwide geological, geophysical,
and topographical surveys of the United States to locate domestic
critical mineral sources.
CONSERVING OUR LAND AND WATER AND EXPANDING OUTDOOR ACCESS
Interior is the steward of America's public lands and cultural
resources for the benefit of current and future generations. Taking
care of the resources we have rather than acquiring new Federal lands
continues to be a top priority in the 2019 budget. To administer
ongoing projects, the budget for land acquisition programs across the
Department is $8.1 million.
The 2019 budget includes $4.6 billion for operating programs in the
three primary land management bureaus--BLM, FWS, and the National Park
Service. This funding supports the day-to-day management of the natural
resources and public amenities of America's national parks, national
wildlife refuges, and BLM-managed public areas, including its national
conservation lands. Within this request is funding to support visitor
services and safety, law enforcement, and maintenance of facilities.
Early eradication and control of invasive species is an example of a
core stewardship activity shared Department-wide, which is funded
through land management operations. Across Interior, the 2019 budget
includes a total of $101.1 million for invasive species activities to
address significant issues such as the spread of invasive mussels and
Asian Carp.
The Land and Water Conservation Fund matching grants provided to
states, and through states to local governments, support the
acquisition and development of public outdoor recreation areas and
facilities all across the Nation. The 2019 budget continues a funding
shift that began in 2018 for NPS State Assistance grants from
discretionary to mandatory funding. Starting in 2009, discretionary
LWCF appropriations for the State Assistance program were supplemented
by revenues from certain oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico, as
authorized by Section 105 of the Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act.
Under existing law, this permanent funding for NPS State Assistance
grants is expected to reach $89.3 million in 2019.
Ensuring the availability of water is central to the Department's
resource stewardship mission and is vitally important to communities
across the West. The 2019 budget includes $1.0 billion for
Reclamation's water resource programs to ensure millions of customers
continue to receive the water and power essential for daily life,
healthy local economies, and land management. The 2019 budget includes
funding to continue the WaterSMART water conservation grants and funds
Title XVI water recycling reuse research grants to support local
innovation efforts to stretch water supplies.
The 2019 budget maintains an important commitment to Interior's
neighboring communities, by including $465.0 million in the
discretionary request for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program. The
PILT payments offset the loss in property tax revenue for communities
with significant Federal lands in their jurisdictions.
FULFILLING OUR TRUST AND INSULAR RESPONSIBILITIES
The Department of the Interior upholds the Federal Government's
unique trust responsibilities by fostering government-to-government
relationships between the Federal Government and federally recognized
tribes, American Indians, and Alaska Natives. The United States also
has important relationships with the affiliated insular areas including
the territories of American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. Interior administers
and oversees Federal assistance to the three Freely Associated States:
the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall
Islands, and the Republic of Palau.
The 2019 budget addresses Federal responsibilities and tribal needs
related to education, social services, infrastructure, and stewardship
of land, water, and other natural resources. The budget prioritizes
support for programs that serve the broadest service population rather
than initiatives that are more narrowly focused. The President's budget
maintains the Administration's strong support for the principle of
tribal self-determination and efforts to strengthen tribal communities
across Indian Country. The budget calls for full funding for Contract
Support Costs and Tribal Grant Support Costs that tribes incur from
managing Federal Indian programs.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs also undertakes initiatives to promote
resilient tribal communities. The 2019 budget includes $2.5 million to
address the opioid crisis, which has been particularly devastating in
Indian Country. The funding will support BIA participation in intra-
and interagency initiatives that support opioid and substance abuse
prevention efforts. The BIA liaisons will align, leverage, and
coordinate Federal efforts and resources to assist American Indian and
Alaska Native communities in achieving their goals to reduce the supply
of drugs, provide opioid addiction prevention assistance, and otherwise
combat the opioid crisis, which is an Administration priority.
The 2019 budget includes $173.0 million across the Department to
honor Indian land and water settlement commitments. This includes
$127.3 million in Reclamation and $45.6 million in BIA. The budget
continues to meet Federal responsibilities outlined in enacted land and
water rights claim settlements with Indian tribes to ensure they have
access to land and water to meet domestic, economic, and cultural
needs.
In 2019, the Office of Insular Affairs will continue to execute
activities which bolster healthcare capacity, strengthen island
economies, and fulfill U.S. compact obligations. The proposed 2019 OIA
budget is $608.0 million, with $84.1 million in current appropriations.
The President's budget also proposes $111.0 million in discretionary
Department of Defense appropriations as a transfer to the Department of
the Interior to fund the 2010 Compact Review Agreement with Palau.
PROTECTING OUR PEOPLE AND THE BORDER
A key component of Interior's land stewardship and public safety
goals is management of wildland fire. The 2019 budget provides $388.1
million for wildfire suppression. The budget responsibly funds 100
percent of the rolling 10-year average cost for wildfire suppression in
the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior within discretionary
budget caps, and proposes a separate annual cap adjustment for wildfire
suppression operations to ensure adequate resource availability during
severe fire seasons.
Over 12.5 million acres under Interior's jurisdiction are within 50
miles of the United States-Mexico border. More than 40 percent of the
border, or 820 linear miles, is managed by Interior's land management
agencies and the U.S. Forest Service. Interior is engaged with the
Department of Homeland Security to increase security on the southwest
border, including 74 border miles on tribal lands primarily made up of
lands located on and managed by the Tohono O'odham Nation in Arizona.
The budget includes $1.8 million to continue implementation of the
Department's Southwest Border Radio Demonstration Project, which is an
example of the coordination which occurs to help protect our border.
The project was developed in cooperation with BLM, FWS, NPS, and the
U.S. Forest Service in the southwest border region to address Office of
Inspector General-identified material deficiencies in the land mobile
radio program and infrastructure, and ensure continuity of
communications essential for safety, law enforcement, and resource
management in the area.
Interior also plays an important role in preparation for and
addressing the aftermath of natural hazard events. The 2019 budget
includes $117.3 million for the USGS Natural Hazards programs to
maintain important nationwide monitoring networks, including volcano
and earthquake networks, which provide vital scientific information to
emergency managers.
MODERNIZING OUR ORGANIZATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE NEXT 100 YEARS
Infrastructure Management
Interior manages an infrastructure asset portfolio with a
replacement value exceeding $300 billion, ranging from elementary and
secondary schools serving Indian children in the West, to highways and
bridges serving the daily commuting needs of the Washington, DC,
metropolitan area. Many of these assets are deteriorating, with older
assets becoming more expensive to repair and maintain in good
condition. Taking care of this significant asset portfolio is a
persistent challenge.
Interior's deferred maintenance backlog has grown to over $16
billion in 2017 of which over $11 billion belongs to NPS. In addition
to funding proposed in the Administration's Public Lands Infrastructure
Fund, the 2019 budget for NPS includes $256.5 million in current
funding for construction and deferred maintenance projects.
Construction and maintenance funding across the Department totals over
$1.3 billion in 2019, excluding Reclamation.
Management and Reforms
During the peak summer seasons, the Department of the Interior has
nearly 70,000 employees in 2,400 locations across the United States,
Puerto Rico, U.S. Territories, and Freely Associated States. Interior
is also taking bold steps to better position itself for the next 100
years. In response to the President's Executive Order on a
Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the Executive Branch, Interior is
working to reorganize its operating structure to establish unified
regional boundaries to provide better coordination across the
Department to improve mission delivery and focus resources in the
field. The 2019 budget includes a total of $17.5 million for this
effort. The budget also proposes additional shifts to better align
functions within the Department and respond to congressional direction
related to the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians. The
Department is continuing to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages
of BOEM and BSEE being separate organizations with the understanding
that revenue collection activities need to be separate from safety.
The Department annually spends nearly $3 billion to procure goods
and services, over $1 billion on information technology, and over $300
million to administer acquisition and human resources services. In
2019, Interior will work to achieve cost savings of $52.7 million
across the Department, through more aggressive use of shared services
and use of multi-agency ``Best in Class'' procurement vehicles, such as
shared contracting with other bureaus and Federal agencies.
Bureau Highlights
Bureau of Land Management--The 2019 budget request for BLM is $1.0
billion. The budget proposes $930.6 million for the Management of Lands
and Resources appropriation and $90.0 million for the Oregon and
California Grant Lands appropriation--BLM's two operating accounts. The
BLM budget proposes to restructure several budget lines to provide
greater management flexibility and improve coordination of program
activities.
Through BLM's multiple-use mandate, the 2019 budget advances energy
resource development which generates revenues for Federal and State
treasuries and local economies. The budget includes $137.2 million in
Oil and Gas appropriated programs to strengthen overall program
capacity, improve management, and expedite permitting to facilitate
increased environmentally responsible energy development. Within the
total, $9.5 million will establish a competitive leasing program in the
1002 Area of the Alaska North Slope, as required by the recently
enacted Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, and bolster BLM's capacity for
permitting activities in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska. The
budget also includes $19.5 million to strengthen BLM's Coal Management
program and $16.0 million to meet anticipated market demand in the
Renewable Energy program.
To maintain the BLM's land stewardship responsibilities, the budget
includes $82.1 million for Rangeland Management and $66.7 million for
the Wild Horse and Burro Management program. The budget also proposes
$53.2 million for Recreation Resources Management and $26.3 million to
continue support for the National Conservation Land areas.
The budget includes $90.0 million for the Oregon and California
Grant Lands programs. At this level, the BLM will focus resources on
timber harvests as it pursues the timber sale targets specified in the
2016 resource management plans.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management--The 2019 budget request for BOEM
is $179.3 million, including $129.5 million in current appropriations
and $49.8 million in offsetting collections from rental receipts and
cost recoveries. The budget proposes to offset a decline in offsetting
collections with an increase in direct appropriations. The 2019 budget
includes $9.4 million to facilitate the development of a new National
Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program.
Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement--The 2019 budget
request for BSEE is $199.9 million, including $132.1 million in current
appropriations and $67.9 million in offsetting collections from rental
receipts, cost recoveries, and inspection fees. The budget proposes to
offset the decline in offsetting collections with an increase in direct
appropriations. The budget proposes $12.7 million for Oil Spill
Research.
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement--The 2019
budget request for OSMRE is $121.7 million in current appropriations.
The budget includes $52.4 million for state and tribal regulatory
grants, a level consistent with anticipated state and tribal program
obligations.
Bureau of Reclamation--The 2019 budget includes $1.0 billion for
Reclamation's water resource programs to ensure millions of customers
continue to receive water and power essential for daily life, healthy
local economies, and land management.
The 2019 budget includes a total of $447.0 million for
construction, planning, and management of water and energy projects and
programs. Funding for these activities supports water supply, drought
preparedness and response, land management including recreation areas,
and promotes water reliability by addressing the impacts of Reclamation
projects on fish and wildlife. The budget also provides a total of
$444.0 million for water and power facility operations, maintenance,
and rehabilitation activities. Reclamation emphasizes safe, efficient,
economic, and reliable operation of facilities, ensuring systems and
safety measures are in place to protect the facilities, Reclamation's
employees, and the public.
The 2019 budget continues support to address America's water
reliability and availability by investing to modernize existing water
infrastructure. The 2019 budget includes $10.0 million to continue the
WaterSMART water conservation grants and $3.0 million for Title XVI
water recycling reuse research grants that support local innovation
efforts to stretch water supplies. The 2019 budget continues to support
water technology innovation by incentivizing research through
Reclamation's Water and Power Technology Prize Competitions.
Reclamation's prize competitions target difficult scientific and
technological problems related to infrastructure, water availability,
and environmental compliance that affects water delivery and hydropower
generation. The budget also includes $7.6 million for Reclamation to
proactively stop the spread of invasive mussels in the West, including
preventing the spread of zebra and quagga mussels into the Columbia
River Basin.
U.S. Geological Survey--The 2019 budget request for the USGS is
$859.7 million. The budget includes $72.9 million for satellite
operations, which includes $31.9 million to continue development of the
Landsat 9 ground system component for launch in 2021.
The request emphasizes science to inform energy and mineral
development with $84.1 million for the Energy and Minerals Mission
Area, including $19.1 million to locate domestic critical mineral
sources. These commodities are those minerals with important uses
particularly in technology, and no viable substitutes, yet face
potential disruption in supply. This funding will support the
Administration's initiative to spur critical mineral resource
development in the United States.
The budget for Natural Hazards is $117.3 million to support
essential hazards monitoring, and provide scientific information needed
by resource managers and policy makers. The budget maintains support
for nationwide networks of more than 8,200 streamgages and nearly 3,000
earthquake sensors. The 2019 budget includes $96.1 million for
Ecosystems programs, focusing on nationally significant priorities,
including detecting and responding to invasive species and wildlife
disease, research supporting the conservation and recovery of species
at-risk or protected by law, and science supporting biological resource
management. The budget provides for continued collection of high-
resolution elevation and hydrography data for the Nation, including
modernizing maps for Alaska and complete national lidar coverage by
2033.
Fish and Wildlife Service--The 2019 President's budget requests
$1.2 billion for FWS programs of which $1.1 billion supports FWS
operations. The budget prioritizes funding to maintain operations and
maintenance for the National Wildlife Refuge System at $473.1 million
and includes $50.0 million for the National Fish Hatchery System.
Ecological Services programs are funded at $211.8 million and the
budget prioritizes funding for Planning and Consultation and species
Recovery activities. The budget is $74.8 million for FWS conservation
grants including $31.3 million for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants,
$33.6 million for the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund, $6.0
million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, and $3.9
million for Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation. The budget
proposes $7.0 million for FWS land acquisition activities, which
includes $12.0 million in new budget authority and a $5.0 million
proposed cancellation of prior year balances.
National Park Service--The 2019 budget request for NPS is $2.7
billion which includes $299.0 million provided in the Budget Policy
Addendum for 2019.
The budget proposes $2.4 billion for NPS operations. Within this
account funding is prioritized for the care and maintenance of existing
resources, including repair and rehabilitation projects, which
addresses the deferred maintenance backlog, and cyclic maintenance
projects, which ensure maintenance is conducted in a timely fashion to
avoid increasing the deferred maintenance backlog. The budget proposes
$241.3 million for the Construction account, which includes $157.0
million for line-item construction activities.
The request provides $32.2 million for National Recreation and
Preservation programs to support local community efforts to preserve
natural and cultural resources. The 2019 budget includes $32.7 million
for the Historic Preservation Fund core grants-in-aid programs. The
budget assumes funding for Land and Water Conservation Fund State
Assistance Grants shift from discretionary to mandatory funding from
offshore oil and gas receipts, estimated to support an $89.3 million
program. The budget requests $8.8 million to administer both ongoing
Federal land acquisition projects and American Battlefield Protection
grants, and includes a $10.0 million cancellation in available prior
year balances, for a net total of -$1.2 million for Land Acquisition
and State Assistance.
Indian Affairs--The 2019 budget request for Indian Affairs is $2.4
billion. Funding for Operation of Indian Programs totals $2.0 billion.
In 2019, priority is given to programs serving the broadest audience
rather than initiatives or pilots. Within this total is $741.9 million
for Bureau of Indian Education programs where funding focuses on direct
school operations and full funding for Tribal Grant Support Costs. The
main operating account also includes $350.1 million for Public Safety
and Justice programs including $2.5 million to address the opioid
crisis which has been particularly devastating in Indian Country. The
budget includes $258.9 million for Trust Services programs to fulfill
key fiduciary trust responsibilities.
The budget fully funds Contract Support Costs at $231.0 million,
which will cover all anticipated tribal program administration
requirements at the requested program funding level. The budget
requests $133.3 million for Construction programs and prioritizes dams,
irrigation projects, and irrigation systems which deliver water to aid
economic development as well as protect lives, resources, and property.
The budget prioritizes funding within education construction for
improvement and repair of existing facilities. The budget also includes
$45.6 million to provide payments to ongoing Indian Land and Water
settlements and $6.7 million for the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program.
Departmental Offices
Office of the Secretary--The 2019 budget request for Departmental
Operations is $134.7 million. The budget reflects the proposed transfer
of $140.5 million associated with the Office of Natural Resources
Revenue to a new appropriation within Department-wide Programs.
Office of Insular Affairs--The 2019 budget request for OIA is $84.1
million of which $81.0 million is for Assistance to Territories and
$3.1 million is for Compact of Free Association programs. Separately,
the President's budget proposes to transfer $111.0 million from the
Department of Defense to support the enacted 2010 Compact Agreement
with Palau.
Office of the Solicitor--The 2019 budget proposes $65.7 million for
the Office of the Solicitor to provide legal counsel, administer the
Department's ethics program, and help resolve legal issues among
bureaus and offices as they fulfill their duties.
Office of Inspector General--The 2019 budget proposes $52.5 million
for the Office of Inspector General to continue support for audit and
investigations across the Department. The budget supports the need for
case management system maintenance, OPM security clearances, continuous
data monitoring, and information technology systems assistance.
Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians--The 2018 budget
requests $107.1 million for OST. The budget proposes several
organizational changes including to realign OST under the Assistant
Secretary-Indian Affairs; to shift Land Buy Back Program for Tribal
Nations to OST; and proposes OST assume coordination of certain
functions of the Office of Navajo and Hopi Indian Relocation.
Department-wide Programs
Payments in Lieu of Taxes--The 2019 budget proposes $465.0 million
in discretionary funding for PILT. This amount includes $68.1 million
provided in the Budget Policy Addendum for 2019.
Office of Natural Resources Revenue--The 2019 budget request
includes $137.5 million for ONRR's receipts management programs as a
separate appropriation to increase transparency of the program. The
request includes $3.7 million for anticipated contract cost increases
to maintain the Minerals Revenue Management Support System.
Central Hazardous Materials Fund--The 2019 budget requests $2.0
million for the Central Hazardous Materials Fund to support program
management and legal staff. The program will fund highest priority
remediation projects based on the availability of recoveries and focus
resources on remediation projects with potentially responsible parties.
Wildland Fire Management--The 2019 budget request for the Wildland
Fire Management Program is $870.4 million. The request provides $388.1
million for Suppression Operations to fully fund the 10-year average.
Separately the Administration proposes an annual cap adjustment for
wildfire suppression operations during severe fire seasons. The budget
includes $322.2 million for wildland fire preparedness activities to
support Interior's firefighting capabilities. To maintain proper
stewardship of public lands and address wildfire risk, Fuels Management
activities the budget includes $150.6 million. The budget includes $9.5
million to support high priority restoration of public lands damaged by
wildfire.
Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration--The 2019
request for NRDAR is $4.6 million. The budget includes funding needed
for ongoing damage assessments and restoration activities.
Working Capital Fund--The 2019 budget proposes $56.7 million for
the appropriated portion of the Department's Working Capital Fund. The
request includes $46.8 million for the Financial and Business
Management System and $9.9 million for Department-wide cybersecurity
needs.
Legislative Proposals
Public Lands Infrastructure Fund--The 2019 budget launches the
Administration's Public Lands Infrastructure Fund (PLIF) to address
repairs and improvements in national parks, national wildlife refuges,
and BIE-funded schools. The PLIF would dedicate 50 percent of the
Department's incoming, unallocated energy development revenues that
exceed the 2018 budget baseline estimates, for the National Park
Service, Fish Wildlife Service and Bureau of Indian Education
infrastructure needs. These revenues will be deposited into the Fund
for 10 years and will be capped at a total of $18.0 billion.
Bureau of Reclamation Title Transfer--The Administration has
recently submitted to the Congress a proposal to better facilitate
title transfer of Reclamation facilities to non-Federal entities when
such transfers are beneficial. This proposal will allow local water
managers to make their own decisions to improve water management at the
local level, while allowing Reclamation to focus management efforts on
projects with a greater Federal nexus.
Cancel Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act Account
Balances--The budget proposes legislation to cancel $230.0 million in
unobligated balances from the Southern Nevada Public Land Management
Act program over 3 years. This would redirect a portion of program
balances to the Treasury for broader taxpayer use. The SNPLMA program
is not proposed for elimination and viable conservation efforts will
continue to be supported.
Land and Water Conservation Fund--The LWCF receipts authorization
expires at the end of Fiscal Year 2018 and the Administration will
review options for reauthorization.
Reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act--The
budget assumes permanent reauthorization of FLTFA's land sale
authority, allowing Interior to dispose of lands with low conservation
value and use the proceeds to acquire lands with higher conservation
values, consistent with the original FLTFA mandate.
Recreation Fee Program--The budget proposes to permanently
reauthorize the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, set to expire
in September 2019. As a precaution, appropriations language is also
submitted proposing a 2-year extension through September 2021. The
revenues collected by Interior from these recreation fees--nearly
$318.8 million in 2017--are an important source of funding for land
management operations, maintenance, and improvements to recreation
facilities on public lands.
Termination of EPAct Geothermal Payments to Counties--The budget
proposes to restore Federal geothermal leasing revenue allocations to
the historical formula of 50 percent to the states and 50 percent to
the U.S. Treasury by repealing Section 224(b) of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005.
Wildland Fire Suppression Disaster Cap Adjustment--The budget
responsibly funds 100 percent of the rolling 10-year average cost of
wildfire suppression in the Departments of Agriculture and the Interior
within discretionary budget caps, and proposes a separate annual cap
adjustment for wildfire suppression operations in severe fire seasons,
similar to how unanticipated funding needs for other natural disasters
are addressed.
Conclusion
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the President's 2019
Budget Request for the Department of the Interior. This budget
maintains core functions important to the American people and supports
transformation the Department needs to accomplish more effective
management over the next 100 years. It reflects tough choices to
prioritize and focus limited resources where investments have the most
impact while continuing to deliver access and services that are
critical to Americans. Achieving success in all of Interior's important
responsibilities for the American people is the Department's primary
focus and Interior is committed to take action to better accomplish our
mission. Thank you again for your continued support of the Department's
mission. This concludes my written statement and I look forward to your
questions on this budget.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Hon. Ryan Zinke, Secretary,
Department of the Interior
The Honorable Ryan Zinke did not submit responses to the Committee by
the appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Rep. Don Young
Question 1. Please describe in detail any DOI resources or
personnel that have been or might be directed toward activities in
support of the National Ocean Policy. In doing so, please provide
specific references to FY 2019 budget request line items, if any, that
might be used to support DOI's continued participation in National
Ocean Policy activities, and describe in detail DOI's completed and
planned National Ocean Policy-related activities.
Question 2. Given that this unnecessary and over-reaching Executive
Order conflicts with the current Administration's priorities for job
creation, economic growth, and reducing red tape and regulatory
hurdles, what if any steps is DOI taking to review its participation in
this unauthorized and unfunded initiative?
Question 3. BLM finalized the Eastern Interior Resource Management
Plan under the Obama administration as part of BLM 2.0. This designated
over 1 million acres of land as an ``Area of Critical Environmental
Concern'' and over 362,000 acres of the Fortymile region. This Congress
overturned BLM 2.0 with a CRA, but the Eastern Interior Plan is still
in effect. What is the Department of the Interior doing to overturn
this plan so that it is no longer hurting the people who live in the
eastern interior? What is the proposed timeline for overturning this
plan?
Question 4. The Fish and Wildlife Service has claimed there are
``data gaps'' in wildlife studies in Alaska. I understand the BLM is
collaborating with FWS to collect additional data, specifically
involving polar bear counts and caribou migration patterns as they
relate to the Ambler Road project. BLM has informed FWS that they do
not have the budget of staffing capacity to conduct the necessary
studies for Ambler, so FWS is providing the data. I am concerned that
these ``data gaps'' are simply created by career bureaucrats to slow-
walk development projects they don't like.
4a. Are the data gaps unique to Alaska or do they exist in the
Lower 48, and what other projects could they effect?
4b. Does BLM have the budget and personnel capacity to verify data
provided by FWS?
4c. Are additional data necessary for the EIS to move forward with
permitting in the projects?
Question 5. Fish and Wildlife is planning to increase the fees for
use of the Iditarod Trail from $10,000 to $60,000, but the user fee
increase only applies to Iditarod participants. Why is the increased
user fee only applied to one user group instead of being spread out
across all user groups?
Questions Submitted by Rep. Pearce
Question 1. I appreciate the Administration's support for
addressing wildfire issues. In New Mexico and other western states,
Conservation Corps help to accomplish remediation through invasive
species and dead tree removal. How does this budget address remediation
needed to thin our forests and prevent catastrophic fires? Does the
budget aim to utilize the low cost work provided by Conservation Corps?
Questions Submitted by Rep. Glenn Thompson
Question 1. Secretary Zinke, thank you for the information that you
provided last year in response to my request for an update on the
status of the remedial action at the Folcroft Landfill, a property
which was purchased by the U.S. Department of the Interior in 1980 and
incorporated into the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge (JHNWR) under
legislative authority provided by Congress. Congress provided $19.5
million in funding for the development of the JHNWR and directed FWS to
work with EPA to address the contamination at the site. In response to
my request for detail on whether any of the $19.5 million in funding
provided by Congress is still available for expenditure, you indicated
that ``FWS does not immediately have a response for the inquiry
regarding the funds appropriated from Congress in 1972 (P.L. 92-327),
1976 (P.L. 94-548), and 1980 (P.L. 96-315), ``for acquisition of the
Tinicum National Environmental Center, for construction of
environmental educational center facilities, and for other development
projects on the Center,'' (P.L. 96-315, July 25,1980) but a search has
commenced for records from that time period to confirm the expenditures
for these expressed purposes.''
Could you please provide an update on the findings of this
research?
Questions Submitted by Rep. Tipton
Question 1. This Committee recently passed a bill by unanimous
consent called the 21st Century Conservation Service Corps Act.
Secretary Zinke you were a supporter of this bill when on this
Committee. It would engage more Corps and thousands of young people and
veterans who serve in Corps, like in Colorado, to help address more
high priority projects like backlog maintenance. I've had the
opportunity to visit one of the Veterans Corps in Colorado doing this
work. We appreciate your focus on addressing the backlog. Can you talk
about the impact of getting thousands more young people and veterans
working on these projects would have? Have you identified any plans to
boost engagement of Corps to address the backlog?
Question 2. Wild horses and burros continue to threaten other
animals and critically important habitats in the West. How does the
Department intend to better manage the wild horse and burro populations
in FY 2019?
Questions Submitted by Rep. Grijalva
Question 1. The Department of the Interior demanded that language
connecting sea level rise and coastal flooding to climate change be
removed from a press release announcing a new publication by scientists
working for the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Do you agree
that coastal communities deserve expert scientific research to inform
their mitigation and resiliency efforts? If so, then why establish a
pattern of censorship with critical public health concerns like coastal
floods? Do you believe the communities in Houston, south Florida, and
Louisiana, ravaged by recent hurricanes and damaged by unusually
aggressive flooding deserve unbiased information from experts within
your agency at the USGS? Will you commit to directing USGS to providing
that information to these vulnerable communities without political
interference?
Question 2. Just yesterday, the Office of the Inspector General
published a report showing that DOI's ability to detect and respond to
cyberthreats is highly inadequate. Undeniably, DOI data systems are a
desirable target for both foreign and domestic hackers given the vast
amount of public lands and energy resources managed by the Department.
To address this issue, the Inspector General's report made 23
recommendations for improving DOI's ability to detect and respond to
threats. Although your Department has agreed to all recommendations,
the report notes that DOI's timeline for implementing these
recommendations is concerning. Five recommendations will not be
addressed for more than 5 years. Given the substantial budget cuts
you've proposed, how do you intend to commit the substantial staff and
resources needed to implement these recommendations? Where will you
pull these resources from? The Inspector General also noted that some
of the recommendations may require the recruitment of additional staff.
Do you plan to ease hiring restrictions in order to hire personnel with
the needed expertise?
Question 3. In 2015, Western Governors, sportsmen, ranchers, mining
companies, oil and gas companies, elected officials, conservationists,
and local business owners came together to find a solution to keep the
West open for business while also keeping the sage grouse and sagebrush
ecosystem healthy and robust. These sage grouse plans were an
unprecedented collaborative effort. Despite the plans' widespread
support, the Bureau of Land Management recently released a scoping
report outlining changes it plans to make to the sage grouse plans. The
report claims to summarize public comments related to the changes, but
last week, BLM admitted that a ``technical error'' caused around
100,000 public comments to go missing. What are you doing to understand
how 100,000 comments were not included in the report and how do you
plan to fix it? How do you expect the public to have faith that their
comments are being heard? Will you amend the report to include these
missing comments or reopen the comment period to allow the public to be
heard?
Question 4. Your Solicitor issued a legal opinion ending some
protections for migratory birds under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act--
one of our Nation's first and most successful conservation laws
celebrating its 100th Anniversary this year--against the threats that
are most significant and controllable in the modern age. The new
opinion goes against all settled understanding of the Act by your
Department, the Justice Department, and by numerous courts and
congressional actions over 50 years and across administrations as
articulated by a letter signed by 17 former Interior Department
officials from each administration back to Nixon's Presidency asking
you to reverse the opinion. More than 500 local and national
organizations from every state in the country have also written to
oppose this reversal. Your interpretation would have prevented the
Justice Department from capturing fines for bird deaths to be used to
restore bird habitat from BP for the Deepwater Horizon spill, and Exxon
for the Exxon Valdez spill. And it ends an essential incentive for
industries in many sectors such as oil and gas, power lines,
communications towers, and of course, wind power, to develop and
implement reasonable best management practices and technologies that
minimize harm to birds, and that help fulfill the treaty commitment of
the United States to protect and conserve migratory birds. Mr.
Secretary, how do you intend to ensure that the migratory bird
protections industries have implemented in consultation with the Fish
and Wildlife Service continue to be implemented and that the United
States continues to live up to treaty obligations ratified by this
Congress?
Question 5. Your office has proposed cutting the FWS by $135
million in FY 2019. FWS funds Landscape Conservation Cooperatives
(LCCs) which represent an advisory board equipped with local, state,
and Federal agency representatives. Your office has also canceled the
meetings of LCCs and effectively ended their input into DOI decision
making. Why are you cutting critical stakeholders such as local
businesses and scientists out of the process? Is this an effective way
to share governance over public land? Should the Department be making
decisions that impact states and localities without input from these
LCCs? Can you please explain what will happen to the important work
that was being conducted under these programs since they are being
eliminated?
Question 6. The 1990 amendments to the Coastal Barrier Resources
Act directed the Department of the Interior to map undeveloped coastal
barriers along the Pacific Coast and to recommend areas that could be
included in the CBRA. The FWS took a preliminary look but didn't
propose additions. Given the benefit to taxpayers from the CBRA, which
has saved over $1.3 billion in Federal expenditures, could resources be
made available for FWS to map Pacific coast areas so this taxpayer-
friendly program could be brought to the Pacific Coast?
Question 7. On December 7, 2017, I released an update to my report
titled ``Missing the Mark: African Trophy Hunting Fails to Show
Consistent Conservation Benefits'' in response to your desire to form a
body, misnamed the International Wildlife Conservation Council at the
urging of groups like the Safari Club International and the National
Rifle Association. Thus, it was no surprise to me when the names of the
Council members were released and include SCI and NRA employees along
with all but one person who has a tie to trophy hunting. Taxpayers
should not be spending money for an advisory panel whose purpose is to
make it easier for billionaires to turn imperiled wildlife into wall
hangings. The charter for the IWCC lists the annual cost as $250,000. I
provided a detailed report that outlines why the tasks given to the
IWCC have already been explored by other bodies or by Fish and Wildlife
Service wildlife experts. How can DOI justify moving forward with this
unbalanced Council under the guise of conservation? In the hearing, you
stated that the Fish and Wildlife Service's position on trophy imports
has not changed. Does this mean that the FWS will not allow the
importation of any elephant and lion trophies from Zimbabwe and Zambia?
Do you intend to go through a formal rulemaking process, including an
opportunity for public comment, on the enhancement and non-detriment
findings the Service withdrew? Given the fact that many trophy hunters
are extremely wealthy, do you think it is appropriate that the American
taxpayer foots the bill for 92 percent of all permit fees for wildlife
trophy imports? Does the FWS have enough people and resources to review
these permits? Was President Trump aware of the decision to allow
trophies into the United States on a case-by-case basis?
Question 8. Mr. Secretary, you claim to be a sportsman and a
conservationist and a defender of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
However, across your Department, you propose virtually eliminating
LWCF, a popular, bipartisan program that promotes hunting and fishing
access. Your proposed budget will impede the expansion of sporting and
recreational activities available to the public. How do you claim to
honor the stewardship legacy of Teddy Roosevelt and justify the
proposal to eliminate LWCF? You keep saying that your Department is
committed to promoting access for hunting, fishing, and all kinds of
outdoor recreation. If that is true, I really do not understand how you
can justify the elimination of LWCF. Are you not aware that
acquisitions financed by LWCF promote access to public lands and
support outdoor recreation opportunities throughout the country?
Question 9. Secretary Zinke, you proposed radical fee hikes at 17
of the most visited national parks as a way to address the deferred
maintenance backlog that is plaguing our national parks. Our parks
desperately need a dedicated source of funding and significant
investment from Congress. Visitor fees alone cannot sustain America's
parks and public lands. And, these increased fees threaten access to
parks and discourage visitation by the public, especially communities
that already lack access and do not have the funds to pay higher fees.
In some cases, these significant fee hikes could end up tripling the
costs for families. Visiting our parks is a right to be enjoyed by all
Americans. Please explain why raising visitor fees will not discourage
low-income families and communities from visiting our national parks?
Question 10. Your budget proposal includes a significant reduction
to the National Park Service's visitor services account, including
eliminating $5 million from Youth Partnership Programs. This is an
approximately 50 percent reduction from an account that supports
opportunities for veterans to gain valuable job training skills and
experience through participation in the 21st Century Conservation
Corps. How do you justify cuts to that program? Will you commit to
working with this Committee to ensure that veterans have more
opportunities to participate in their public lands?
Question 11. Secretary Zinke, at the end of last month you traveled
to Pennsylvania to announce the latest round of abandoned mine lands
funding. The announcement was made about a mile outside of the 18th
Congressional District, 2\1/2\ weeks before a special election. The
Republican candidate was there--you tweeted a photo with him. I didn't
see the Democrat there. The race, at the time, was a toss-up. I have
seen no evidence that any other Secretary has traveled anywhere since
2009 to announce these routine grants. You accepted an inherently
political TV interview with Fox News about it. You could have chosen
any of the thousands of AML sites but you chose this one. Locals,
including members of the Republican party, were surprised you chose the
location you did. You can understand that's a lot of coincidences that
point to this being a political trip funded with taxpayer money. You've
said that the state made sense because of the sheer number of AML sites
there. But how did you choose East Bethlehem among the over 800 AML
sites from within Pennsylvania?
Question 12. DOI has used the proposed reorganization of the
Department to justify significant agency actions. Those actions include
the reassignment of several members of the Senior Executive Service,
the rescission of an existing 100-year plan for the National Park
Service, the ongoing hiring freeze, and the expansion of authority for
Assistant Secretary for Insular Areas, Doug Domenech. At the same time,
you're claiming there is no final reorganization plan. If that's true,
it is irresponsible to start implementing in a piecemeal fashion what
you have called the greatest reorganization in the history of the
Department without a plan. At what point in the implementation of the
reorganization will you do an in-depth financial and managerial
analysis that provides evidence that your reorganization will be
effective?
Question 13. You initially justified your chartered flights on
private jets, commercial flights to destinations close to your home or
political events, helicopter flights and the like by saying all your
flights had been reviewed by the Department's Law and Ethics Division.
Then the Inspector General issued an unusual letter saying that your
recordkeeping regarding your travel was insufficient for them to
determine whether you had broken the law. What have you done to try to
understand why your ethics team gave the flights the green light but
the IG has said the recordkeeping is inadequate to make that call?
Question 14. You are proposing a cut in excess of $100 million to
the FWS budget in the FY 2019 requested budget for the Department of
the Interior. The agency request also cuts $28 million from the Office
of Ecological Services which manages endangered and threatened species
protection. Can these agencies operate at optimum efficiency and save
our critical species while receiving inadequate funding? Do you
anticipate that the agency workforce cuts will hurt agency conservation
efforts?
Question 15. The damages to communities and real property such as
oil and gas infrastructure from Hurricane Harvey were severely
diminished because of natural infrastructure in the form of wetlands
and coastal marshes. Given this lifesaving, property saving, cheap, and
effective way to protect lives and properties, why did the
Administration not include funding for natural infrastructure in the
recent hurricane supplemental request to Congress?
Question 16. Given that we are in the middle of a global extinction
crisis driven by irresponsible land use and climate change, do you
believe that this budget will allow you to meet your statutory
obligations under the ESA to prevent extinction and recover threatened
and endangered species? The Endangered Species Act is our Nation's most
effective law for protecting wildlife in danger of extinction. Ninety-
nine percent of species listed under the Act have survived, and many
are on the path to recovery. The American people care deeply about
wildlife and are troubled by the concept of extinction. According to a
June 2015 poll, 90 percent of American voters support the Endangered
Species Act. My colleagues on the other side of the aisle like to say
that the ESA is broken and needs reform. But the ESA is starved, not
broken, and your FY 2019 budget request continues this sad state of
affairs.
Question 17. Several years ago, FWS developed a 7-year workplan to
allow the agency to prioritize over 350 species for ESA listing
decisions. This workplan is supported by a wide range of stakeholders.
While the FWS has made progress on listing decisions for a number of
these species, more than 300 still await decisions, yet the budget
proposes a 47 percent cut to the FWS listing program for FY 2019. This
cut will disrupt the time frames in the workplan and cause FWS to
further delay listing decisions for many species leading to at the
least longer recovery times or at the worst more extinctions of
species. Species due for decisions in FY 2019 include the tufted puffin
and monarch butterfly. Can you explain how the Department plans to make
progress on recovering species with such an inadequate level of
funding?
Question 18. This year marks the centennial birthday anniversary
for The Migratory Bird Treaty Act. It is credited with saving many
species of birds from the brink of extinction. While we have overcome
many of the threats facing bird populations in the earlier part of the
last century, such as the plume trade, new threats have emerged. Due to
industrialization, millions of waterfowl, raptors and songbirds have
died from oil pits and powerlines. In fact, the FWS found that
electrocutions kill an estimated 5.4 million birds, while oil pits kill
an estimated 750,000 birds this year. Given what we know about current
threats, I am deeply alarmed with the agencies recent interpretation of
the MBTA which eliminates FWS authority to address the incidental take
of birds, such as the 750,000 birds that die tragic, avoidable deaths
in oil pits each year. Will this decision result in more birds being
needlessly killed? The problem will only be compounded by your proposal
to reduce the North American Wetlands Conservation Fund. NAWCA is a
landmark investment and one of the most cost-effective conservation
programs. Federal dollars invested in NAWCA are typically matched by
more than $3 from non-Federal partners at the local and state level,
including corporations, private landowners, and non-profits. Since its
enactment, the program has generated over $4.34 billion in partner
funds leveraged by $1.48 billion in grant funds to protect nearly 33.4
million acres across the Nation. Given the program's demonstrable
success, why does your budget seek to reduce it by $4.5 million?
Question 19. Invasive mussels are a serious threat to the waters of
the western United States. They are not only a risk to wildlife and
human health, but they can also block water pumping stations and impede
the flow of water through pipes and infrastructure. Arizona's waterways
are a major source of invasive mussel infestation and pose a large
threat to other uninfested waters. Yet, Arizona is one of the only
western states that has not implemented mandatory watercraft inspection
and decontamination stations. This is primarily due to insufficient
funding and lack of engagement from Federal agencies. Considering
prevention and control methods for these invasive mussels have cost an
estimated $5 billion so far, shouldn't funding be increased to protect
our waterways and prevent infestation? Many western states rely on
Federal funding to operate watercraft inspection programs, but current
review of Federal grant programs is hampering state planning for the
2018 boating season. When will this Federal review be completed to
ensure that these Federal funds are accessible to state programs?
Question 20. Secretary Zinke, when you testified before the
Committee, you stated that the Interior Department's ``budget [for
renewable energy programs] is consistent with expected demand in
[Fiscal Year 2019].'' You told Representative Anthony Brown that you
would provide the data behind your Agency's decision to reduce the
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's renewable energy program by over $3
million. What energy demand data did the Interior Department use to
justify its proposal to reduce BOEM's renewable energy program by over
$3 million? How is this consistent with the story reported by Bloomberg
on September 29, 2017, which said, ``[BOEM) is betting on heightened
interest in offshore wind to drive up the price of the Atlantic Ocean
leases it will auction next year,'' and, ``We've had two unsolicited
bids for the parcels already.'' [James Bennett, chief of renewable
energy at BOEM said]. That and the fact that a recent BOEM auctionfor
an ocean parcel off Long Island, N.Y, netted a $42.5 million winning
bid ``indicates to us that interest in offshore wind has changed
dramatically in just 2 years.'' Bennett said.
Question 21. Secretary Zinke, in August 2017, the Department of the
Interior informed the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and
Medicine that it should cease all work on a study of the potential
health risks for people living near surface coal mine sites in Central
Appalachia. The Interior Department stated it was conducting an agency-
wide review of its grants and cooperative agreements exceeding
$100,000. Is this study still under review? When the study was halted
in August 2017, there were approximately $400,000 remaining on the
contract with the National Academy of Sciences. This money could have
only been repurposed until September 30, 2017. What happened to the
roughly $400,000 remaining on the contract? Is the Department of the
Interior going to ask the National Academy of Sciences to resume their
study? Is the Department of the Interior going to ask the National
Academy of Sciences to start a new study of the potential health risks
of surface coal mine sites in Central Appalachia?
Question 22. Secretary Zinke, when you testified before the
Committee, you acknowledged that in December 2017 you requested access
to a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) energy resource assessment for the
North Slope of Alaska before it was officially published. The USGS's
Fundamental Science Practices states, ``Particularly sensitive results
. . . such as energy and mineral assessments . . . that typically have
significant economic implications are not disclosed or shared in
advance of public release because pre-release in these cases could
result in unfair advantage or the perception of unfair advantage.'' It
is clear your actions violated USGS science policy. Do USGS guidelines
about early release of sensitive data apply to you and to Deputy
Secretary Bernhardt? If not, please explain why not. Were you aware of
the significant oil resources that had been discovered along Alaska's
North Slope since publication of the original USGS assessment in 2010?
Was the Secretary, Deputy Secretary, or anyone in their offices asked
for information about the data in or the timing of the National
Petroleum Reserve Alaska assessment by outside parties before the
assessment was officially published on December 22, 2017? Did you or
anyone at the Department of the Interior attempt to share or
successfully share information about the data in or the timing of the
December 2017 USGS assessment with anyone outside the Interior
Department before it was officially published on December 22, 2017?
Please provide all correspondence within and between the Secretary's
office, Deputy Secretary's office, and USGS regarding the potential
early delivery of the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska assessment to
the Secretary or Deputy Secretary. Please provide all memoranda that
discuss the potential early delivery of the National Petroleum Reserve
Alaska assessment to the Secretary or Deputy Secretary. Please provide
all notes or minutes from meetings in which the potential early
delivery of National Petroleum Reserve Alaska assessment to the
Secretary or Deputy Secretary was discussed.
Questions Submitted by Rep. Napolitano
Question 1. On December 6, 2017, you released your final report on
the findings of the Trump Administration Monument Review. The report
did not mention or recommend any changes to the size of the San Gabriel
Mountains National Monument, which is located just above my district.
Although there was no recommendation, how can local residents, business
and cities be confident to implement their city and business plans
without fear that the President or the U.S. Department of the Interior
will review their nearby designation again?
1a. Can you confirm today, that there will be no changes to the San
Gabriel Mountains National Monument?
Question 2. Did you ever have plans to visit the San Gabriel
Mountains National Monument before the Trump Administration Monument
Review comment period ended on July 10, 2017?
2a. If not, how did you plan to make a decision on the San Gabriel
Mountains National Monument without meeting with local residents,
businesses and cities?
2b. What other information besides public comments made online did
you take into consideration? Where did that information come from and
who? How can local residents, businesses and cities be ensured that
that information was in their best interest?
Question 3. While the Title XVI program has been successful in
helping construct water recycling infrastructure, the program remains
greatly underfunded. Currently, there remains a backlog of $463 million
for Title XVI water recycling projects that have been authorized by
Congress but remain unconstructed. Additionally, in the new round of
WIIN Act Title XVI projects, 44 feasibility studies have been approved
with a total combined cost of $3.6 billion. Despite the success of this
program, President Trump has proposed a more than 90 percent funding
cut for Title XVI water recycling infrastructure projects by funding
this program at $3 million. How do you think these cuts will impact
farms, cities, and vulnerable communities?
Question 4. Secretary Zinke, the 2019 Proposed Budget also includes
a 64 percent cut to the popular WaterSMART Grants program (2019 = $10
million; 2018 = $28 million). The WaterSMART Program provides cost-
shared grants that help states respond to drought and work to increase
water supplies largely through conservation, water-use efficiency, and
water-reuse projects. My state of California has suffered and will
continue to suffer through severe droughts so we should increase
funding to these vital programs so western states can respond more
effectively to persistent drought conditions. Why would the
Administration propose severe cuts to yet another successful program
that helps California and the West respond to drought conditions in
innovative ways?
Question 5. The Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) which has
saved places in nearly every state and every county in the United
States, will expire on September 30, 2018 without action from Congress.
One great example is the Pacific Crest Trail which spans 2,659 miles
through the states of California, Oregon and Washington, and goes
through the Angeles National Forest just above my district. Over 16
years, approximately $31 million from the LWCF has been used to acquire
and permanently protect more than 20,000 acres along the trail. The
LWCF also provides block grants for state and local parks and
recreation projects. How can this Committee work with your Department
to ensure that these vital funds, paid entirely by energy companies
drilling for oil and gas on the Outer Continental Shelf, are not
diverted to uses other than conservation?
Question 6. The suicide rate for American Indians and Alaska
Natives has been increasing since 2003. The rate in 2015 was more than
3.5 times higher than those in other racial/ethnic minority groups with
more than one-third of suicides within American Indians and Alaska
Native population being youths under the age of 24. What is the current
availability of on-site behavioral health services for students under
the Bureau of Indian Education?
Questions Submitted by Rep. Bordallo
Question 1. At a time when more and more citizens of the Freely
Associated States (FAS) are migrating to Guam and other affected U.S.
jurisdictions under the Compacts of Free Association, why does the FY
2019 budget request propose eliminating the Office of Insular Affairs'
``discretionary'' Compact impact grants to reimburse affected
jurisdictions?
Question 2. Mandatory Compact impact funding provided by the Office
of Insular Affairs--split between Guam and other affected U.S.
jurisdictions, does not come close to reimbursing GovGuam for the costs
of serving our FAS citizen residents. Will you commit to taking a hard
look at Compact impact in your budget request for next year, as well as
the many low-cost, practical policy changes outlined in my Compact
Impact Relief Act (H.R. 4761)?
Question 3. The FY 2019 budget request proposes to cut funding for
the Office of Insular Affairs' ``Assistance to the Territories'' by
more than 11 percent and proposes even more severe cuts to other
programs important to Guam. How do these proposed budget cuts square
with the Trump administration's stated goal of improving economic
opportunity, governance, and quality of life in the territories?
Question 4. What is the Trump administration's position on
extending full voting rights for the 4.5 million Americans living in
the territories? Unlike the District of Columbia, the five U.S.
territories are excluded from the electoral college so we have no say
in choosing our president. Note that two of the five Members of
Congress from the territories are Republicans, so this is not a
partisan issue. I understand that this would require an Act of
Congress, but what is the Administration's position?
Question 5. Under current law, the five U.S. territories and
District of Columbia split--six ways--a single state's share from Land
and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) each year. This is simply unfair and
underfunds pubic park and recreation projects in the territories and
DC. Will the Interior Department consider supporting my LWCF Parity for
Territories and DC Act (H.R. 4179), which is supported by all six
Members from the territories and DC?
Questions Submitted by Rep. Sablan
Question 1. Last year I brought to your attention that under the
Office of Insular Affairs competitive system for Covenant Funds that
originally all went to the Northern Marianas, my district now gets less
than half the money. This deprives Saipan, the only U.S. municipality
without 24-hour potable water, of needed infrastructure funds. In your
written answer you said that the competitive evaluation criteria are
evaluated and revised as necessary every 5 years. Can you explain the
re-evaluation process to me and what year it will next take place? If
thisu has occurred recently, what criteria was used and was this issue
taken into consideration?
Question 2. Last year we also discussed the long overdue Marianas
Trench National Monument Management Plan that the Fish and Wildlife
Service has been working on for 9 years. In your written answer you
stated FWS continues to work with its partners toward completion of the
plan and that a number of steps have been taken to address or resolve
important issues such as 2016 patent under the Territorial Submerged
Lands Act. Can you tell me what has happened in the past year and when
the draft Monument Management Plan, which was to be completed in 2011
under President Bush's proclamation, will be issued?
Question 3. The Fish and Wildlife Service requests $473--a decrease
of almost $11 million--for management of National Wildlife Refuges.
This includes decreases to wildlife and habitat management, visitor
services, law enforcement and elimination of funding for refuge
conservation planning. These cuts will surely ensure that American
hunters, anglers, and other outdoor enthusiasts will have less access
to sporting opportunities on public lands. Do you believe the proposed
funding levels for refuges are consistent with your vision of
increasing access to America's public lands, while also managing and
expanding the Refuge System to protect and enhance America's wildlife
resources?
Question 4. In my reply to your soliciting comments to your assist
your review of the Marianas Trench National Monument under Executive
Order 13792, I wrote about the promises made to the people of the
Northern Marianas that remain unfulfilled. You have submitted
recommendations to President Trump under that Executive Order. Can you
clarify if there was a recommendation concerning the Marianas Trench
National Monument included in your submission to the President? If a
recommendation was included please include the text and any information
regarding the review process and timing in terms of presidential
decision making.
Questions Submitted by Rep. Gallego
Question 1. Regarding the public comment period undertaken by the
Interior Department in connection with the national monument review,
did Interior analyze the approximately 2.8 million comments in totality
to determine character of individual responses (i.e. quantify favorable
vs. unfavorable or otherwise breakdown categories of response)?
1a. If so, please provide the categories used and respective
numbers or percentages relative to total comments received. If not
included in your internal categories, please include the number or
percent of comments favorable to maintaining existing monuments.
1b. If not, how were public comments factored into the decision-
making process without quantifying them?
Question 2. External sampling analyses reported a 99 percent rate
of responses favorable to maintaining existing monuments. If the
Department's analysis differs, how would you explain the divergence?
Question 3. Following the review, your memorandum to the President
indicated that ``Comments received were overwhelmingly in favor of
maintaining existing monuments and demonstrated a well-orchestrated
national campaign organized by multiple organizations.'' Did the
Department undertake a quality control process that determined these
comments resulted from a `campaign'? Were these comments valued or
considered differently than others?
3a. If so, please explain how.
Questions Submitted by Rep. Barragan
Question 1. Secretary Zinke, does the National Park Service expect
to issue a Fiscal Year 2017 Funding Opportunity Announcement for ORLP
grants in the near future?
Question 2. Does the National Park Service have sufficient capacity
and staffing to dedicate the needed attention and administration of the
ORLP program?
Question 3. Secretary Zinke, with respect to the Administration's
infrastructure plan, how can the ORLP program better align to meet the
shovel-readiness intent of the program? How can the funds be more
quickly allocated to the areas that need them the most?
Question 4. Secretary Zinke, recognizing the value of the ORLP
program, would greater flexibility in criteria thresholds (such as
lowering the requirement that cities and towns have to have a
population of 50,000 or more residents) and eligibility expansion (non-
profits, for example) help cities better and more quickly deliver the
intended outdoor recreation and economic benefits?
______
The Chairman. I appreciate that. OK, we are beginning the
question process. I am going to ask at the very beginning,
especially for our guests, that there be no disruptions of the
testimony that we are going to hear today. It is important that
the decorum rules of the Committee and the House be allowed to
be maintained so that the Members, as well as the public, can
hear the proceedings of this.
Mr. Gohmert, since I didn't let you talk, I will give you
the first crack at questions for the Secretary and his guests.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And it is good to
have our friend here. And since, obviously, you are responsible
for all the good and all the ills that have beset the world, I
would like to say congratulations on growing the ice in
Antarctica. I don't know what it is you are doing to grow the
amount of ice in Antarctica, but congratulations. You must be
responsible; you seem to be for everybody else, or for
everything else.
And I couldn't help but think, as you mentioned the $16
billion shortfall, that it would be nice if the lawyer in the
Clinton administration that changed the wording ever so
slightly in our offshore drilling leases to benefit the oil
companies by $10 billion, one of which she went to work for
right after that, it would have been nice to have that $10
billion that the Clinton administration cost us. But, of
course, the Obama administration rewarded her by bringing her
back into the Obama administration to help other oil companies.
But we are behind, and obviously, your budget has not grown
commensurate to take care of the $16 billion shortfall that has
particularly grown during the last administration. They seem to
be much more interested in adding land and growing the
shortfall of taking care of our parks and our national
treasures.
So, Secretary Zinke, what plans do you have? How can we
make up this terrible shortfall, the terrible damage like the
water pipe you mentioned? How are we going to make that up, all
of the damage that has occurred during the last administration?
Do you have an idea?
Secretary Zinke. This is the proposition. We all recognize
that our parks' infrastructure and the current system is
inadequate. $11.6 billion in our park system didn't happen
overnight. This happened over a long period of time, with both
administrations.
So, how do we fix it? I think it is a fair proposition to
say this. If you are going to produce wealth on our public
lands, and we are not talking about drilling in the national
parks--most of our energy comes from BLM and offshore. If you
go back to 2008, Interior was the Number-two generator of
revenue in this country. It was $18 billion a year, just in
offshore. It was a banner year. In 2016, when we took office,
it was $2.6 billion. We dropped $15 billion a year, on scale,
that would have addressed our entire backlog.
So, this is what the proposition of the bill says. If you
are going to produce energy, all forms of energy on public
lands--that is wind, that is solar, that is oil and gas--then
you should also participate in paying for the maintenance and
preservation of our public lands. It does not affect any
current program. It does not affect LWCF. It does not affect
GOMESA, because the proposition is net dollars of new energy
going into the Treasury. It does not affect any program. And
many people on the Gulf with the GOMESA or LWCF program, which
I support, it does not affect any of those programs. It is just
net dollars.
I think, over the course of time, liquid natural gas would
be a bigger player. I am hoping we have a battery. But we have
to address the infrastructure in our parks, and our current
system falls short.
So, that is what the President has proposed, that is what
is in the budget. Believe me, it was not an easy process,
getting OMB--and you remember our good colleague, Mick
Mulvaney--it wasn't easy to get him on board. But the President
and OMB are on board. And it is a bipartisan bill over in the
Senate that addresses the Park Service. The Senate is organized
somewhat differently, because we are also looking for companion
bills on Indian education and wildlife refuges.
That is the proposal of how to do it. We think it is a good
proposal. And it is in the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt.
Mr. Gohmert. I appreciate that approach a great deal. I
would love to see the Land and Water Conservation Fund at least
be part of that, go toward taking care of our maintenance
before we acquire more land. But I certainly appreciate your
approach.
I am proud to call you a friend, and I appreciate what you
are doing, and especially congratulations on growing the ice.
The Chairman. All right. I will let everybody know I am
going to be a stickler on the 5-minute rule so we can get
everybody in here.
The Democrats have been kind enough to give me a list of
who the Minority wishes me to call on. So, Mr. Huffman, you
have been requested to give the first set of questions by them.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, welcome, Mr. Secretary. I would like to ask you,
Secretary Zinke, about the Administration's very ambitious
proposal for new offshore drilling. I listened to your
testimony in the Senate and the colloquy with Senator Cantwell,
where you stated to her that you understood that the state of
Washington opposes new offshore drilling, and that that would
be reflected in the Administration's plan.
I would like to ask you what your understanding of how the
state of California feels about offshore drilling along our
coast.
Secretary Zinke. Thank you. And if I could just take 30
seconds to explain elephant trophies, the court mandated that
we change our----
Mr. Huffman. If I could, Mr. Chair, I just don't have time
for anything other than the answer to this question.
Secretary Zinke. Well, you did bring it up in your opening
statement. Let me take 30 seconds.
Mr. Huffman. But that is not my time. It has to be on your
time, sir.
Secretary Zinke. The court mandated we change the process,
not the policy.
Mr. Huffman. I would like to reclaim my time.
Secretary Zinke. We haven't imported one elephant, and we
are 100 percent on board with the President's policy.
To your point about offshore, the decision that was mine.
The last administration took 94 percent of offshore off. I did
a zero-based analysis. I put everything on. It is clear----
Mr. Huffman. What is your understanding of California's
feeling on your proposal? You spoke about Washington to Senator
Cantwell. I want to know what your understanding is of
California.
Secretary Zinke. I am going to have California down as
opposed.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you.
Secretary Zinke. I have talked to your governor----
Mr. Huffman. Thank you. Next question.
Secretary Zinke. California is opposed. I think you are
opposed to it.
Mr. Huffman. You are hearing us loud and clear, Mr.
Secretary. I just wanted to make sure that that channel was
working.
Secretary Zinke. As well as your colleague next to you.
Massachusetts is opposed, too.
Mr. Huffman. Excellent. I appreciate that clarification.
Now I would like to ask you about water. The President's
budget requests drastic cuts to the Bureau of Reclamation
programs that invest in stretching our western water supplies,
like conservation and recycling. They are proposing cutting the
WaterSMART program by more than 75 percent below Fiscal Year
2017 levels. Similarly, a 90 percent proposed cut to Title XVI
water recycling. While these dependable and collaborative
programs are being gutted, there is one lucky project that is
getting more money. The Department is proposing $20 million in
WIIN Act funds to move forward on design and pre-construction
for the enlargement of Shasta Dam and Reservoir.
I have heard you speak at length about the importance of
fiscal discipline and not wasting funds. Are you aware that
this project that is being proposed--singled out, almost--among
all of the water programs for this funding violates California
law?
Secretary Zinke. A couple things. One is the Bureau of
Reclamation in the budget. I agree it is challenged. This is
also the problem with Bureau of Reclamation. The initial deal
made when Bureau of Reclamation came in is that the government
would put large investments in, and then the water users would,
over this course of time, pay for it and the title would be
transferred.
Mr. Huffman. But on this specific project are you aware
that enlarging Shasta Dam violates California law? I have a
letter from California Natural Resources Secretary John Laird
explaining that. And, without objection, I would request that
it be put into the record.
And my very specific question----we know you want to be
careful, as a steward of these public dollars. Do you want to
be throwing $20 million into studying a project that is
illegal?
Secretary Zinke. We are looking at that. We haven't made a
determination, but we are looking at it.
Clearly, California is short of water, and water storage is
a part of the solution. Shasta was originally built to be, the
water level was built to be much higher. The I-5, as I
understand it, prevents it from going over 18 feet, so there
are a lot of challenges. But clearly, increasing the reservoir
for water storage is a big issue. And I have to tell you up
front on the Central Valley, as some of your colleagues know,
we still maintain that project in oversight, even though the
water districts have now paid----
Mr. Huffman. But I am not asking about that. I do note that
there is one water district that would benefit from this
project that is getting this fortunate $20 million funding. It
happens to be the Westlands Water District. Their former
attorney and lobbyist is now your Number two at the Department
of the Interior. Can you assure us that this has nothing to do
with that?
Also, over a decade ago that district spent $35 million to
purchase 3,000 acres of land that would need to be acquired if
that dam raise goes forward. Can you guarantee that none of
this funding will go to a sweetheart land----
The Chairman. Sorry, your time has expired. Thank you.
Secretary Zinke. Yes.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. You are not supposed to answer when I already
gaveled down, even though thank you for doing it in one word.
Mr. Young.
Mr. Young. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, welcome. And it is such a pleasure to hear
them squeal and squall on the other side after they stuck it to
us all those years with Sally Jewell. I enjoy every moment of
it.
We have a Secretary who understands public lands and where
the wealth of this Nation comes from. It does not come from BS.
It comes from the land. And you have to understand you want
your social programs and et cetera, but you don't want to pay
for it. The only way you can pay for it is utilization of our
resources God gave us and we should be able to develop in the
right way.
As far as the elephants go, ladies and gentlemen, those
that try to protect the elephants and condemn the Secretary,
you ought to study a little bit instead of BSing about what the
environmentalists say. I happen to know a little bit about
elephants. You are just taking and rewarding the poachers. That
is what you are doing. You killed more elephants by the actions
of Mr. Obama than any other time in history because of the
poachers. So, if you like elephants, keep it up.
Mr. Chairman, I just have two questions about Alaska.
The BLM and their studies of the eastern, I call it the
interior, came down through proposal that BLM was going to make
a park out of it. Are you reviewing that? I hope you know what
I am talking about, it is that eastern section of the interior
of Alaska they made into restrictive areas?
Secretary Zinke. There is no plan to scrap the plans. We
are looking at it. I think what you are referring to are the
RMPs, and we are looking at those very closely. And I can work
on it with your staff, line by line.
Mr. Young. Well, I would just like to say, Mr. Secretary, I
would like to talk to you about that, because the way it came
down from the BLM, who happened to become a Park Service under
the last administration, instead of the BLM, multiple-use
district, is trying to set it aside. And it does affect how
people live in those areas. It does affect resource
development, one of my native corporations. I want us to
revisit that issue, so let's sit down and talk about it,
whoever is running that operation.
I understand that the BLM and Fish and Wildlife are
supposedly working together on bear counts and the affected
Ambler Road. Fish and Wildlife said we don't have the staff to
do that, to make that study. I am just worried, Mr. Secretary,
that the bureaucracy which is in place now within those two
agencies is slow-walking you and hoping that you will no longer
be with us after the next 2 years.
That is not what I am looking for. I want action, and I
want to see this done. If I find out anybody is doing that, you
definitely will hear from me, because I don't like slow-
walking. I like things to get done. There is a responsibility,
and if they are not doing it, get rid of them.
Secretary Zinke. I agree. I think we are all frustrated in
the permit process. And if a project is not appropriate, we
should just say no. If a project is appropriate, we should say
yes. It is the timeline that these are being drawn out that
takes investors off the table, but we need to make sure that
Interior bureaus work together. And part of the reorganization
maps on your desk look at how we are presently organized.
I challenge anyone to figure this out because, real
quickly, if you have a trout and a salmon in the same stream,
upstream you have a dam, downstream irrigation, and that stream
goes by a Forest Service holding. This is the way we are
presently organized. The salmon are managed by NMFS, the trout
are managed by Fish and Wildlife. The water flow and
temperature is Army Corps of Engineers, upstream. Downstream
irrigation is Bureau of Reclamation. If it goes past a Forest
Service holding, surface is Department of Ag., sub-surface is
BLM through me. And if you have a water compact, then it is a
trifecta of BIA, the state, and the tribe.
You could have, literally, multiple biological opinions
produced independently by bureaus that don't have the same
regions or don't talk. So, next slide.
[Slide.]
Secretary Zinke. What we are proposing is the thing called
science. What we are proposing is, based on watersheds,
ecology, based on trail systems, wildlife corridors, to redo
our regions based on science, and unify them so at least the
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife, Bureau of
Reclamation, all of the departments have unified regions and
can talk to each other focused on three things: recreation,
because that is an $887 billion industry; NEPA, which is
important to us all; and permitting. If we can go that far, it
would be helpful.
The Chairman. I am sorry, I am not looking at it. And, Mr.
Young, you are the senior member of the House. You are not used
to slow-walking yet?
Mr. Young. No, I will never slow-walk. I know some people
wish I did slow talk.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I give. All right. Mrs. Torres, you are next.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Secretary Zinke,
welcome to our Committee. I want to start talking about your
budget with you.
We have had hearing after hearing in this Committee about
the inequalities faced by Indian Country. Yet, your proposed
budget slashes key programs that aim to address the
disparities. If this were to become law, the overall funding
provided for in Indian Affairs would be lower than any level in
the last 15 years--15 years.
Nearly every line item in the budget has reductions. The
almost-half-a-billion in total cuts is the largest of any
bureau at the Department of the Interior. We have to do better,
Secretary Zinke, and I hope that you will work with this
Committee to start over and fulfill the commitment that we have
made to these communities.
Chairman Bishop, thank you for holding a hearing earlier
this year on our bipartisan Jobs for Tribes Act. As you know,
the bill would be a major economic boost for Indian Country,
and would support increased commerce between tribes and
indigenous people across the Western Hemisphere.
Mr. Secretary, during our hearing on the bill, the Director
of Bureau of Indian Affairs told us that, in general, Interior
supports the legislation, but that we need to make some
technical tweaks. We are open to that. The Director gave me his
word that the Interior would provide technical feedback on the
bill as soon as possible, but that was 2 months ago, sir.
Secretary Zinke, do you have a timeline for when you can
get comments back to this Committee?
Secretary Zinke. I don't have a timeline, but I will make
it a priority, and when I get back I will have a meeting today
about it.
Mrs. Torres. I appreciate you making a commitment to that.
Offshore drilling in California, I want to go back to that.
Mr. Secretary, you know the strong opposition that Californians
have toward more offshore drilling. I would like to emphasize
that it is not just theoretical for us, we have seen firsthand
the Santa Barbara blowout and the Refugio oil spill. Our goal
is to get these platforms removed, not give them a new lease on
life.
Florida, who also opposed the Administration's plan, got an
exemption, so why can't California get an exemption? Other than
being a blue state and Florida being a red state, why are we so
different?
Secretary Zinke. A couple things. Florida did not get an
exemption. In the case of Florida, three things. One is every
Member, both sides of the aisle, wrote me a letter. Second is
the governor asked for an immediate meeting. And third, there
is a little thing called a Federal moratorium that expires in
2022, but that Federal moratorium extends well past 100 miles
off the coast.
Mrs. Torres. When you say both sides of the aisle wrote you
a letter, are you saying that the GOP California
Representatives did not send you a letter?
Secretary Zinke. Both sides of the aisle, every Member of
the Florida Delegation, both Republican and Democrat, either
wrote me a letter or wrote me a statement in strong opposition
to drilling off the coast of Florida.
Mrs. Torres. So, are you saying that California Republicans
failed to send you a letter talking about the importance of
shutting off oil drilling off of the California coast?
Secretary Zinke. No, what I am saying is that Florida, I
could have put Florida off the list in the beginning, because
the Executive Order from the President didn't specifically look
at Florida. But had I left Florida off, it would have been
arbitrary and capricious.
Mrs. Torres. Thank you. I want to make sure----
Secretary Zinke. So, again, my commitment to California--
and I will say the same thing I said to your Governor Brown--is
that at the end of the day this President wants to take in
consideration local communities, the state, as we go through--
and this happens every 5 years, this plan----
Mrs. Torres. Just for the record in the last 30 seconds, I
want to make sure that we understand that if the President
wants to preserve Mar-a-Lago's ocean view, that he should also
be looking to preserve his Los Angeles club.
Regarding the water needs in California, we have vast
underground aquifers, specifically in Southern California, the
area that I represent. But we are in great need of funding
because that water is severely polluted by Federal contractors
that came in, polluted, and then left.
My time is up and I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Let me interpose myself now with a
few questions, if I could.
First one, Secretary Zinke, is actually not really a
question, but more a confusion that I happen to have. If, as I
have heard, California opposes Federal action on Federal
waters, and Florida opposes Federal action on Federal waters,
and any other state opposes Federal action on Federal waters,
why, when Utah was opposed to Federal action on Federal lands,
on Bears Ears, did it go through, anyway?
Or, when everyone in the Utah delegation and the Utah
governor and every other assembly of elected officials in Utah
supports your recommendation on Bears Ears, why all of a sudden
is that now subject to lawsuits by some groups, opposition from
others, introduction of a legislation?
Somehow there is a disconnect here that I don't quite
understand of why it is OK for some people to object to it, and
not for others, why it is OK that public lands and public
waters are treated differently, or that one set of public areas
is not the same kind of set as other public areas.
I don't think you can answer that, because I don't think
there is a logical answer. It is just I wish there was some
logical consistency into what we are doing. And if, indeed, we
want to allow local governments to have a say in how their
lands are doing it, then allow that same thing to happen in my
state, as well.
Actually, allow it in my state first, and the rest of you
can go screw yourselves, I don't care.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Just so my state actually gets it.
Secretary, let me go to your infrastructure fund, if I
could, for a second. Last year, we passed a Centennial Fund,
and the biggest problem we have--I mean it is doing a wonderful
job, but the biggest problem we have is actually finding a
continuous stream of revenue to go into that particular fund.
Can you go once again with your proposal for backlog
improvement funds, and why you are trying to do that again?
Secretary Zinke. The buildup in infrastructure of our park
system, which is about $11.6 billion in backlog, the last great
effort to build our parks was Mission 66, it was from 1956 to
1966. And I will agree that there were some good things that
came out of Centennial, but the problem with the Centennial is
nothing really substantial to address $11.6 billion. It had
some nice programs, Find Your Park. It had some development, a
National Park Foundation, which is good. But there is nothing
of weight to address $11.7 billion.
So, looking at it, our bill proposes this. On new energy
set at last year, net dollars go into Treasury. It is important
that we say net dollars into Treasury, because many of you
enjoy LWCF or GOMESA, and we understand, and I didn't want to
get toe to toe----
The Chairman. Wait a minute, let me interrupt you for a
second. You need to find a revenue source that is big enough to
actually make a difference.
We can have cake sales all the time, it is not going to
make a difference, and I appreciate that. But I also have some
confusion, because some people have labeled this proposal as
backwards, a sham, inaccurate. Although, at the same time, they
like LWCF, what you just said--the LWCF money comes from
offshore revenue. This program comes from offshore revenue. Is
it possible there is actually good oil and bad oil and we need
to make a difference between them?
Secretary Zinke. Mr. Chairman, this proposal comes from all
energy sources, to oil and gas, wind, solar--everything that is
energy produced on Federal lands, that is the source of this
revenue.
We don't judge energy. The policy of this President is all-
of-the-above, recognizing that we have to power this country in
energy dominance is a national security--morally it is right,
environmentally it is right, and economically it is right. It
is better to produce energy in this country under reasonable
regulation than watch it be produced overseas with no
regulation.
The Chairman. So, you will establish a baseline of what has
been produced in the past that will fund the programs that are
already there. And then anything that can be increased from
that, that becomes what will be going to your backlog program?
Secretary Zinke. And we believe that is correct because, in
many places, it has been punitive and not allowing energy
development to occur, where appropriate, on public lands. We
are seeing a rise on offshore, we are seeing a rise on BLM land
and permitting, and we are trying to address the permitting to
do it.
The Chairman. I am giving you 20 seconds or less here. Tell
me how your reorganization effort will help the level of
service given to people. You actually have 17 seconds.
Secretary Zinke. Well, given that, the drawing of what we
are currently organized with, look at the next slide.
[Slide.]
Secretary Zinke. This is based on science. And if we focus
on recreation, NEPA, and permitting, and we force structurally
for the departments to work together, we will have better
outcomes sooner.
The Chairman. And I am out of time. Thank you.
Ms. Hanabusa, you are next.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome, Secretary Zinke. I want to talk to you about a
couple of very small projects, in terms of your whole budget,
but ones that are very significant and important, especially to
Hawaii.
I sit before you, the granddaughter of two internees. Both
of my grandfathers were interned during World War II, one in
Santa Fe, New Mexico, and one in a place called Honouliuli in
Hawaii, which people did not know about.
I didn't find out about the fact that my grandfather was
interned on Oahu for a lot of the war time until he was 80-
something years old, because they didn't speak about it. And
that has been the problem that many face, the Japanese
Americans who served in World War II. As you know, probably the
most decorated unit to date in the history of the military in
the 100th and the 442nd, as well as those who were interned,
just did not speak about it. My grandfather was born in Hawaii
and is a citizen by birth, though we were a territory then. And
he did not speak about it.
This President's budget zeroes out what is I think a really
nominal amount, compared to your whole budget. It is about $2
million. But what it does do is eliminates the grant program
that have at least kept various institutions throughout the
United States who are trying to keep this history alive.
Because I believe that it is essential that we, as a Nation,
recognize our darkest moments, so that we don't have them
repeat again.
So, Mr. Secretary, I would like to know. Even with the
President zeroing it out, are you committed to continue the
grant programs that are identified, I believe, as the Japanese
American Confinement Sites Grants Program, which were funded in
2017? Will we see it funded again in 2018?
Secretary Zinke. [Speaking native language.]
Ms. Hanabusa. I think it is still [speaking native
language], but that is OK.
Secretary Zinke. To your point, the priorities were set
that fix the Park Service, fix our stuff first. And this
program may have been caught up in that. I read about it this
morning, so I will look into it. I am committed to making sure
of the importance of this. And I agree with you, it is
important.
We still have a grant program, but I think it probably got
caught up in the priorities of fixing our stuff first--when I
say ``our'' stuff, Interior facilities, bridges, pipelines, and
infrastructure--before we extend grants to other programs. That
is likely what happened, it got caught up in that. I will look
at it, and I will work with you on it, because I think it is
important.
Ms. Hanabusa. Can you tell me that, even if the President
zeroes it out, would you have the discretion to, if Congress
approves it, is that what you would need, for Congress to give
a line item on it for you to over-ride the President?
Secretary Zinke. The will of Congress, on the budget, is
always looked at seriously, so if Congress moves, I am sure we
are going to support Congress. But you have my commitment to
look at it, because I think it was an oversight in the budget,
again, because our priorities were on national park operations,
and this is probably one of the programs that was a result of
that. I will work with you on it and look at it.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you.
Secretary Zinke. I understand the importance of it to
American history.
Ms. Hanabusa. Let me also point out two programs, also
really not a lot of money, but has grave impact if you cut it.
One is what we call NAGPRA, which is, of course, the Native
American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. That has also
been zeroed out, and that is very essential, as you know, when
we look at artifacts and keeping the history alive of our
native peoples, including the native Hawaiians.
Will you also commit to look at that, as well?
Secretary Zinke. I will. And that is probably, on some of
these smaller grants, I am sure that is what occurred. And I
can talk to you on grants, overall, we give about $5.5 billion.
Ms. Hanabusa. That is right.
Secretary Zinke. I did not bring in the stack of IGs with
it, so there have been some problems with the grants. We are
trying to organize it and track things. This is the copy of the
IGs, so we are trying to track the execution of them a little
closer. But I will work with you on it.
Ms. Hanabusa. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Lamborn, I apologize for stepping in in front of you,
but----
Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Chairman, you can do that any time you
want.
The Chairman [continuing]. I had this burning within my
bosom, sorry. You are recognized.
Mr. Lamborn. Mr. Secretary, it is great to have you here.
What a difference a year makes. I am excited about what you are
doing, and I appreciate your efforts.
Fifteen months ago you were on this side of the dais,
asking the tough questions. Now we get to ask. But you were
always an engaged and effective Member representing Montana
very well, and our loss as a Committee is America's gain.
And I appreciate the fact that, with increased energy
revenue, we now have turned $1 billion back to states and
tribes. We are fostering energy dominance. We are reorganizing.
I like your ideas on reorganizing the Federal bureaucracy,
there are some exciting ideas there. You are doing some great
things.
Let me ask you about that reorganization. With the Bureau
of Reclamation, in particular, there has always been an
identity between Colorado and the Bureau of Reclamation. They
have worked hand in glove so many times. As these talks
continue on reorganizing, will you continue to look at Colorado
as an end place for some of the current Washington-based
bureaucracy to go and be closer to where the projects are that
are being done by the Bureau of Reclamation?
Secretary Zinke. Great question. And let me tell you where
we are, so everyone knows in the reorganization.
We asked the USGS to strip the political boundaries, what
it would look like to organize and manage on the basis of
science, watersheds, wildlife corridors, ecosystems. They came
back with 13 different regions. And then I brought every SES
in--not everyone, but a selected group across the country, and
these are senior executive service careers--and I asked them to
take a close look at the maps and adjust them. I took every
recommendation, because we have certain assets that extend past
states. And the map you have before you is that map.
Then I coordinated with the governors. The governors felt
pretty strongly out West that they wanted to maintain the BLM
state directors. This organization does not affect it. And the
governors felt pretty strongly that recreation, NEPA, and
permitting were the areas that we would focus on.
Today, 16 percent of Interior is retirement age. In 5
years, 40 percent of Interior is retirement age, so we are a
fairly senior group.
And there are bureaus--Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of
Land Management--their primary activity is out West.
The other challenge we have is in some cities--San
Francisco, Seattle, Washington, DC, Denver--it is enormously
expensive for a GS-5, a GS-7 to have a quality life. So, we are
looking at moving this, say, a recreation group or a NEPA
group, to smaller cities, where they can enjoy a better quality
of life. Because we are going to have natural turnover.
So, when a GS-15 retires maybe in Washington, DC, we can
reprogram it out in the field, probably where it belongs, at a
GS-5. And, yes, we are looking at smaller cities in each of
these areas, not just the West, but in each of these areas, to
make sure that our people, our young millennials that are
coming in, can have a quality of life.
Mr. Lamborn. And I know Scott Tipton would say Grand
Junction is affordable. I will tell you Colorado Springs is
affordable, compared to Denver.
Let me also ask you about another subject before the time
runs out: illegal marijuana grows. These are happening all over
the country. I think there is bipartisan interest in getting
these under control. They wreak environmental havoc wherever
they take place. Plus cartel activity is frequently involved,
so I am real concerned about it.
How widespread is this problem on Federal public lands? And
what are you doing and can you do to combat this horrible
problem?
Secretary Zinke. Well, it is a problem where the growing of
marijuana outdoors is conducive. It is not really a problem in
Montana, but it is a big problem in Colorado, a big problem in
Northern California. And it is an environmental problem as much
as anything, because the chemicals used are creating havoc in
our watersheds. So, we are looking at forming task forces.
We have BLM, we have U.S. Park Police, we have BIA, we have
a number of different law enforcement entities within the
Department of the Interior, and we are looking at forming task
forces to do our part to eradicate the illegal growing on
Federal land, which has caused an environmental issue among
other things.
Mr. Lamborn. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. McEachin.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, in previous hearings, you and I and others
have had conversations about sexual harassment. It is our
understanding that you plan to release an updated Department-
level anti-harassment policy soon. Will you agree to provide us
a copy of the draft Department-wide policy?
Secretary Zinke. Sexual harassment, my policy is simple:
zero tolerance.
Mr. McEachin. Yes, sir. But will you agree to provide us a
copy of the draft Department-wide policy?
Secretary Zinke. I think we are just about done with that.
I think we are going to release it next week. I will provide a
copy to you.
Mr. McEachin. Thank you. And how will you ensure that all
bureaus' anti-harassment policies are updated to meet the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission standards?
Secretary Zinke. Well, that is one of the things. Up front,
our survey has improved on it. I take it seriously. I was
appalled, at one of my advisory committees, a statement by one
of the members that resigned was, ``Yes, we knew about sexual
harassment, but it wasn't our job to say anything.''
Mr. McEachin. Yes, sir. I understand that. But my question
is how will you ensure that all the bureaus' anti-harassment
policies are updated to meet the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission standards?
Are you saying that they will meet those standards?
Secretary Zinke. The way we are doing it right now is each
of the bureaus has submitted their draft. Some of the bureaus
submitted a stronger one than others, and then we are going
through with our solicitors, all departments, to make sure that
we have the strongest possible standard within the different
departments. That is where we are at.
I am sure EEO is a part of it, as well as making sure that
the different bureaus that were tasked have some continuity
between them. Our policy in general is see it, say something.
And we take it serious. I fired four people, and they told me I
couldn't fire. I will fire 400 if----
Mr. McEachin. Mr. Secretary, that wasn't my question. Let
me move on to my next one.
One of the actions that DOI took to address sexual
harassment was to require all bureaus to produce action plans
for addressing harassment at the bureau level. It is my
understanding those plans were supposed to have been submitted
to Deputy Bernhardt within 45 days of the announcement, which,
by my estimation, was the end of January. Will you provide a
copy of those plans to me, so that we can assure proper
oversight?
This is especially important since my request for a hearing
on the issue has yet to be honored by the Majority.
Secretary Zinke. We will supply the reports. Draft reports,
I don't think there is any requirement to do that, working
drafts. But we will work with you if you would like to come
over and make sure----
Mr. McEachin. Well, Mr. Secretary, it is my understanding
that they were due to Deputy Secretary Bernhardt within 45 days
of the announcement of the policy, which would have been the
end of January. Are they not done yet? Are they still in draft
form?
Secretary Zinke. First of all, that was my direction.
Second of all, we have copies of----
Mr. McEachin. Are they not done yet, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Zinke. They are being reviewed.
Mr. McEachin. So, they are not done yet. Is that the case?
Secretary Zinke. Is there a final copy? Final form? No.
Mr. McEachin. All right. Mr. Secretary, NASA, the military,
business leaders, local governments, and countless other
Virginians have vocally opposed offshore drilling in Virginia's
waters. And that has been done on a bipartisan basis. Why has
Virginia not received the same consideration as you have
offered other coastal states, particularly Florida?
Secretary Zinke. And what consideration would that be, sir?
Mr. McEachin. Not having offshore drilling off of our
coast, and taking us off the list.
Secretary Zinke. Virginia has received the same
consideration as every other state. All states are still in the
process, although I did commit with Virginia to make sure there
is no oil--I committed to no new oil and gas platforms off the
coast of Florida, primarily because of three reasons. One is
because every Member contacted me; the governor asked for an
immediate meeting; and there is a Federal moratorium that would
prevent me from conducting oil and gas operations off the
coast. On the coast of Florida, on the basis of that, I
committed to it.
Other states I have committed, too. I have talked to every
governor. I have talked to almost every Member. And we are
committed to make sure our plan reflects the interests of the
local communities.
I can tell you most of the congressional districts on the
coast are opposed to it, with a few exceptions. The governors
on the East Coast, other than Maine and Georgia who are on the
fence, are all opposed. The West Coast universally is opposed
along the coast, and that is where we sit on the plan.
The Chairman. OK.
Mr. Wittman.
Dr. Wittman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thanks
so much for your leadership and for your service. I want to try
to hit five points as quickly as I can, and then get your
comments.
First of all, for our Chesapeake Bay clean-up efforts,
critical efforts. It is critical the relationship, the
partnership we have with the Federal Government, especially the
Department of the Interior agencies, is key to making sure that
that cleanup takes place properly. As we go through the
budgeting process this year, there will be a lot of debate
about where the dollars go into those Bay clean-up programs. I
hope to have your leadership and support to highlight the
importance of those Federal-state relationships, especially
related to Department of the Interior departments.
Second, in the Chesapeake Bay, an area on the Rappahannock
River, arguably the highest-priority conservation site, is a
place called Fones Cliffs. It has the greatest concentration of
bald eagles in the Continental United States. Appropriation
goes back to 2009. We have a willing landowner, willing
conservation partners. I hope that you will work with me to
make sure that we finally get this land into the refuge system
that we have worked on for years and years. So, I appreciate
hopefully your consideration there.
Third, H.R. 3979, you talked about giving additional
dollars this year for infrastructure. H.R. 3979, Keeping
America's Refuges Operational Act that I put in with
Representative Hakeem Jeffries, to make sure that we are
continuing the volunteer and community partnerships that happen
with our volunteers to maintain refuges, I think that is
absolutely critical. Hopefully, we will have your support as it
makes its way through the Senate. It has passed the House, it
is awaiting passage in the Senate. So, your leadership there
will go a long way.
I want to highlight, too, the importance of our regional
fishery management commissions. I want to thank you so much for
your leadership and commitment to objective, fact-based
management decisions there, and what U.S. Fish and Wildlife did
last year in decisions on Atlantic menhaden. I think those
things are critical, going forward. I hope that that continued
effort there, on a commitment to science-based fisheries
management decisions and the maritime jobs and communities that
go along with it will continue.
Last, we were just able to get through and the President
signed H.R. 984, which is our Virginia Tribal Recognition bill
that now fully recognizes the six first-contact Virginia
tribes, the ones that provided the opportunity for Captain John
Smith to survive. That is a good thing. Recognition long
overdue. Thank you. In this year's Fiscal Year 2019 budget you
included $961 million for the initial Federal support for those
newly recognized Virginia tribes, and I ask for your leadership
in securing those dollars, as we have the debate through the
budgeting process.
Mr. Secretary, the remainder of the time will be for you to
comment back.
Secretary Zinke. On the tribes, congratulations on your
successful navigation with that, and your support of it. I know
we are supposed to do an event, and the White House is involved
with it, so we are working to coordinate that. The budget does
include $960,000 for that. As they are going to be recognized,
I wish them well with it.
Other than that, on the list, I am aware of every one of
the issues. We are working on it. Chesapeake Bay is, obviously,
a concern, and it has been for a long time.
Dr. Wittman. Yes.
Secretary Zinke. We are seeing some improvement in the
Chesapeake Bay, which is a good thing. We have seen some
species recover, so I think the path for the Chesapeake Bay is
looking much better than it was a few years ago. And that is
why we have regulation, so I am optimistic about it.
Dr. Wittman. Very good. Thank you so much for your
leadership there. Again, that Fones Cliffs property, I think,
is a really key element of what we have been working on there
for years for that whole area, the Chesapeake Bay, a key
element, a very unique part of the ecosystem there that is like
no other place on the face of the earth. So, your continued
effort there to make sure that all the willingness that I think
is occurring there, both within your agencies and outside, I
think the opportunities are there. I hope that you and I, as
well as the conservation partners, can work to make sure that
we get that done here in the very near future.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back the balance of
my time.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Bordallo.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Zinke, welcome. I am not sure if your Navy SEAL
career ever brought you to Guam, but I am taking this time to
extend an invitation to come and visit our island, since our
agency is responsible for the U.S. territories.
Mr. Secretary, I am dismayed that the President's budget,
for the second time, proposes to eliminate discretionary
compact impact grants. Federal law mandates--mandates--Guam to
provide local public services to nearly 17,000 residents who
are citizens of the Freely Associated States. And our
population is only 170,000.
At a time when more and more FAS citizens are migrating to
Guam and other U.S. jurisdictions under the compacts, why does
your Department budget propose eliminating this important
compact impact reimbursement for our island?
If you could make it quick, because I have such little time
here.
Secretary Zinke. As a Navy SEAL, I have been to Guam
multiple times.
The budget looked at priorities, and this is why it is a
proposal, and not a finished product on it. This is the debate
between the two branches of service. I will work with you on
it. I understand how important Guam is. We had the meeting, as
you know, the first 20 minutes was dedicated to what is
happening out in the Western Pacific. I get it and I will work
with you on it.
Ms. Bordallo. Very good. Thank you.
Guam is facing a fiscal crisis, as are other U.S.
territories, that mirror the Federal tax code. The governor has
called our legislature into emergency session seven times.
Local public services have now been cut back, government
workers furloughed, and staffing work hours have been reduced.
The President's budget proposes to cut funding for the
Office of Insular Affairs assistance to the territories by more
than 11 percent, and proposes other cuts to Guam. How do these
cuts square with the Trump administration's stated goal of
improving economic opportunities, governance, and quality of
life in the territories?
Secretary Zinke. Again, as a budget proposal, it is not a
finished. Insular affairs was consistent with the other
departments. Trying to get together a responsible budget about
where we spend our money, at what levels. You have been a
champion of Guam. When I sat on this side, you have been a
champion, and you continue to champion your message. And your
message is being heard.
Ms. Bordallo. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And constant
concern I hear from Guam residents is that we are part of the
United States, and yet we cannot vote for President. The five
U.S. territories are excluded from the electoral college, so we
have no say in choosing our president. Only two of the five
Members of Congress from the territories are Republicans, so it
is not a partisan issue.
What is the Trump administration's position on extending
full voting rights for the 4.5 million Americans living in the
territories? I know that this requires an Act of Congress. But
what is the Administration's position and your position?
Secretary Zinke. That is way outside the Secretary of the
Interior's box. I will ask. But you are right, this is a
constitutional issue, and not an executive action. I can ask
the President. I know there is a state visit that we are trying
to organize, because it has been a while for the leaders,
especially out in the Western Pacific, to have an office call
and a state visit with the President. We are working on that,
and that would be one of the things to bring up.
Ms. Bordallo. Well, if I do introduce legislation, I would
certainly like your backing.
My last question is--and I only have a little time--under
current law, the five U.S. territories and District of Columbia
split six ways a single state's share from the Land and Water
Conservation Act. This is simply unfair and under-funds our
public park and recreation projects in the territories.
Are you on record as supporting this, splitting this six
ways?
Secretary Zinke. I will take a look at it. I know there is
a congressionally mandated split on that. We will look at it
closely.
I can tell you that I agree with you that out West, the
further you go out, the less people see our country as
supporting them, and they feel like they have been neglected,
especially with the rise of China. We talked about that.
Ms. Bordallo. We have H.R. 4179, which is supported by all
six Members of the territories. So, I will get with you on
that, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Mr. McClintock.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Secretary, welcome back. I thought Mr. Huffman earlier
brilliantly illustrated the problem that we face in California
with respect to water: breathtakingly bad public policy that
has made it impossible for us to meet the water needs of
Californians. Ironically, California is one of the most water-
rich regions of the country.
For California's water, the state's policy is essentially
to place severe restrictions on water usage, ration water, even
in flood years, as was recently proposed by Jerry Brown's State
Water Resources Control Board. When the Republicans took the
Majority in Congress, we set a very different objective for
water policy, and it could be summed up in one word: abundance.
I am going to pose a very simple question to you, which
might seem obvious, but I think it defines the difference
between the parties on this issue. What do you think is better,
water shortage or water abundance?
Secretary Zinke. Well, you are right, the challenges in
California water are multiple. And it is going to be a
challenge this year. The reservoirs up north were full. There
is a lack of storage. I think most people would agree with----
Mr. McClintock. Well, there is a complete lack of storage.
We went through 4 years of record drought, where we drained our
reservoirs almost into mud puddles. Many communities were
within months of running out of water, completely. If you want
to know what that looks like, you just have to look at
Capetown, South Africa. Then we had a year of record rainfall,
and we had to open up the flood gates of those same reservoirs,
because we had no place to put the water.
What is the Administration doing to restore abundance as
the central objective of both our water and hydroelectric power
policy?
Secretary Zinke. This Administration is in support of more
storage. But on Southern California--California is big, on
Southern California, those reservoirs never filled, because you
have a drought, continuing drought, in Southern California
around Santa Barbara.
Mr. McClintock. That is because we cannot pump surplus
water as it heads out to the ocean to those reservoirs. The
fact is that Northern California, we have no place to put the
water.
Secretary Zinke. I agree. This Administration, I certainly
support more storage. Shasta is an example of that.
Mr. McClintock. Yes, everybody thinks the Colorado River is
the big river in the West. The Sacramento system is bigger. The
problem is we store 70 million acre feet out in the Colorado,
we only store 10 million on the Sacramento, and the rest we
lose to the ocean every year.
Secretary Zinke. True. And back to reorganization, you have
NMFS versus Fish and Wildlife versus Army Corps of Engineers
versus Bureau of Reclamation versus the state. You have a
number of these entities that have differing views that is
ensuring no progress on any front. And you have seen it.
Mr. McClintock. And an ideology that is simply adverse to
new water storage.
Secretary Zinke. But I think, at the end of the day, almost
everyone wants the same goal. They want a healthy environment,
they want clean water, they want sufficient systems, but we
cannot do it structurally, so we are going to have to change--
--
Mr. McClintock. Well, let's go to the healthy environment
and move to Federal lands policy for a moment.
We imposed laws years ago that have made the management of
our forests virtually impossible, all in the name of improving
the forest environment. I think after more than 40 years of
experience with these laws, we are entitled to ask how those
forests are doing. You have seen the answer to that; they are
dying.
We set three over-arching objectives for Federal lands: to
restore public access to the public lands; to restore good
management to the public lands; and to restore the Federal
Government as a good neighbor to those communities impacted by
the public lands. Could you briefly tell us what the
Administration is doing in pursuit of those objectives?
Secretary Zinke. Well, in the power of the Secretary, I
signed a Secretarial Order mandating the active management of
our forests under Interior. I have coordinated that with the
Department of Ag. and the Forest Service. Overall, this
Administration wants to reduce the amount of dead and dying
timber, reduce the fuel load.
We are going to spend, I don't know what the figures are,
but probably over $2 billion last year. I think there is
movement within Congress, though, because of the devastating
forest fires in California, Oregon, and Washington, in some of
the groups that have historically resisted cutting dead and
dying timber.
I now look at the policy as a threat. Certainly, the loss
of life in Santa Barbara, Montecito, some of these
neighborhoods that have influence, watching a needless fire
continue because we have not been able to do prescribed burns,
mechanical extraction in our Forest Service holdings out West
are filled with dead and dying timber. I think it is time to
act. And this body can be enormously helpful in that effort.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
The Chairman. Members, I have, like, 90 minutes of
questions sitting here. I have 40 minutes of time with the
Chairman. So, I am going to go to the next speaker, and then I
may ask you if some of you would be willing to either
voluntarily, or under a UC motion, cut our times down to 3
minutes so I can get everybody in.
Mr. Costa.
Mr. Costa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Ranking
Member. Kind of a curious order we are going in this morning,
but I have more questions than I have time.
Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. I want to get into
some specifics, as it relates to California's water issue. I
find it somewhat saddening that some of our colleagues here on
the Committee continue to think that growing food is of less
importance, and using farmers and farm workers as a political
football, and kicking them in the teeth is somehow appropriate.
But nonetheless, I will continue to try to solve and fix some
of the broken water problems we have in California.
To that end, we had a bipartisan piece of legislation that
you are familiar with, the WIIN Act, that was passed. It has a
5-year window, in terms of its implementation, the idea being
simply to use greater flexibility when we have water moving
through the system without violating existing environmental
law, to move more water through the system for the state.
Under current rainfall in California, can you speak to the
specifics of how Reclamation intends to implement the
flexibility provided in this Act?
Secretary Zinke. Yes. We have put additional funds in the
WIIN Act. And I have always found it actually somewhat ironic,
because they always talk about the rich Republican farmers, but
they are being represented by a poor Democrat legislator. Thank
you.
[Laughter.]
Secretary Zinke. But water is a serious issue.
Mr. Costa. It is the farmers, the farm workers, and the
communities that put food on America's dinner table every
night.
Secretary Zinke. Absolutely. And, quite frankly, much of
the debate in this central issue is internal between
California. I have always found it, as the Federal water
sometimes referee, I am refereeing water that begins in
California, ends in California, and is used in California. And
there is never a scenario where the Federal Government is going
to win in this.
Mr. Costa. So, is your notion or the conversation we had
previously about returning Federal projects within a watershed
totally within a state to return those to states?
Secretary Zinke. I have talked to the governor about it,
and we are willing to discuss it.
I understand when you have basins and they go multiple
state, why a Federal Government needs to be the fair referee.
Mr. Costa. Well, as I told you, that is not a new idea. And
it has merit, but it also has a lot of controversy, like
everything else in California involving water.
Secretary Zinke. I am not sure it is more controversial
than what I deal with every day.
Mr. Costa. Interior's budget, does it provide enough
resources to implement real-time monitoring of fish
populations, so now that we have been getting water this week,
that we can pump more water when endangered species are not
present?
Secretary Zinke. I think it provides an adequate amount.
Some of it is, again, the way we are organized between the
different bureaus.
Mr. Costa. Right, and we talked about that. Would you
support legislation to put those purposes of NOAA and NMFS from
Commerce into the Department of the Interior? And, by the way,
how well are you working with Commerce, NOAA, and NMFS?
Secretary Zinke. We work with them well. And I am on the
record--and I haven't changed since I was a Congressman--I have
always looked at Interior, the Forest Service, NMFS, we need to
either work together more closely and make a structural change
to do that, and I am not----
Mr. Costa. So, you would consider supporting legislation
that would make it more logical? We know the political reasons
on how this evolved some 40 years ago.
Secretary Zinke. I would. I can tell you the headwinds, a
lot of it, are over in the Senate.
Mr. Costa. I know.
Secretary Zinke. It has nothing to do with what is right.
It is what----
Mr. Costa. I have been dealing with this for 36 years, both
in Sacramento, and now here in Washington.
Let me segue over. I will submit some questions and you can
respond to it for the record.
But finally, a lot of us were concerned with the proposed
increased fees to cover the way overdue--and you mentioned it--
maintenance efforts for our national parks. And, while I don't
represent Yosemite or Kings Canyon, they are in my backyard,
and I feel like it is a part of our area. Those increases, I
think, are very harmful to people who want to have access to
the parks.
I think we ought to find a better way to put the money up
front to deal with this deferred maintenance for all of our
national parks, but obviously I am focused on Yosemite and
Kings Canyon, which I know you visited.
Secretary Zinke. The proposals that are oftentimes in the
news were just that, they were a series of proposals. We have
not made a decision yet. When we get to a draft, no doubt the
Chairman, the Ranking Member in both houses----
Mr. Costa. And these belong to all Americans, and we want
to make sure they are accessible and affordable.
Secretary Zinke. I agree. I think the best value in America
still is the year pass, $80----
Mr. Costa. Perhaps America's greatest idea----
Secretary Zinke. Greatest idea. I am not sure who pays for
the parks. Everyone goes in for free.
Mr. Costa. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
The Chairman. Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Chairman. I will try to do this
within 3 minutes.
Mr. Secretary, good to see you. Great to be with you at the
scouting Report to the Nation event. And thanks for coming to
Pennsylvania last month. We really appreciate you being there
to announce the 2018 AML grants. We made great strides in
restoring our historical mine lands over the past four decades,
but there are a lot of scars left, a lot more work to be done.
The OSM estimates that the unfunded liabilities of the
abandoned mine lands across the Nation exceeds at least $10
billion, and that number continues to grow, as more work is
done.
I have been to a number of these reclamation sites in
Pennsylvania, and the work is impressive. It is helpful in
restoring our lands, our waters, our communities, so,
obviously, something that we have a lot more work to do.
Can you discuss how the Office of Surface Mining plans to
continue working with states and communities to restore
abandoned mine lands, and especially in the uncertified states
with the most needs?
Secretary Zinke. Abandoned mines are an issue across--and
by the way, both sides were invited to attend the public
meeting when I went to Pennsylvania, and I think it is
important for the Secretary to meet with local leaders and
actually see it. So, there is a lot of work, and Pennsylvania
received the lion's share of the AML for a reason, that there
are a lot of reclamation jobs that need to be done.
We remain committed to the program. We think the program is
good. Across this country, the way that we used to mine was
destructive. Modern mining techniques are a lot better, and we
have a lot more regulation on it. But repairing the past
mistakes still remains to be a priority in this budget.
Mr. Thompson. Yes, I have the largest, I don't know if it
is a privilege or a burden of having the most abandoned mine
sites in my congressional district than any in the country. But
we are very proud of the coal that we mined that fueled the
Industrial Revolution and helped to win World War I and World
War II. So, we will never apologize for that.
Just real quickly, is the Department or OSM considering any
additional AML support for these states?
Secretary Zinke. We have a plus-$51 million on it, and we
want to make sure the process of how we execute the funds--we
think there is savings in that, too. You know, analyzing, when
we give grants and money for this program, how is it being
better spent, or how could it be better spent to shorten the
timeline, we think that will save money, which will allow us
more flexibility and more programs.
Mr. Thompson. And actually make a bigger difference. Thank
you, Mr. Secretary.
Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Sablan.
Mr. Sablan. Thank you very much.
Mr. Secretary, welcome back to the Committee. The covenant,
the agreement between the United States and the people of the
Northern Marianas, includes a provision or language that says
that the United States will help the Northern Marianas so that
the lives and the communities will be advanced to a state of a
similar community in the United States.
Last year, I brought to your attention that under the
Office of Insular Affairs competitive system for covenant
funds, funds that were originally intended strictly for the
Northern Marianas to promote that advancement of standard of
living, all went to the Marianas. My district now gets less
than half the money. This deprives Saipan, the only United
States municipality without 24-hour potable water, of needed
infrastructure funds.
In your written answer, you said that the competitive
evaluation criteria are evaluated and revised as necessary
every 5 years. Can you explain the evaluation process to me,
and what year it would next take place, please?
Secretary Zinke. I recognize that the territories are
different, they are smaller communities. And there has been
criticism, and some of it has been in the IGs, that when we
issue a grant there is not transparency in how they are
conducted, or the standards are somewhat different.
But I also understand that I think we are making the
threshold of standards too stringent and not flexible enough.
We all want transparency, but the territories themselves many
times don't operate the same as the Lower 48 or Alaska, and we
need to be flexible and transparent. We are looking at how to
do that within the confines of the law.
Mr. Sablan. I don't want to disrespectfully cut you off,
but if you won't today, can you explain, even in writing, again
the re-evaluation process to me, and what year it would next
take place? Because it has been over 5 years.
My next question is, last year we discussed the long-
overdue Mariana Trench National Monument Management Plan the
Fish and Wildlife Service has been working on for 9 years. In
your written answer, you stated FWS continues to work with its
partners toward completion of the plan, and that a number of
steps have been taken to address or resolve important issues
such as 2016 patent under the Submerged Lands Act.
Can you tell me what has happened in the past year, and
when the draft monument management plan, which was to be
completed in 2011 under President Bush's proclamation, when
will it be issued?
Secretary Zinke. A principal issue at the moment is
science. The recommendation that went forward to the President
about the monument was to allow commercial fishing, we are
trying to look at the science behind it. If you are going to
allow commercial fishing, which is the most regulated industry,
I think. We forget about how regulated fishing is. But we are
trying to look at the science, whether or not and what levels
of that.
And I will get back to you on where the Fish and Wildlife--
we are also pulling data from the USGS and we are looking at
the enforcement part of it, too. Because even though we do
things as this country, we don't have a lot of enforcement and
enough physical presence out there to make sure that other
countries are in compliance. So, that has to be taken into
consideration of any plan, because, as you know, Russia and
China are out there, not abiding by the rules.
Mr. Sablan. Exactly, exactly, leading to my next question.
But first, you mentioned a state visit. The President won
in the Northern Marianas in the primary and lost in Guam. So,
just remind him about that.
Secretary Zinke. And that is our priority, and we are
working to get a state visit between the three.
Mr. Sablan. Mr. Secretary, I would like to sit down with
you again like we did last year, when everyone ran off to vote
and it was just you and I, to discuss your thoughts about the
military plans for the Marines for the need for the island of
Pagan.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Gosar.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you.
Secretary, thank you so very much. I am going to cut it
short to try to let others speak, but there are too many things
that I can say and applaud you for, putting your elbow and your
shoulder behind.
The first thing I really want to compliment you on is to
continue this reorganization plan. But you heard from my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle that Arizona would like
to be exempt from California, that would be our one little
clue.
On the critical minerals, I absolutely love where you are
going with this. Just a side note, you are a geologist, you
understand that some of these side metals that are very
critical are associated with copper and with nickel mining. So,
maybe inclusions of those would be very forthright. It is going
to be our future, so that we are not dependent upon China for
that.
You are very aware of the Grand Canyon beefalo. This is an
invasive, non-native species. The Park Service has dragged
their feet over and over again. They are destroying a critical
ecosystem. We would love to see you--I know you were a co-
sponsor of the bill--this is a win-win situation in allowing
the Arizona Game and Fish to allow hunting experiences, make
some money off of it. So, we would love to see you make some
inroads there.
Twin Metals and the Superior National Forest. Thanks for
the M opinion. We appreciate that. Any new information on the
withdrawals that were actually done by Congress twice? Any new
updates on that, sir?
Secretary Zinke. In regards to the M opinion, it was a
legal analysis that, when they canceled the preferred leases,
it was not on legal standing, so we withdrew those. And now
they have to go through a NEPA process, as they should. We are
just trying to be fair.
And, up front, there are places to mine and extract, and
there are places not to. That is why we have a NEPA process in
our country that should be fair, should be firm, but it also
should not be arbitrary.
Dr. Gosar. Last, but not least, your proposed 5-year
offshore plan was a breath of fresh air. Please put forward a
final plan that closely resembles what you proposed. Hundreds
of Members of Congress on both sides applaud you for that.
I would like to take my last 30 seconds and just say thank
you for engaging, making it a bottom-up, instead of a top-down.
I think that makes a world of difference for trying to get the
West looking like it should. With that, I am just going to say
thank you.
Secretary Zinke. Thank you for your comments, Doctor.
The Chairman. Thank you, I appreciate that.
Ms. Tsongas.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Zinke. A couple of things. I think I have
heard you say you understand well that Massachusetts, as a
state, on a bipartisan basis we have met your test, a letter
from every Member of Congress, as well as our Republican
governor, signing on in opposition to drilling off our
beautiful shore. So, that is your understanding, is it not?
Secretary Zinke. It is clear that Massachusetts stands
firmly opposed to offshore. But you should also know that there
are really no resources off the coast of Massachusetts. And we
can go through science, where they are, but yes, I have you
down for a no.
Ms. Tsongas. Thank you very much. I also want to revisit
the issue that Mr. McEachin brought up, which is the issue of
sexual assault. You referenced it more broadly across the
Department of the Interior, but there was a survey done within
the National Park Service, and I think it is important to
highlight the results of that survey, that 38.7 percent of
survey participants experienced some form of harassment in the
last year; 10.4 percent of participants experienced sexual
harassment in the past year; 74.7 percent of employees who
experienced harassment did not file a report or complaint about
the behavior. Of those who chose not to report, 45.9 percent
thought nothing would be done if they filed a report or
complaint, and 33 percent did not trust the process.
Your budget does not include any dedicated funding to this
issue. In my role on the House Armed Services Committee we have
seen all the services wrestle with this very seriously, as well
as the Defense Department, more broadly. It does require
resources to be effective.
You said the budget is a work in progress. Can you imagine
finding funds to dedicate to this, whatever efforts you put in
place?
Secretary Zinke. Well, the report looks back. And I don't
give judgment, it was a previous administration. It is still
there. The sexual harassment is still there. I think much of it
is leadership.
Ms. Tsongas. Leadership, but leadership often requires a
backup. For example, in the DoD we found nothing really
happened until a general was put in charge of the sexual
assault prevention response office. So, somebody with real
standing within the organization has to take charge, and I hope
that you will consider this as you move forward.
There is also another survey that has been done of part-
time employees. When do you expect the results of that to be
released? Because I understand that it has been completed.
Initially, we expected to hear it in spring of this year.
Secretary Zinke. I will look on that. But I can tell you
what sent shock waves through Interior is when I fired four.
And I have said it again. I will fire 400, if necessary. Like
you, I think sexual harassment is a cancer in an organization,
and everyone deserves the right to come to work free of
harassment, free of intimidation, and have a work environment
that promotes integrity, innovation, and a strong work ethic.
Ms. Tsongas. I agree. But, obviously, given the numbers
that have been revealed, it is going to take a real culture
change. And I appreciate your actions, but I do think something
more comprehensive will be required. And within the National
Park Service, there is yet to be a permanent director. I
imagine a permanent director at the head of that service could
begin to wrestle with the culture change that is needed.
When does the Administration plan to nominate a director of
the National Park Service, a permanent director?
Secretary Zinke. The Office of Government Ethics and the
FBI, I just had my nominee--the President's nominee, excuse
me--for the USGS just came out of the Office of Government
Ethics and FBI after about a year. He is an astronaut. He has a
Ph.D. in earth sciences. He has a top secret----
Ms. Tsongas. No, we are talking about the National Park
Service, though.
Secretary Zinke. But this gives you an example.
Ms. Tsongas. Do you have a permanent nominee?
Secretary Zinke. All has been done. I don't have BLM, I
don't have Fish and Wildlife Service. I don't have Park
Service. I still don't have USGS. I can go on, but it is not
the White House.
Ms. Tsongas. Speaking quickly of USGS, you have mentioned a
number of times today about the importance of science in your
decision making, and the USGS's role in doing that. And yet,
you are proposing to restructure the climate and land use
change program and significantly cut the numbers of dollars
that would make their way into the USGS, I think seriously
compromising its role in establishing good science around
climate change and other things. I yield back.
The Chairman. Thank you. Two things, very quickly.
First of all, the Secretary has graciously said he will
stay here longer than we had originally planned. Thank you for
doing that.
Secretary Zinke. I am just having so much fun, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes, so am I. Your efforts to cut back, you
don't necessarily need to do that. It is not happening, anyway,
so you don't necessarily need to do that.
Second, I appreciate you having Massachusetts written down
as a no on activities in Federal waters. Have you got Utah
written down as a yes on activities on Federal lands in my
state? And I hope the other side would recognize that, as well.
Mr. Tipton.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Zinke, great to see you, I appreciate you taking
the time to be here. And I do want to thank you and Deputy
Secretary Bernhardt for your efforts in regards to the issue
which was impacting four of our counties with the surplus
revenues which were paid into the AML funds. And I do want to
note that I am particularly appreciative of all of your efforts
to be able to bring this to some level of conclusion for these
counties. It really is important. Thank you for that.
I did want to take the opportunity to be able to visit with
you on the Fiscal Year 2019 budget that was coming out.
We have a project in Colorado that is in my district, or a
portion of my district, the Fryingpan-Arkansas project, which
was started in 1962. Part of that project was also the Arkansas
Valley conduit, to be able to deliver fresh drinking water into
southeastern Colorado, as a result of EPA mandates under the
Clean Water Act.
Mr. Secretary, our communities in southeastern Colorado are
literally in a no-win situation, and the concern is that was
zeroed out in the budget. The EPA has required the Clean Water
Act to be employed. The resources are not there to be able to
build it. This has been going on since 1962. And, in fact, if
we had probably taken the money that was spent on the studies,
we could have built the project during that period of time.
But the concern is they have a no-win. Simply with the
mandate out of the EPA, the resources are not there, zeroing
this out in the budget. Can you speak to this issue and what we
might be able to expect in southeast Colorado?
Secretary Zinke. Well, it is. And I understand the water
district is looking at different innovations. The challenge we
have in the Bureau of Reclamation is this: the initial idea was
for the government to step in, make the investments, and then,
over the period of time, the water users would pay for it and
we would transfer title. Not transferring title has resulted
over time in an enormous amount of infrastructure that we now
pay for that we shouldn't. And transferring title, when it is
appropriate, will free up money to invest in new projects that
the small communities cannot afford. That was what the
fundamental idea about Bureau of Reclamation was all about.
So, we find ourselves in systems that have long since paid
for themselves, when the initial deal was made, but yet we
maintain enormous amount of overhead, maintenance, and
political battle on it when we should be transferring. That
would help the Department of the Interior. We have asked in the
budget for a title transfer authority to be given. And we will
make sure it is appropriate and work with Congress to do it,
but there are some projects, if we transfer it, it will free up
money to fund exactly what you are talking about, what the
intent of the Bureau of Reclamation should be doing.
Mr. Tipton. I appreciate that. And we look forward to
working with you, an important issue, obviously, for our
district.
The next issue--and I still want to be respectful of your
time and my colleagues' as well--we have introduced
legislation, myself and Cory Gardner on the Senate side, to
authorize a study by the Department to be able to move BLM
headquarters to the West. I appreciate the reorganization plan
that you are currently putting together and I would like to be
able to get your ideas on that. I would be remiss if I did not
note that Colorado would obviously be the prime location for
you to be able to consider.
But can you give us an update on some of your thoughts on
BLM relocation?
[Slide.]
Secretary Zinke. Where we are in the organization is the
map you see. We are that far. And, quite frankly, there are
bureaus that we think are candidates to move out West, because
the preponderance of activity is in the West. BLM, certainly,
Bureau of Reclamation. We haven't decided where we go, but I
would think what we would do is we would create a matrix on
quality of life, good schools, hospitals, accommodations, those
types of things, and target cities within these groups for
candidates. And perhaps even compete the cities to it.
We have 2,600 facilities nationwide, and we are in a lot of
towns that people don't think they are. But my concern is
making sure that we go to a community that has a high quality
of life, that is affordable for the GS-5, GS-7, great
communities that can compete for millennials that will want to
be there. Colorado, certainly, fits that description.
Mr. Tipton. Thank you. I concur with that. I yield back the
balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Grijalva.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, just following up on Congresswoman Tsongas'
scientific integrity questions, should the Department of the
Interior pursue and publicize peer review, scientific data,
even if you, yourself, or the President disagree with the data?
Secretary Zinke. Yes. If you are referring to the petroleum
reserve, the National Petroleum Reserve, I don't change a
comma. But I can tell you when I am responsible--just like your
staff, if your staff releases a document, I think you probably
look at it first.
Mr. Grijalva. Yes, but----
Secretary Zinke. Same thing with mine. It doesn't mean I
change it, especially when it is scientific integrity in a
study. I don't change a comma, but I do read it before it goes
out.
Mr. Grijalva. In the specific case we are referencing, a
USGS scientist resigned because he felt he was being demanded
to see data before it was made public. And the demand violated
the agency's fundamental science practices, and the feeling was
to allow energy companies to trade on this information
unfairly.
Secretary Zinke. That would be an allegation, sir, that is
untrue. I would like an apology, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Grijalva. But do we ask the scientist who made the
allegation?
Secretary Zinke. No, but to allege something that occurred.
I did not change a comma in a document, and I never would. But
I can tell you I read it. In the case of the National Petroleum
Reserve, I want to know why the data was not consistent. Same
set of data, two reports, only a couple years apart, and yet--
--
Mr. Grijalva. So, your intention is not to suppress
scientific findings that you might disagree with, or to release
sensitive scientific information in violation of your own rules
in the Department?
Secretary Zinke. I don't change a comma from any scientific
report, but I do read it before it goes out, because I want to
know.
Mr. Grijalva. It is not about changing. It is about
disclosure and peer review and getting it out----
Secretary Zinke. I think you should know why--I should
know, the boss, why the same data set was different, same
study, 3 years apart, that grossly under-estimated the
reserves.
Mr. Grijalva. OK. Another question dealing with issues of
transparency and other points that have been brought up through
this discussion.
Do you agree the Department should have a permanent
Inspector General, and that the IG should operate independently
from your office, and that funding for that IG office should be
sufficiently increased in the next budget cycle?
Secretary Zinke. The IG is an independent body that follows
the law. I think their budget is sufficient to carry out their
duties.
Mr. Grijalva. I want to submit for the record, Mr.
Chairman, in the time I have left, a statement from the Vietnam
Veterans of America, a statement from American Veterans,
AMVETS, a letter from the American Society on Aging, a
statement from the Vet Voice Foundation, a statement from the
National Disability Rights Network, a statement from Alliance
for Retired Americans, a statement from Social Security Works,
all essentially condemning the remarks Secretary Zinke made
blaming the elderly, veterans, and people with disabilities for
the push to increase fees in our national parks.
And I also think it is important for the Committee to know
that there is a distinction with the Land and Water
Conservation Fund. The LWCF is a 53-year-old program. These
proposals that we are talking about today to engage in
dangerous new drilling off the beaches of Florida, California,
and other states are separate issues. And Congress authorized
$900 million a year on paper for LWCF, but that money, of
course, is subject to appropriations by Congress.
In contrast, the Administration's proposal, what we have
heard from the Secretary, and the legislation that is in
Congress now incentivizes new drilling in places where it has
been deemed inappropriate in the past. New drilling is the only
way NPS backlog gets money. Further, this money would be
mandatory spending, so Congress would have no role in deciding
how it gets done. This proposal amounts to saying we have to
risk destroying some parks, or our parks, in order to save
them.
It is also ironic that at a time when you are arguing for
new OCS revenue as a way to fix our parks, there is also
consideration by the Department to reducing the royalty rate
for that same drilling. I don't know how that will work.
I yield back.
The Chairman. Perhaps you will have a chance to answer that
question some time.
Mr. Labrador.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Zinke, it is great to have you here this morning.
Thank you for all you have done this past year.
Last week, I, along with Senator Crapo, sent you a letter
regarding grazing management in wilderness areas on BLM land.
Specifically, the letter asked you to re-examine BLM manual
6340 that was finalized during the Obama administration and
fails to reflect congressional intent. The record is clear:
Congress intended to allow grazing, including increasing the
number of AUMs, where appropriate, in designed wilderness
areas.
Since we just sent you the letter last week, I don't expect
you to have a complete answer for me today, but will you commit
to reviewing this particular manual to ensure it is consistent
with congressional intent?
Secretary Zinke. Well, as you know, the Wilderness Act of
1964 was a grand compromise between three parts: the
preservationists, the hunters and fishermen, and the cattlemen.
And it is my opinion that we have not lived up to the
obligation and the intent of that law. And we are looking at
it.
Clearly, when you cannot do timber harvest, there is a lot
of dead and dying timber and undergrowth, which is a fire
hazard. And many times in wilderness it starts in the
wilderness, either by lightning or other means, and it extended
outside. So, having grazing has always been a positive in most
cases of removing the dead and dying timber and some of the
growth. We are looking at that policy.
Grazing also--you have to weigh it with elk and deer,
because in many wildernesses it is a competition for food, and
we want to make sure we don't have unintended consequences. But
we are looking at it hard, and I agree with you it should be
looked at.
Mr. Labrador. Thank you. I also want to discuss 68 grazing
permits up for renewal in Owyhee County, Idaho. These permits
have come to be known as the Owyhee 68. Originally scheduled
for renewal in 1997, these permits are still awaiting renewal
more than 20 years later, due to ongoing litigation.
Over the years, BLM has repeatedly capitulated to the
demands of environmental groups, to the detriment of ranchers
who have worked on the land for generations. While grazing
permit renewals can be complicated, they should not be this
complicated. What are you doing at the Department of the
Interior to ensure that BLM and the other agencies involved in
the renewal of grazing permits have the resources they need to
complete the process?
Secretary Zinke. I think in this case, my understanding, it
is before the administrative judges at the Interior Board of
Land Appeals. But I agree with your overall thesis, that it
could have been willful and intentional, to slow-roll these
things, and we have seen that across the West. We will work
with you on it, and we will show you all the data that we have
on it.
Coming from Montana, where there are a lot of really good
people out there, in my experience, our ranchers respect the
land. And some of the greatest land in this country is in the
hands of ranchers. They are good people, they work hard, they
preserve the land. In general, if a lot of our land had
ranchers on it, we would not have the issues we do.
Mr. Labrador. All right, thank you. For the sake of the
Committee I will yield back the rest of my time.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. Soto.
Mr. Soto. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, first I want to thank you for publishing the
sand skink relocation permit in the Federal Register this week.
This is an area in Winter Haven in our district that has a new
community center in an economically depressed area, so we
appreciate that.
The AP report of this week that the manatee population has
taken a pretty steep dive because of a cold winter, as you may
know, it got reduced down to threatened. Do we have your
commitment to hold the line on at least the threatened status
for manatees, given the erratic population numbers over the
past couple of years, due to weather?
Secretary Zinke. You have my commitment, I will work with
you on it. It is an issue to us. We are concerned about it. We
are looking at the same data that you have, and we are trying
to expedite that. The cold winter has affected a lot of species
down in the Everglades, and I am committed to work with you on
it. I think we are on the same page. We just want to make sure
that it is a healthy population of manatees.
As you know, one of my priorities when I came to office is
to go down to Florida, look at the Everglades, and the
Everglades which you are concerned about, as well as I am, it
starts with making sure the plumbing is right. The Everglades
won't be fixed until we get the water flow right. And the water
flow affects the entire peninsula. We are working hard to come
up with a plan and expedite it.
Mr. Soto. Mr. Secretary, I am glad you mentioned the
Everglades, because that is what I was going to ask about next.
As you know, we have sped up the Herbert Hoover dike
construction. But there was recently in our State Legislature a
new reservoir passed in a bipartisan manner that requires 50
percent Federal funding, $1.4 billion, all together. It is an
8-year project, 10,500-acre reservoir and 6,500-acre treatment
marsh.
I know Congress, obviously, makes the final decisions on
these funding issues, but can we count on your support for the
funding that Congress will need to make sure this new reservoir
becomes a reality?
Secretary Zinke. You can. And here is an issue that we need
to work together on. It is the way that new starts are in
process with the Army Corps of Engineers. That project should
be all one. But it is listed--each different component is a new
start, so it takes Congress to authorize a new start. And what
happens is, on a project management scale, we cannot begin and
end the certain components unless we fix the structure of it.
So, that whole project should be one start, and you can do it
as a project management and proceed expeditiously.
If we all work together on this, we can make it more
efficient and get it done faster with less cost.
Mr. Soto. So, if we got a new start consolidation for the
Everglades project out of this Committee, that would be
something you would support?
Secretary Zinke. I would. If we put the whole project,
these projects, as one entity so you didn't have to go to
Congress to authorize each component of it, it would speed the
process up exponentially.
Mr. Soto. And last, with regard to offshore oil drilling,
is it fair to say, since there has been some confusion, that
Florida is going through the BOEM process, but that you expect,
given your past statements, that we will be excluded? Is that
fair to say?
Secretary Zinke. My commitment is we will do no new oil and
gas platforms off the coast of Florida. I can't make it any
clearer than that. Legally, there is a process that we go
through. But my commitment is the same as I made to the
governor.
And you would have thought that all the Members of Florida
would have went, ``Yes.'' But there was blowback. Somehow it
was either a political decision, but it was the right decision
in Florida, and I will stand by it was the right decision in
Florida, unless you disagree.
Mr. Soto. Mr. Secretary, we were very pleased about the
decision. I can tell you it was just when the BOEM Director
stated that we were still in the process that then put it into
a tailspin. That was really where we find ourselves today.
But yes, we definitely appreciate Florida ultimately being
out of it. So, no possibility we are going to be ending up in
it by the end?
Secretary Zinke. My commitment remains steadfast.
Mr. Soto. Thanks, and I yield back the remainder of my
time.
The Chairman. I will remember that on Bears Ears.
Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome, Mr. Secretary, how is it going?
Secretary Zinke. The dam, here it comes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Are you braced for it?
Secretary Zinke. I am braced.
Mr. LaMalfa. All right, good. We will need some new
answers, too.
Two years ago, you spoke on the House Floor and you had a
really good statement about two of the bills that we had passed
to streamline constructing of hydroelectric projects on two
dams that affect Montana and Idaho, citing as a serious
disconnect between DC and rural residents. I will quote you,
``While unelected bureaucrats sit in their offices in
comfortable government jobs, residents are stuck in limbo, not
knowing if good-paying jobs will come through, or if they will
receive some relief in energy prices.''
Last year, I sent you a letter asking your agency to
reverse the misguided previous Obama administration campaign to
ensure that regulatory conditions forced removal of the Klamath
dams, three of them in my district, one on the Oregon side,
which have provided flood control, recreation, access to
affordable, reliable, renewable electricity that there are so
many mandates for now these days.
I also included dozens of letters from my constituents in
Siskiyou County, who would still like to be heard on this
issue, and basically have been insulted by your bagman up
there, Alan Mikkelson, who has been up there six-plus times,
insulting the people that oppose dam removal, and listening
only to the ones that want to remove the dams. That is how it
seems and feels for them up there.
You would have heard the pleas of these families who see
the disregard that the predecessor to your job has treated my
constituents for the crime of being rural residents. You would
learn the hopes that these parents, that they continue farming
and ranching and living in a community where they have an
economic opportunity would continue to go on.
During this time of this Administration, Congress has
passed 15-plus congressional review act legislation pieces in
order to downsize the unfair regulations that have been dumped
on resources, on agriculture, on many things that have hurt the
economy in this country under the previous administration. A
22-to-1 ratio, at least for a while, of rescinding versus new
regulations have come into place.
Now, when we are talking about the Klamath dams up here,
Interior has played a critical role in the decisions relating
previously to the Klamath removal. Two years ago your
predecessor included the agency as a signatory to the KHSA,
with the explicit purpose of dam removal. You can withdraw
that, sir. Your predecessor submitted a secretarial statement
of support for dam removal to FERC, the agency that we need to
get relicensing from for these dams to continue to operate,
declaring Interior's policy to support removal of dams directed
under the KHSA. You can withdraw that. I have asked you to do
so.
These actions were taken before the agency ever completed
the process to determine the impacts of dam removal, and done
in a way to completely avoid the public process. Indeed, secret
meetings, and my office was excluded, to set up a shell
corporation so the liability would no longer be on the Federal
Government or anybody else, except for this shell corporation,
which will disappear after the dams were removed.
And that also removes legal remedies opponents have they
can use under a normal secretarial determination process,
because there has not even been a completed NEPA to determine
what the impacts of the dam removal and the 20 million cubic
yards of sediment going down this river to supposedly help this
river and help coho salmon and other species recover.
So, I have several questions I would still like to take a
shot at with you at a different time here today, the Ides of
March, 2-year anniversary of your previous statement. Will you
allow a NEPA process to be completed before a decision is made?
Will you withdraw the signature that the previous agency member
sent to FERC so that they will have a true picture of what is
going on up there on the environmental impacts, the economic
impacts, and the 79 percent of my constituents in Siskiyou
County that voted against removal, as well as the 72 percent
that voted against removal on the Klamath side?
Mr. Secretary, will you take these things into account and
do as I have asked you before?
Secretary Zinke. I certainly am committed to work with you
on it. Here is the issue. We have looked at it, bow and stern.
Interior doesn't have a role. And I can't speak to the last
administration----
Mr. LaMalfa. Interior has had a role, sir, up to this
point. Now you will say you have passed it off to FERC. Yes,
these are private dams. These are not private dams when you
have $250 million of state money, as well as $200 million of
ratepayer money, and government action has forced them out of
business.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. LaMalfa. I will seek to have a further conversation.
Thank you for listening.
The Chairman. Yes, I will need you to maybe answer him in
writing, if possible.
Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before my time starts,
I have a parliamentary inquiry. Did the documents that Mr.
Grijalva asked to be entered into the record, were they entered
into the record? I didn't hear the----
The Chairman. No one objected.
Mr. Brown. OK.
The Chairman. Are you objecting?
Mr. Brown. No, no.
The Chairman. OK, then----
Mr. Brown. I don't want to be redundant.
The Chairman. If you are objecting, they won't be added.
Mr. Brown. No, not at all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Good afternoon, Secretary Zinke. You are a veteran, I am a
veteran. I don't think you need to be a veteran to respect and
appreciate the sacrifices that veterans have made. We often
hear and we say frequently that we owe veterans a debt of
gratitude that we will never be able to fully repay. I believe
that that extends beyond the veterans, but also includes family
members, spouses, children, and even grandchildren of our
service members, as those to whom we owe a tremendous debt of
gratitude.
Veterans often use public lands as a way to find renewed
purpose and a place of refuge and solitude. I want to ask you
about your testimony in the Senate, because I know that you are
a veteran--I thank you for that service--perhaps an opportunity
to rehabilitate what seemed to be a very troubling statement
that you made regarding admission fees at our national parks,
and the need to raise fees due to disabled veterans being able
to visit them for free, because you said, and I quote, ``When
you give discounted rates to the elderly, veterans, and the
disabled, and do it by the carload, not a whole lot of people
actually pay at our front door.'' And again, I find this
statement troubling.
Secretary Zinke. Well, it is true.
Mr. Brown. So, let me ask you the question, then. Are you
going to make disabled veterans pay for access to public lands?
Secretary Zinke. No, no. And I appreciate the question.
Mr. Brown. Yes, I am trying to give you an opportunity to
rehabilitate here, because that sounds like you are going to
pay for deferred maintenance on the backs of veterans and the
disabled and the elderly.
Secretary Zinke. No, no. I have no intention of changing
the policy on such things. But I have worked a lot of kiosks,
and it is amazing to me how many people come through that don't
pay because it has been a policy that----
Mr. Brown. Let me ask you this. How many visitors do we
have to our national parks every year?
Secretary Zinke. About 330 million visitors a year.
Mr. Brown. About how many come in cars?
Secretary Zinke. Most.
Mr. Brown. Most? And how many of those visitors are
veterans?
Secretary Zinke. We don't track----
Mr. Brown. OK, how many of them are military members or
dependents?
Secretary Zinke. We don't track.
Mr. Brown. OK. How many of them are disabled or elderly
Americans?
Secretary Zinke. We don't track who is in the car, other
than----
Mr. Brown. OK. I am very concerned, then, when I hear that
they come in by the carloads, but we don't keep track of the
carloads, yet in your testimony to the Senate regarding whether
or not the fees at the parks are sufficient----
Secretary Zinke. I think you should go to a----
Mr. Brown. If I may, you suggested that it was because of
disabled veterans, elderly, so I am just really concerned, and
particularly where you don't have a count----
Secretary Zinke. Well, if you will let me answer, I will
talk to you.
Mr. Brown. Well, I asked you some specific questions. Do
you know the number of veterans? And you said, no.
Secretary Zinke. We track the number of--when you buy a
card, a year card, we track that. We don't track--as long as a
person has a car, we don't record who is in it. But I have
been, and I will invite you to a kiosk with me and go through.
Presently, our policy--and I don't intend to change it,
because I am comfortable with the policy--it is disabled----
Mr. Brown. OK, then I am fine. I am fine. Thank you for
answering the question. I am fine. I do appreciate that you
won't change the policy on the fees for our veterans.
Let me ask another question, if I may, shifting focus. Your
budget includes a 15 percent decrease for the Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management's renewable energy program, which is about a
1 percent higher decrease than your overall budget, from the
2017 funding levels. Earlier this week, before the Senate, you
stated that budget cuts for renewable energy programs are
driven by expected demand.
Are you anticipating a 15 percent decrease in national
demand for offshore renewable energy resources in Fiscal Year
2019, compared to 2017? And, if so, what criteria are you using
to determine those projections?
Secretary Zinke. Our budget analysis, both onshore and
offshore, is consistent. And we budgeted toward expected
demand. There are numerous projects that are leased. We have
several leases off the East Coast. Generally, you are talking
about a 3-year project completion. California is looking at
330,000 acres of Federal land. That has to go through a NEPA.
But our budget is consistent with our expected demand in this
fiscal year.
Mr. Brown. Which you expect to decrease?
Secretary Zinke. Well, it is matched to the demand. And I
will show you the same data we have.
Mr. Brown. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
The Chairman. Mr. Westerman.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Secretary Zinke, for being here today. It is
always good to see you. And I didn't see the Senate meeting you
had the other day, but I heard that the Senators were very
interested in how you got from point A to point B, and seemed
to be infatuated with that. I wish they would have hearings and
talk about policy and issues that we have tried to push through
on the House.
But on the travel side of it, I was glad to see you show up
to work the first day on a horse. I thought that made a good
statement about you and about our national parks and the
Department of the Interior. So, I give you a thumbs up on that
one.
You were talking about forestry a little bit earlier, and I
want to talk about forestry, but really in the vein of water.
We know that the states that seem to have the biggest water
problems also have some of the worst-managed forests, the least
healthy forests out there. We have heard testimony in this
Committee that in California the forest is dying at a faster
rate than it is growing. We certainly saw the catastrophic
wildfires out there last year.
I was in Arizona recently. I heard about the big water
issues, and I saw a lot of poorly managed forests in Arizona.
And the story goes on in the forests and water issues. But
scientifically, we know that forests play a very important
part, not only in water quality, but in water quantity.
And as you consider water issues, is your team putting an
emphasis on the interactions of forestry and water? And also,
are you working with Secretary Perdue and his staff in this
area?
Secretary Zinke. We are. And on travel, what people don't
talk about is the last administration spent over $1 million, 80
trips, on charter flights. And I do three. And I have 12 time
zones, about a fifth of the territory of the United States. And
in every case they are reviewed by ethics. In every case they
are reviewed by legal. And there was no other alternative, so
it is amazing that no questions were asked.
I looked at Sally Jewell's, and I think she was actually
appropriate. So, when she took a charter flight and went on a
hike--I didn't go on any hikes, but I can tell you she was
right, because that is the job of the Department of the
Interior. I appreciate your comments.
Forestry, we are consistent with policy. I think we are
probably leading in my Secretarial Order to look at mechanical
extraction, prescribed burns, and be more aggressive on our
holdings. It would be helpful if we had category exclusions to
take bigger chunks out, to make sure we can restore the health,
and we have talked about that.
But the condition of our forests, country-wide, nationwide,
it now has resulted in death. Last year, just in Santa Barbara
County, dozens perished because we have too much dead and dying
timber in the fuel load. And maybe this last forest season--
maybe this country and our political leadership will take pause
and understand that the present policy we have is causing great
harm. And I am optimistic, because it happens on both sides of
the aisle.
Mr. Westerman. Shifting gears a little bit to
infrastructure, I know there is the huge maintenance backlog
that you talked about. In my district, actually, in my hometown
of Hot Springs National Park, we have used historical leases of
old bath houses to great effect, and the park has been able to
take these bath houses off the maintenance backlog and have new
attractions there. You would get a little bit of income from
the lease, plus you don't have that maintenance expense any
more.
With your emphasis on maintenance backlog, have you
encouraged other parks to creatively use historic leasing and
other private and public opportunities to further impact those
investments?
And with that I want to personally invite you to Hot
Springs so I can show you the great job that is happening there
in the bath houses.
Secretary Zinke. We are looking at appropriate public-
private partnerships across the board. Our rangers don't flip
burgers now, they never have. So, lodging, a lot of our
transportation at Interior, and food is vendored out. Not
everything should go public-private partnership, but we are
encouraged there has been some innovation, and we are trying to
look at it across the board, to give the superintendents more
flexibility to enter public-private partnerships, looking at
longer-term contracts to incentivize investment. And there are
a number of things that I think we can do within the park
system, especially, to incentivize investment. Again, there are
appropriate things, there are non-appropriate things.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you.
Mr. McClintock [presiding]. Thank you.
Mr. Gallego.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Secretary Zinke, Number one, I want to echo what our
Congressman from Maryland said in regard to our veterans. And
any decisions being made, I think should be done in a manner
after a thorough study.
But let's move on and talk just briefly about the monument
review. I know Interior undertook a very good and long public
comment process where more than 2.8 million Americans shared
their opinions on the monument review. So, tell me, is it true
that approximately 99 percent of those comments you received
were in favor of maintaining our national monuments?
Secretary Zinke. I would have to check the statistic for
you. But what I can say is we have 150 monuments. The President
asked me to look at 27, and the recommendation----
Mr. Gallego. Secretary, can you just answer that question
first? My question is what do you understand? Was it
overwhelmingly supporting of keeping the monument process, or
not? If you can't give me the exact number, what do you know?
Secretary Zinke. I can give you the number of Congressmen,
Senators, State Legislature, and governors in the state of Utah
that----
Mr. Gallego. Secretary, I am just simply asking with the
public process.
Secretary Zinke. I will have to get the numbers for you.
Mr. Gallego. So, you don't even know, anecdotally, whether
it was supportive or not?
Secretary Zinke. I will have to get the numbers for you.
Mr. Gallego. OK, so you undertook a review process and, for
some reason, off the top of your head, you can't remember what
the public commented on, for, essentially, changing a very,
very established law.
Secretary Zinke. I do know specifically of the elected
officials that represent the state of Utah.
Mr. Gallego. Secretary, I am not asking you that. I am
asking a very simple question. You are the Secretary of the
Interior. You took a public comment period to review the
national monuments.
Secretary Zinke. I would hate to mislead you and give you a
false number. I will be----
Mr. Gallego. OK, you don't have to give me a false number.
What is their overall impression, anecdotally? Were more people
favorable or not favorable? A simple answer.
Secretary Zinke. I would hate to give you those numbers
without giving you the specifics, but I will certainly give the
staff specifics----
Mr. Gallego. So, your recommendation to the President was
to reduce the number of existing monuments.
Let's just skip to this. How many meetings with industry
and representatives did you take before making your monuments
recommendation? Roughly, the number.
Secretary Zinke. The process for monument review was going
out and visiting every state--which, by the way, I was
criticized to take a helicopter. I don't know how you look at 2
million acres on an aerial survey without doing----
Mr. Gallego. Mr. Secretary, I wasn't the person that was
actually criticizing you on that hawk, so stick to the question
here.
Secretary Zinke. And your question is what, sir?
Mr. Gallego. How many industry representatives did you take
meetings with?
Secretary Zinke. In regards to the monuments?
Mr. Gallego. Yes, monument review.
Secretary Zinke. We looked at all sides of the issue. I had
public meetings in multiple locations at every monument, which
all sides were represented. We made sure that all sides were
represented.
Mr. Gallego. OK. From what I understand, the answer is 180.
Secretary Zinke. I will let you see the number of people
that represented the other side, too. I am sure it is
comparable.
Mr. Gallego. OK.
Secretary Zinke. I am not sure where you are getting those
numbers.
Mr. Gallego. How many meetings did you hold with the Bears
Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition?
Secretary Zinke. Pardon me?
Mr. Gallego. How many meetings did you hold with the Bears
Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition?
Secretary Zinke. I met them in Washington, DC. I met them
there. I met them over the phone and had individual meetings.
Mr. Gallego. So, the actual coalition, it sounds like you
have had one meeting, then, one face----
Secretary Zinke. That would be incorrect. I had a meeting
there, I had a meeting with the chairman in the office.
Mr. Gallego. You had a meeting there, meaning Utah?
Secretary Zinke. I met with Begaye, so I would say multiple
meetings with either the coalition itself, or parts of it, to
include also the Navajo Nation in the state of Utah. The only
elected official that represents, by Congress, a district of
the Navajo, that would be Commissioner Benally.
Mr. Gallego. OK, so what would you say the number is, then,
if you had to take a guess? Even giving you some sway on the--
--
Secretary Zinke. Number of, your question is number of
what?
Mr. Gallego. Meetings with people that are in the Tribal
Council or involved with the Tribal Council.
Secretary Zinke. I had a meeting there with the coalition.
I had a meeting in Utah with----
Mr. Gallego. Secretary Zinke, I am asking for just a
number. I know you have been a Navy SEAL and math might be
difficult, but give me a rough number here.
Secretary Zinke. Rough number of--what specifically is your
question?
And I take offense about your derogatory comment about the
U.S. Navy SEALs. Of course, having not served, I understand you
probably don't know.
Mr. Gallego. Having not----
Secretary Zinke. Not in the Navy, and not in the Navy
SEALs.
Mr. Gallego. All right, Mr. Secretary Zinke, I apologize.
But as you know, we have jokes all the time, as a Marine, and
as a grunt. And, of course, I appreciate your service.
Secretary Zinke. Semper fi.
Mr. Gallego. Semper fi, brother.
You do have a problem that you can't answer my question, in
terms of numbers. Give me a rough estimate here.
Secretary Zinke. A rough estimate of how many times that I
met with the coalition?
Mr. Gallego. Yes.
Secretary Zinke. I met with the coalition, as a whole, once
there. I met with multiple members in my office. And I met with
multiple members in the field. So, as a group, probably, as an
entirety group, probably one there. But I met with multiple
members in my office multiple times, and had phone
conversations with them.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Secretary Zinke. That is well documented.
Mr. Gallego. Thank you, I yield back.
Secretary Zinke. Semper fi.
Mr. Gallego. Semper fi.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Graves.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, it is a pleasure to have you back in the
Committee again, I appreciate you being here. General Bergman
has offered to give you your seat back any time you want it.
Secretary Zinke. Always a pleasure to be here.
Mr. Graves. First, I want to thank you for the change in
the budget request for this year related to the Gulf of Mexico
Energy Security Act. You and I had a number of discussions
about that. As you know, the Obama administration for 2 years
tried to cut that revenue-sharing program out, and we had some
challenges last year. But I want to tell you that I do
appreciate you taking a fresh look at it, you agreed to do that
last year, and I appreciate the change in the budget request
this year. And I know that millions of people in south
Louisiana do, as well. So, first I want to say a very big thank
you for that.
Second of all, I appreciate you coming down to south
Louisiana. A lot of times people, I think, get stuck in their
bubbles or in their cubicles. And in your case, you have a
little bit bigger than a cubicle, but people get stuck in
Washington and, I think, lose the perspective of what is
actually happening on the ground.
The investments in the case of Louisiana through offshore
energy revenue sharing and other programs, I think, are
yielding significant benefits, not just to south Louisiana, but
to the Nation, in terms of the ecological productivity, the
improved resilience, and the fact that you came out, we went in
an air boat, and you stood on some of the new ground that we
created in south Louisiana, and I think made a multi-billion-
dollar commitment to us on a video, if I remember right. That
was impressive, so thank you.
Mr. Secretary, you and I have discussed in the past this
disparity that occurs. When you produce energy on Federal
lands, that state gets 50 percent of the money, or in the case
of Alaska, in some cases, 90 percent of the money. You have
revenue-sharing programs related to wind and renewable energy.
You have the timber revenue-sharing program. It happens all the
way across the board.
But when you look in reality for the offshore, and I am
going to take a pretty wild guess, but revenue-sharing, when
you look at the total amount of money produced versus the
revenue we will share in for this year, my guess is it is
probably around 1 or 2 percent.
How do I explain to people at home the disparity in revenue
sharing for onshore production that is 50 percent or even 90
percent, with an additional 40 percent going into the
reclamation fund in the case of offshore Louisiana, which
contributes a significant amount to our Nation's energy
independence, or energy dominance, when we get such a small
fraction of a percentage of overall revenue sharing?
Secretary Zinke. Again, I appreciate your hosting me down
there, and I want to make sure your coastline remains a working
coast and not a disappearing coast. I was amazed that a
football field of material is lost every hour.
If you are referring to the LWCF or the reorganization,
that reorganization does not affect current programs. The
infrastructure bill that is proposed in the budget, the largest
investment in public lands in the history of this country as
far as infrastructure goes, the model we have is net dollars
into Treasury. So, it doesn't affect GOMESA, it doesn't affect
LWCF.
If those percentages are adjusted by Congress, then there
are still net dollars going into Treasury. The proposal would
be half of that at a level that would go back into an
infrastructure account to pay for our parks. So, if the LWCF or
GOMESA is adjusted, it would not affect the net dollars going
back in.
Mr. Graves. But, Mr. Secretary, do you understand, LWCF is
funded from off shore our coast. Louisiana produces 80 to 90
percent of all the offshore energy production in Federal
waters. If LWCF monies go out, if you are going to take funds
for backlog maintenance issues, all of that is coming from off
shore our coast, and the very area where these funds are
derived from is not sustainable.
It is very difficult for us to explain to people at home.
It is difficult for us to defend--and, quite frankly, I won't
defend efforts to try to take these monies and put them into
other states, into other areas, when this very area that is
really the golden goose for revenue for your Department is
unsustainable itself. We need to first sustain that area.
Secretary Zinke. Well, to your point, the infrastructure
proposal that we have proposed is all energy. Quite frankly, it
is onshore, offshore, wind, solar, all energy produced on
Federal land, regardless of type.
Mr. McClintock. Good, thank you.
Secretary Zinke. It does not affect any current program.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Ms. Barragan.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
start by associating myself with the comments of my colleagues
from California opposing your proposal to open up our coastline
to additional oil and gas drilling. This would be disastrous
for the coastal economy and public health. Sixty-nine percent
of Californians strongly oppose new oil and gas drilling off
our coast. I wanted to make sure to reiterate the importance of
this issue and our opposition on the record.
As somebody who has fought to prevent oil drilling off the
California coastline, it is also very personal for me, so I
wanted to make sure to also express my opposition. I hope, Mr.
Secretary, that you will give fair and due consideration to our
concerns and the importance of California's coastline and its
tourism to our economy when you are making decisions.
Secretary Zinke. And I will relate the same thing when I
talked to Governor Brown is it was my decision to put
everything on so America could see its potential. Almost zero-
based budgeting, and then I have talked to every governor, I
have talked to most Congressmen about it. And then we are going
to shape the plan to make sure it reflects the interest of the
communities and the governors and----
Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I only have about 3
minutes left, and I want to shift gears a little bit. I
appreciate that.
First, I want to thank Ranking Member Grijalva for bringing
up the issue of the Department of the Interior being a good
steward of taxpayer dollars. This is also something that I have
been doing over the course of my career.
Mr. Secretary, last October I led a letter, which I am
holding up here, along with my friend, Mr. Beyer, that was
signed by 24 other Members of Congress, including Ranking
Member Grijalva and 9 other members of this Committee. It is
dated October 3, 2017. It asked you to immediately disclose the
full details of all of the privately chartered flights that you
had taken.
Mr. Chairman, I want to start by asking unanimous consent
to enter the letter into the record.
Secretary Zinke. You should look at what we provided to----
Ms. Barragan. I am sorry, Mr. Secretary. If you let me just
finish.
Mr. McClintock. Yes, without objection.
Ms. Barragan. Thank you.
The letter that was written to you was a result of
reporting by the Washington Post, Politico, and numerous other
sources. The reports included a $12,000 charter flight from Las
Vegas, Nevada to Montana taken last June aboard a plane owned
by executives of a Wyoming-based oil and gas exploration firm,
part of an industry whose permitting process you are tasked
with overseeing.
These flights can give the appearance that you are mixing
political gatherings and personal destinations with official
business.
As the letter points out, these privately chartered flights
appear to coincide with events held by political donors and
speeches before private entities that share a personal
connection with you. Again, this letter was sent on October 3.
Neither I nor Mr. Beyer have yet received a response. Mr.
Secretary, it is just a yes or no question. Can I get a
commitment from you that you will respond and provide
information that we requested in the letter?
Secretary Zinke. Well, I can't speak for your Ranking
Member, but I hold a note and response from me that is dated
October 31, 2017. So, I would suggest you ask your Ranking
Member to give you a copy of the letter we sent.
And if you would like more detail on it, we also had a
meeting, which I had with the Ranking----
Ms. Barragan. Mr. Secretary, you used to be a Member of
Congress yourself. When you wrote a letter to a cabinet
secretary, did you not expect the cabinet secretary to respond
to your letter?
Secretary Zinke. October 31, 2017.
Ms. Barragan. Is that letter to me? Is that responding to
my letter, Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Zinke. It is to the Ranking Member and to the
Chairman of this Committee.
Ms. Barragan. OK. I think you have made my point, Mr.
Secretary.
Secretary Zinke. As well as I opened a meeting to----
Ms. Barragan. I reclaim my time, Mr. Secretary. I am not
done with my line of questioning. And, I just very nicely am
trying to get a response to my letter that is directed at me. I
have a different office than the Ranking Member does.
And the reason I bring this up is because this is a pattern
that is impossible to ignore, one that has the optics of the
steward of our public lands allowing the concerns of political
donors and the oil and gas industry to receive further greater
influence than those of the American people--and the excessive
spending, whether it is on this or a door.
Can I get a commitment that when I send you a letter, Mr.
Secretary, you will respond to me in a timely manner, to me, as
the Member who wrote the letter?
Secretary Zinke. I would love to give you a commitment. And
I wish you would give a commitment to me of courtesy, because I
answered the letter. Not only did I answer the letter, but I
also had a Minority meeting, which I invited every Member of
the Minority to sit down and talk, line by line, on any issue
you had.
And as far as an oil and gas concern, it is contracted by
the Department of the Interior, blind of origin. If a company
owns a contracted King Air, then we don't look at who owns it,
because we go through a government contracting service, and
that is exactly what occurred. So, to give an allegation that
somehow we favor King Air traveling at night after traveling
all day across from Pahrump, Nevada would be inappropriate.
Mr. McClintock. The Chair would ask the unanimous consent
that the Secretary's response also be included in the record.
Ms. Cheney.
Ms. Cheney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Mr. Secretary, I hope
that you will put Wyoming down on your list as a yes. We, in
Wyoming, fully understand and recognize that our fossil fuels
are, in fact, national treasures, crucial to the functioning of
our economy. And I look forward to my colleagues from those
states that have been so insistent on taking time for political
purposes and on denying the value of fossil fuels to try to run
their state economies without fossil fuels. I think that would
be an interesting challenge for them.
Mr. Secretary, I have just three issues I might want to
list, and then get you to see what we can do to help us on all
three of those.
We, in Wyoming, have been very grateful and pleased with
the improvements in the permitting process. As you know, the
technology in some instances has really outstripped the
regulatory framework. So, when you have a situation, as we do
in Wyoming, where you have split estates, you have private
ownership of the surface and Federal ownership of the minerals,
we are still facing significant challenges, and really need
some clarification and some relief with respect to what is the
role of the BLM, in particular, when the land is privately
owned and the minerals are Federal, especially in situations
where we have horizontal drilling now that is reaching out
miles and miles.
The second issue I wanted to get your assistance and help
on, Mr. Secretary, has to do with viewsheds. There was a
memorandum issued at the end of the Obama administration that
dealt in particular with section 106, tribal consultation,
again, on private lands, and the National Historic Preservation
Act. We need some clarification in this regard, as well.
We need a new instructional memo, we need some clarity for
BLM field offices with respect to how they can properly conduct
tribal consultations without the kind of very significant delay
that we continue to see, and what seems to be uncertainty.
Then finally, Mr. Secretary, on the area of water, we have
issues between the Bighorn Lake, which is in Wyoming on the
Bighorn River. The Bureau of Reclamation seems to be imposing
some rules and regulations with respect to water levels in the
lake, water levels in the river that are not balanced. And we
really need a return to balance, and would very much appreciate
your support and your help, in terms of making sure we don't
have a situation where my constituents in places like Lovell,
who depend very much upon recreation and Bighorn Lake, are
faced with levels of the lake that are inconsistent with the
BOR regulations, that they are somehow focused on the needs of
the river.
We need some balance there, and I would very much
appreciate your taking a look at that issue, as well, and
letting us know what we can do to ensure that those communities
and the economies there that are so reliant on recreation and
the lake are not infringed upon.
Secretary Zinke. I agree. I am committed to work with you
on it. I was unaware of the Bighorn issue, but we will look at
it.
In general, the government is always behind innovation. And
we are trying to look at a framework of regulation where we
make sure there is a threshold for safety, reliability,
stewardship, but to incorporate innovation, best science, and
best practices. It is clear, with horizontal drilling and some
of the innovation on wind and solar as well, that our
regulatory framework is not capable of keeping pace with
industry innovation. And in many ways, innovation improves
reliability and safety.
So, we are working with energy and innovation across the
board to look at giving some flexibility without diminishing
our core responsibility of stewardship and environmental
safety.
On permitting, which is always a problem, we are catching
up. There is a state permitting process and a Federal
permitting process, and we are looking at, within the confines
of the law, how do we make sure we are not redundant. So,
giving the front end to the state, having them do what they
need to do, and then us doing just the tail end, rather than
the Federal Government repeating the process, line by line.
The other thing that is not taking place in permitting is--
if you are in the basin and you have 16 wells, for instance,
same basin, same geology. Starting the permitting process of a
new well as if it is the only well you ever drilled in the
basin is a problem because it repeats things that are not
necessary, and it takes the resources away from us looking at
basins that are not commonly drilled that need a closer look.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Lowenthal.
Dr. Lowenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
And thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming before the
hearing. I have a few questions, but I want to go back before I
do that to understand for myself what had taken place in that
question and answer between you and Ranking Member Grijalva. I
am trying to understand that.
To me, in the USGS North Slope oil assessment, I don't
think there is any question or any belief that you made any
changes in that. No one is saying that. We assume that you made
no changes at all, and that you just had the report.
I think the underlying question, though, is why did you
request to see the USGS study before it was released? As I
understand in the USGS manual, it says, ``Particularly
sensitive results, however, such as energy and mineral resource
assessments and mineral commodity reports that typically have
significant economic implications are not disclosed or shared
in advance of public release because pre-release in these cases
could result in unfair advantage or the perception of unfair
advantage.''
So, my question is, why did you do that? Not that you did
anything changing anything, but why did you request to see it,
when in fact it was the policy not to share with anyone the
USGS report because of the possible market implications?
Secretary Zinke. First of all, there is a chain of command,
and the USGS works for the Department of the Interior. So, I
have every right to look at and review documents prior to
release from the Department of the Interior. Same would be for
your staff. Your staff works for you. I assume you look at
releases prior to your staff releasing.
The question is integrity of documents. And in the case of
scientific documents, I did not change a comma. And to your
point, I did not----
Dr. Lowenthal. No one is saying you did.
Secretary Zinke. But this is what I wanted to know in the
case of this one. And I think you will be interested to know.
You had the same data set, two studies within a couple years of
each other, and the outcomes were different in magnitude.
So, why was there such a difference in magnitude? Was it
because BOEM also looked at it, and BOEM has a better modeling
of resources?
And when it says recoverable resources, is that modern
technology using hydraulic fracturing, or was it standard? And
did it include offshore? Those are the questions. Because it
makes a difference, as Interior policy, about the National
Petroleum Reserve. That is why I looked at it.
Dr. Lowenthal. OK. Let me go on, because I don't have a
great deal of time. And I understand that.
But what I don't understand is when you say you are looking
at the methodology, the first study was released in 2010, and
then we are talking about what happened in the fall of 2017.
Now we are in 2018, so it was almost 8 years ago. And there
have been a number of major oil discoveries made in the region
covered by this assessment. So, I don't think there is any
mystery that the resources have jumped. It is not the
methodology. We know that the resources have jumped.
The question is, even though you are asking about
questioning the methodology, I don't think that--and I would
like to hear your answer--is the critical issue. We all know
that the resources, the question is were you not aware of the
discoveries over the past few years, and that was the reason
for the change?
Secretary Zinke. The data set was largely unchanged,
because in the areas we haven't done a lot of seismic and a
review of it. But that is the question to ask.
And I am a geologist, and when you have one study that is
done a few years, and the next study is done, BOEM comes in,
and the magnitude of resources is significant--then I want to
know at what level did we look at recoverable assets, because
it is important. Are we looking at technology 7 years ago, 5
years ago, today? I think those are fair questions. And also,
the extent, because you have horizontal drilling now that has a
reach even a few years ago we couldn't go.
Again, as Department of the Interior, as the Secretary, I
have every right to look at documents. Like you, I am concerned
that if you were to manipulate the documents, I think there is
an integrity problem, because we all respect the scientific
integrity of the people. And that is what we want to----
Dr. Lowenthal. If I might change the topic, just quickly,
and ask one more question.
Mr. McClintock. Ten seconds. No, your time is up, Mr.
Lowenthal.
Dr. Lowenthal. I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. I am sorry. The Secretary has been very
generous and has already given us 45 minutes more than we had
requested. We understand that he does have a hard stop at 1:00,
so Members can do the math, as far as the time remaining.
Mr. Hice.
Dr. Hice. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Secretary Zinke,
thank you for being here today. We miss you around here, but
recognize that your leadership was desperately needed at
Interior, and we are very grateful for what you have already
accomplished.
I recently read that the natural gas and oil industry
supports about 10.3 million jobs nationwide, a staggering
number. In Georgia, we face some natural factors of navigating
offshore development due to the migratory patterns of the right
whale.
So, to begin with, in your opinion, as good stewards of our
land and oceans and so forth, do you believe that we can strike
a balance between protecting our ocean environments and, at the
same time, developing natural resources that provide not only
jobs, but financial opportunity and national security?
Secretary Zinke. I absolutely do. And I think our oil, gas,
wind, and above American energy policy is correct. It is better
to produce energy in this country with reasonable regulation
than watch it get produced overseas with no regulation.
Second, morally, I don't want your kids to see what I have
seen in battle, ever. I don't want to be held hostage by
foreign entities over our energy needs, and I don't want to see
your kids have to deploy and fight overseas for energy we have
here.
Last, economically, every time America pulls up to a gas
pump, we talk about the tax bill, how wonderful it was. And it
is. But every time you pull up to a gas pump and you are paying
$60 rather than $100 for a tank, that is $40 America has in
their pockets to spend elsewhere that they need, because
American energy is producing. So, yes, I am pro-energy.
And Interior has two sides. We have the energy side,
because we have offshore BLM property. We also have the
conservation side, which is our parks and our public lands and
our treasures. Yes, you can do it wisely, because American
industry has shown you can.
Dr. Hice. Let me jump to this third question that I had,
real quickly, regarding preservation of our battlefields.
We recently were able to protect Kettle Creek, which was a
very important place for the Revolutionary War, and that
battle. I believe these are very important to preserve, so I
would be interested to know if you have any ideas to improve
the American battlefield protection program. I would like to be
able to work with you in that regard, and I want to know if you
have any plans.
Secretary Zinke. Our infrastructure bill that we have
submitted and support in the budget addresses $11.7 billion of
that. That includes our battlefields, to restore the landscape
as it was when the battle began. Our battlefields are
challenged. We have a lot of people going through them.
The preservation and maintenance of the battlefields--we
don't charge at many of the battlefields, we don't charge in
Gettysburg and most of them, which is appropriate, because they
are America's look into a very difficult period in our history.
But the infrastructure bill that we are proposing looks
specifically at battlefields, parks, wildlife refuges, and
making sure that we are stewards of our greatest treasures, to
include the battlefields.
Dr. Hice. We have some ideas, and we would love to work
with you on that and throw some of those ideas your way.
Last, I just want to know, going back to my constituents,
how can I ensure them that the Department will not be in the
same mess we are in now, what assurance can we give them that
we are not going to repeat this process all over again?
Secretary Zinke. I would think there are certain issues
that are not Republican or Democrat, and I would like to think
that public lands and our parks are red, white, and blue. I
think we all care for them. And there have been proposals to
make this a longer term. But I think up front, if we work
together and we pass an infrastructure bill--again, it is new
money--we will be in a good position to preserve our parks and
our public lands into the future. It should be a bipartisan
effort, and I am hoping it is.
Dr. Hice. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Gomez.
Mr. Gomez. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Zinke, thank you for being here, Secretary, and going a
lot longer. A few questions, and I am going to try to go quick,
because I know I have colleagues on the other side that want to
ask some questions.
You have said numerous times that the reason behind the
Department's cuts on renewable energy programs is due to the
expected demand. Is that correct?
Secretary Zinke. That is correct. We looked at expected
demand, both onshore and offshore of what can be put in during
this thing, and our budget reflects that. And I will give you
the numbers if you want them, and how we derived them.
Mr. Gomez. OK, thank you. Next question--in President
Trump's fiscal 2019 budget request, he proposes an increase in
the funding for oil, gas, and coal programs. Does the
President's request also reflect the expected demand for those
resources?
Secretary Zinke. Some of the budget has to do with backlog
of permits, which is in there, and opportunities. But, yes, it
reflects, and I will give you the background on that. Coal is
up $9 million with that. I will give you a breakdown of
everything in that package.
Mr. Gomez. OK. I appreciate it, because what I am trying to
understand is what is the logic behind the Administration's
projections, because the coal budget of the Bureau of Land
Management has increased by 80 percent. However, according to
Bloomberg and other sources, the coal production in the United
States has gone through a downward trend, even under President
Trump. Can you explain that discrepancy?
Secretary Zinke. Coal has leasing, permitting, and
inspections on it. And some of the energy also is on the
inspection side of our offshore leases, because you have to
send people out there to inspect. So, you look at across the
board--and improving safety and reliability.
Some of the money is looking at how we can improve safety.
No one wants an oil spill off the coast. So, we have to invest
in it and make sure that we don't have that. And there are
certain areas that the last administration, I think, did not
focus on. We are focused on looking at innovation, best
science, best practices to improve reliability and safety. And,
in some cases, it costs a little more, but it is a better
policy, overall.
Mr. Gomez. OK. I appreciate that, because as you know, we
have seen a downward trend on this, 2017 coal production was up
over 2016. The pace of production in 2018 is 6 percent below
2017 and 21 percent below 2015. And you are explaining the 80
percent increase based on safety.
We also saw offshore lease sales were weak, bringing in the
third lowest amount in the past 12 years, about one-fifth of
the average. So, we are going to see a significant increase in
the oil, gas, and coal budgets, partly reflected in demand,
partly reflected on safety.
What I am trying to understand, and I guess I am going to
answer my own question, when it comes to renewables, demand is
the critical factor in determining if the budget goes up or
goes down. But when it comes to oil, gas, and coal, it is other
factors.
Secretary Zinke. I would not characterize it that way. But
I would say the last administration, there is no doubt--and I
don't give judgment--the last administration wanted a larger
profile of renewables and put a budget in place to kick-start
it. And it is clear the last administration did that.
We looked at expectation of demand, and we had the largest
lease sale of offshore oil and gas in the history of this
country in the western and eastern Gulf, so just to run the
leases and inspections is going to take more.
Mr. Gomez. I appreciate that elaboration. The reason why I
am curious, and the reason why I am asking is that the Bureau
of Ocean Energy Management also said that a cut to the budgets
of renewable energies would make stakeholder meetings less
effective, delay lease sales, harm increasing staff, and that
there would be an impact on the demand of renewables.
I think that looking at demand is a great way to look at
it. I support a balanced portfolio, but it needs to be honestly
balanced, and right now it definitely seems like one energy
source is being promoted and given more funding than the other
energy sources.
I yield back my time. I am out of time, anyway. Thank you
so much.
Mr. McClintock. Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Johnson. Mr. Secretary, thanks so much for your service
to the country in so many capacities. We appreciate you being
here today. Time is short. Let me get right to it.
As a Louisianan, I am very grateful that the budget doesn't
call for an outright elimination of GOMESA. But it does
threaten the security of this critical funding for Louisiana by
way of the public infrastructure fund proposal.
I am disheartened, all of us in the Gulf states are. Yet
again, Members who represent regions most directly impacted by
this proposal were not included in the pertinent discussions.
It is a red, white, and blue issue. All of us want folks from
around the globe to be able to enjoy our parks and wilderness
areas. But refusing to stop the loss of land in my state means
loss of property, and ultimately, loss of life.
And none of us should pretend that this shifting of
revenues and resources can be justified. I mean you gave a SEAL
analogy in the beginning, in your opening statement. To use
that analogy, the Gulf Coast is our front line. We are talking
about hurricane preparedness, flood risk mitigation, coastal
restoration. All that is urgent. You acknowledged a few moments
ago that a football field of land is being lost every single
hour.
So, in your testimony, in the subject budget documents you
provided this Committee, you highlighted the significant
contribution that oil and natural gas revenues generate.
Onshore production, on the other hand, places in comparison, so
I just want us to be clear and honest today. I know you will
be. The revenue for your fund is going to be coming from
offshore to fund Interior. And we should not pretend that wind
and solar are going to be picking up the check for the
Department's deferred maintenance; it is just not going to
happen.
So, here is the question. You say the infrastructure fund
proposal will not affect GOMESA funding at all. I think you
have said or implied that today. The problem is that the issues
are with the baseline projections. We have not been given any
specific numbers that were used to establish the baseline in
the bills, even as late as this afternoon. How do you respond
to that concern?
Secretary Zinke. The baseline, of course, will require
Congress. If you go back to 2008, Interior made about $18
billion just in offshore--and thank you for that. When we took
office, that number was about 2.6. When you add onshore
production, that was the baseline. And the proposal had what is
called new energy.
But to your point, you were exactly correct. It does not
affect GOMESA. It is net dollars going into Treasury. So,
GOMESA, LWCF, and there are other states' shares and all that.
It is just net dollars that go into Treasury. So, if Congress
changes the portfolios, the different types of programs from
oil and gas, it would be whatever is left over, net into
Treasury, half of that goes back to address our backlog in
maintenance. We think, given projections, that we can catch up
in as much as 8 years, with favorable conditions.
But it is also all energy. It is different than LWCF or
GOMESA, because we look at a trend. And we will see on the
March leasing sale what the level of interest is. Because, as
you know, drilling for oil off the coast has greater risk. The
market tends to move toward less risk, higher returns. The
shale plays in Texas, in New Mexico, in the Bakkan still remain
strong, as well as innovation in renewables. The East Coast is
going gangbusters on renewables, and we are all of the above. I
support renewables, too.
Mr. Johnson. I get that, I get that. I am running out of
time.
Senator Alexander was quoted on March 11 in a National
Journal article saying that both the National Park Restoration
Act and the National Park Service Legacy Act of 2017 should be
considered in committee. Both pieces of that legislation would
threaten GOMESA funding, as well. Do you agree with the Senator
that those bills ought to be considered?
Secretary Zinke. Like everything in Congress, everything
should be on the table. I think what is in the President's
budget, given that I was a Congressman, GOMESA is important to
a lot of my friends and Members, and that is why our proposal
left those programs in Congress intact. So, it is just net
dollars going to Treasury.
Obviously, I support the work of the President, and I
support having a dialogue, and putting together a bill that
addresses the maintenance and repair.
Mr. Johnson. Has the Department considered alternative
funding sources to pay off the deferred maintenance backlog?
For example, the sale of federally held lands to some of the
states?
Secretary Zinke. We have not. Park entrance fees,
primarily, I think, should go to the parks where entrance fees
are at, and the superintendent should have more flexibility to
address those issues in those parks. But park fees itself will
never address $11.7 billion in backlog.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Secretary Zinke. And clearly, Congress has had some
challenges to do it.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Beyer.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And thanks, Mr. Secretary. I am still deeply concerned by
the shooting death by the Park Police of 25-year-old Bijan
Ghaisar last November in Virginia. And we only know about it
because the Fairfax County Police also responded, and they had
their car cameras.
I want to applaud the Park Police for the pilot program to
begin deploying body cameras, and thank you for agreeing to
brief our Committee on how the Department is updating its
policing policies.
But I am concerned that there is no current set-aside for
law enforcement to adopt body cameras or car dash cameras, and
no tech set-asides. We know if it is not in the budget, it
won't happen, so I am asking for your commitment to this
Committee that the Department will prioritize funding beyond
the pilot project for these cameras for our Park Police.
Secretary Zinke. We are looking at it. Of course, I, too,
share your concerns. I love law enforcement, I love the U.S.
Park Police. I am with them every day, they are wonderful
people. There has to be some certainty among our citizens that
a force has integrity, does the right thing all the time
because, as you know, law enforcement is raised to a higher
standard.
We are looking at it. We have not made a decision. And I
want to see it on the basis of facts, but we are looking at
different options along the way to increase transparency of our
actions of the U.S. Park Police, BLM, and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife. We have a lot of people with a badge out there.
Mr. Beyer. Yes, Mr. Secretary, wildlife trafficking is the
fourth biggest organized criminal activity in the world, and it
is linked to organized crime syndicates, terrorists, and
insurgent groups.
The Fish and Wildlife Service law enforcement is critical
for combating illegal wildlife trade, yet the Administration's
budget proposes a drastic reduction of funding for it, which
decreased the number of special agents that work to stop
domestic and international wildlife crimes, which brings me to
the recent announcements that the Fish and Wildlife Service
will now allow elephant and lion trophies to be imported from
certain African countries on a case-by-case basis.
How do you reconcile this policy with President Trump's
previous comments calling trophy hunting ``a horror show,'' and
saying he did not ``want elephants killed and stuffed and have
the tusks brought back into this country.''
And I am particularly curious about your assurance that you
are 100 percent in step with the President's position, and the
White House stating that the President's thinking has not
changed.
Secretary Zinke. How I explain it is this, the court. There
was a lawsuit by NRA and a number of people, so the court
looked at it. The court mandated that we change our process.
But our policy has not changed. We are 100 percent aligned with
the President's policy. We have imported zero elephants, and
our policy has not changed. But our process reflects the court
ruling.
Mr. Beyer. Great, thank you. The proposed elimination of
the cooperative endangered species fund is surprising,
considering that you praised one of these grants during the
Obama administration, when you were part of us, for a
conservation easement to assist the Whitefish Lake Watershed
project in Montana. You said, ``This grant is proof of what is
possible when our delegation works together.''
Do you stand by what you said in 2016, and why eliminate
this program that seemed to work pretty well in Montana?
Secretary Zinke. And, up front, the LWCF, as you know, is
reduced in our budget, primarily for land acquisitions. But I
am focusing the grants right now on wildlife corridors and
public access. Those we are reconfiguring, because I signed a
Secretarial Order to identify and conserve wildlife corridors,
starting with big game and going through. Because, as
populations go up, our public lands get challenged, and we have
to make sure we connect things that are critical for, in the
future, watersheds, wildlife corridors.
We are looking at our grants to make sure of public access
and conservation easements, and our grants are going to focus a
little while, as far as conservation, on protecting the
critical pieces of land management, watersheds in the
Chesapeake, things going into it, and wildlife corridors.
Mr. Beyer. I want to sort of thank you personally for your
attention to the wildlife corridors. There are many, many folks
in the environmental movement who believe that preserving and
creating these corridors may be the most important thing we
have done in a generation. So, Mr. Secretary, thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. McClintock. Thank you.
Mr. Gianforte.
Mr. Gianforte. Secretary Zinke, thank you for being here,
and thank you for your leadership. I very much appreciate that.
As a fellow Montanan, we watched with heartache this past
summer as much of Montana burned, over 1.2 million acres, and I
just wanted to start with a thank you. When the Lodgepole Fire
burned, over 27,000 acres, I really appreciated your timely
response to get the C.M. Russell Wildlife Refuge open for
grazing. Our ranchers in Garfield County and the nearly 65,000
hungry cattle also thank you. So, I appreciate that.
Secretary Zinke. I think that was the fastest that BLM
moved perhaps in the history of the bureau.
Mr. Gianforte. It shows that government can work. And,
again, your leadership was critical. It would not have happened
without your support. So, thank you.
I want to stay on wildfires. I know you visited a number of
fires, as I did. We were together at the Lolo Fire this past
summer. I am curious. As you have talked to incident commanders
and first responders on these various wildfires, what lessons
have you taken away that will allow us to better fight fire in
the future?
Secretary Zinke. The lesson is, the first element of making
sure that fires don't happen is prevention. And there is too
much dead and dying timber, and the fuel load of our forests is
too high. Everyone agrees that temperatures are higher, the
season is longer. But what isn't helping is the amount of fuel
load. And we need to go to an active management policy, which I
have given a Secretarial Order to address that.
It would be helpful if Congress would give the secretaries,
both Sonny Perdue and myself, a category exclusion, so we can
look at addressing the millions of acres we are behind on
getting the fuel load out, so we don't have the same problems
year after year.
And you and I have been in the same Bitterroot Valley
probably for three seasons together. And every time we hear the
same thing: What have you done between now and the last fire?
And the answer is we are thinking about removing some dead and
dying trees. We almost have a timber sale. We almost have it,
and then the next season we are back there again watching the
people have to evacuate.
Mr. Gianforte. And you are well aware we are tied up in
endless litigation over these projects. We can't get them
approved.
Secretary Zinke. Endless.
Mr. Gianforte. I have co-sponsored the Resilient Federal
Forest Act, along with Congressman Westerman. That has passed
out of the House. Have you reviewed that bill? And would that
help us start to manage our forests better?
Secretary Zinke. When I was in the House I signed onto it,
too, because I think it is a great bill. It is not perfect, but
I can tell you it gets an A because, as you know, nothing is
perfect in Congress, nothing is perfect. I wake up every day, I
have 70,000 employees, 12 time zones, a fifth of the territory
of the United States. Something bad is going to happen every
day. But a lot more good happens than bad. I support your bill
and I think it is absolutely needed.
And a lot of it comes in in the execution of the bill. All
of us can agree that we need healthier forests. I am hoping all
of us agree one of the many ways to get there is to remove the
dead and dying timber and go to an active forest management
policy. And there are other countries, quite frankly, we can
learn from.
Mr. Gianforte. Well, we will continue to advance this
Resilient Federal Forest Act. What additional action should
Congress be taking to give your agency better control to do
better land management?
Secretary Zinke. I think category exclusion would be
helpful. I think probably reviewing the National Historic
Preservation Act.
There was an incident about doors that I had in the office.
I was reading the article, too. How could doors be $139,000?
So, I asked the question. We got it down to $75,000 by
manipulating, but a lot of the issue is on historic buildings
you have to follow such stringent rules, even though some of
them don't make common sense, that it just costs the taxpayers,
and we are bound by those rules. I don't have any choice.
I think a little more flexibility, where common sense can
be put in, and sometimes our rules have good intent, but when
you are bound by a law that does not make sense, this is where
working together can be helpful.
Mr. Gianforte. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your
leadership, and I yield back.
The Chairman [presiding]. Mr. Curtis.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I certainly
appreciate you waiting for the new guy to have just a minute
with you.
Secretary Zinke. I, too, sat where you did, right here.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you. And let me just say personally, for
anybody that is concerned about your use of tax dollars, I have
seen you sit on the back of an airplane with me in the lowest
economy seat, and somehow you folded up those legs of yours and
got them in that seat. So, I hope the taxpayers appreciate
that.
Secretary Zinke. I fly coach. I always have.
Mr. Curtis. Good, good. Also, a deep appreciation from my
district and from the state of Utah for your attention to our
needs there, for the difficult decisions that you have made,
and much appreciation from my state. Let me just mention a
couple of things briefly to you, and then I will be done.
I was the mayor of my city of Provo, Utah, for the last 8
years. The very first year as mayor, the Central Utah Water
Project came through my city. They put a 60-inch pipeline from
one end of the city to the other end of the city. None of that
water was delivered to our city, it went further north. But we
tolerated and embraced that project, because we know how
critical it is to our valley and to the state of Utah.
Now, another arm of that project is going in that will help
Provo. There was a $2.4 million gap--not huge--between what was
appropriated and what was in your budget, and I just wanted to
see if you would take a look at that and see if there is a
possibility of closing that gap so we could finish this
critical project for our valley.
Secretary Zinke. Well, we funded $8 million, I know it was
about $2 million short. I think what Congress can help me with
is transfer authority, because I am holding books on a lot of
projects that should be transferred over to the water
districts, themselves. Because again, the original intent on a
lot of these projects was these small communities could not
afford them. We wanted to make sure the land was productive, so
the Federal Government would come in, invest in it, and, over
the period of time, the water users would pay it off and then
title would be transferred at an appropriate time.
We forget about the title transfer at an appropriate time.
And thus, when you look at it now, years later, decades later,
we are holding on to a lot of assets that we are paying for
that we should transfer over to the water districts, and then
focus on building new projects and being a good neighbor once
again.
Mr. Curtis. We would love to explore that when we have more
time, to see how I could be helpful with that. Thank you for
your attention there.
The second and last thing is--I am fortunate to have the
district with the iconic Arches National Park unit. It is an
amazing asset. The state of Utah every once in a while wonders
if we did the right thing by advertising these parks. We are
loving them to death. The lines are long to get in. And the
current park supervisor has worked very hard to try to come up
with a plan, and currently is looking at a reservation system
in the park.
It won't surprise you to know that that is causing some
consternation in Moab, and simply an ask to help us all make
sure that we are exhausting every possibility, in that we are
trying to accommodate as many visitors as that park can
appropriately handle. I learned just today that she was doing
an economic development study, and that is really critical for
that area to know what the impact would be of a reservation
system. And then just the hope that we can continue to exhaust
every possibility before we move to that reservation system to
make sure that is the right thing there.
Secretary Zinke. Well, we certainly are looking at options.
One of the options, actually, is going to a transporter on
maybe the top 10 parks. And a transporter is probably having
Tesla or one of the zero-emissions, because people love those,
design--in Glacier Park, like a red bus carrier, where we begin
to limit the number of cars, and then tie it in to an app. Part
of the problem with Zion has been if you have a bus system out
there, they drop 70 people off at a trail head. So, your
visitor experience is a clump of 70 people. We are actually
looking at an app system, where you can tell whether a trail is
red, yellow, or green, to make sure the park experience that we
all love is maintained.
So, we think that that model may work, and we are
evaluating what it means. But there is no doubt there are going
to be more visitors through our parks than we had this year,
that we are loving our parks to death. We have to address the
backlog, maintenance, and repair. And there is a capacity that
is probably there, and we are over capacity in some parks. But
it is about people management, and making sure the visitor
experience is sacred.
Mr. Curtis. I think it would be fantastic if I could go
back and tell the good people of Moab that we are looking at
those types of options, and at least considering technology to
make that visitor experience valuable.
There is about a $25 million backlog in Arches. And
although fees cannot overcome all of your deficit, that is one
situation where you may have the ability to come closer to that
deficit, if we could increase the number of people in that
park.
Secretary Zinke. Knowing Moab, I can bet they are going to
like zero emissions.
Mr. Curtis. You are right, yes. Thank you very much for
your time.
The Chairman. Don't ever say that again.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Steve, I gave you--sorry, Representative
Curtis, can you change your first name, so you match the mayor?
Mr. Curtis. You are going to owe me more time, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Yes, you have an extra 30 seconds because you
are from Utah.
Mr. Curtis. Thank you.
The Chairman. All right. Secretary Zinke, I appreciate you
going above and beyond the call of duty here. I hope it is
either from your background as a SEAL, which goes above and
beyond the call of duty, or simply your background of having
sat here and been cut off when the speaker leaves before you
have a chance to ask any questions. But the fact that you spent
this much time means something really significant.
So, I do want to thank you for putting out that much time,
because you have stayed longer than you actually said you could
stay. And that doesn't necessarily happen with a whole lot of
other people who have come to testify in front of us.
You know the drill here, Committee Rule 3(o) says that any
Member who has additional questions has 3 days to send them and
submit them to us by the close of business on that third
business day. And you get to look at those and have 10 days to
answer them as part of the record. I appreciate you doing that.
Secretary, I also want you to know that some things are
said hopefully in jest, and heaven knows I do that all the
time, too. But in no way does this Committee want to condone or
recommend that we disrespect any of the service or the service
of Navy SEALs, and I apologize for anything that may have been
misconstrued on what the meaning of this Committee said. We
have a great deal of respect for your former colleagues and I
just want that very clear on the record.
So, I apologize from the Committee for anything that may
have been offensive that was said in this particular Committee.
With that----
Secretary Zinke. Apology accepted. I am always willing to
work with this great committee.
The Chairman. Well, look, there are only four of us that
cared. Do you want to give a benediction of anything?
[Laughter.]
Secretary Zinke. I will see you next year.
The Chairman. All right. That is close enough.
Secretary Zinke. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Secretary. Thank you for
your staff that was here with you, as well.
This Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 1:18 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Rep. Grijalva Submissions
ALLIANCE FOR RETIRED AMERICANS
Statement for the Record
The Alliance for Retired Americans appreciates the opportunity to
submit comments to the Committee on Natural Resources on the hearing
titled, ``Interior Department FY2019 Budget.''
Founded in 2001, the Alliance is a grassroots organization
representing more than 4.3 million retirees and seniors nationwide.
Headquartered in Washington, D.C., the Alliance and its 36 state
chapters work to advance public policy that strengthens the health and
economic security of older Americans by teaching seniors how to make a
difference through activism.
Secretary Zinke and the Trump Administration are blaming seniors,
veterans, people with disabilities and even school children for higher
entry fees at our national parks. This is happening at the same time
that the Trump Administration's own budget proposal cuts the National
Park Service funding by $493 million next year. The Administration also
slashed funding for the park service last year.
In addition, the Administration and congressional leaders just
passed an enormous tax cut for corporations the wealthiest Americans.
Now they want middle- and low-income Americans to pay more to visit our
national treasures.
Our national parks are for the entire American public to enjoy. It
is disgraceful to blame veterans and seniors who have already
sacrificed and given so much to this country, and those individuals who
are least able to afford it, for the Administration's misplaced
priorities.
On behalf of its more than 4.3 million members, the Alliance for
Retired Americans appreciates the opportunity to submit this testimony
on this critically important issue.
______
ASA Leadership Responds to Interior Secretary Blaming Elderly for
National Park Fee Increases
The American Society on Aging's (ASA) Board Chair Bob Blancato, Chair-
Elect Karyne Jones, and CEO Bob Stein today condemned remarks offered
by Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke during testimony to the Senate Energy
and National Resources Committee on Tuesday.
As reported in The Hill, Zinke said, ``When you give discounted or free
passes to elderly, fourth graders, veterans, disabled, and you do it by
the carload, there's not a whole lot of people who actually pay at our
front door. So, we're looking at ways to make sure we have more revenue
in the front door of our parks themselves.''
ASA leaders responded by saying, ``On behalf of the older and disabled
Americans and veterans in our membership, we take offense at the
comments of the Interior Secretary about all of these groups not
continuing to enjoy free access to national parks. It is especially
disingenuous coming from a Cabinet Secretary who, according to
published reports, spent almost $140,000 in taxpayer funds to fix doors
leading into his office. This proposal to impose these new fees should
be shown the door.''
ASA will continue to support policies that provide preferential access
to public resources for older Americans, youth, the disabled and the
veteran community.
______
AMVETS,
National Headquarters,
Lanham, Maryland
March 15, 2018
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
In light of comments made by Secretary of the Interior Ryan Zinke
earlier this week at a Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
hearing regarding access to National Parks, AMVETS wanted to reach out
to you prior to today's hearing.
AMVETS works hard to advocate for those who serve this country, and
we are proud of our Americanism program which aims to inspire
patriotism in the youth of America. The future of our military depends
on ``Americanism,'' and the number of people who qualify to join the
military under current standards is quickly decreasing as the United
States faces the longest period of armed conflict in its history.
Secretary Zinke, as a veteran, should know this. Revoking
discounted entry to our National Parks for veterans, the disabled, and
the elderly can only be categorized as a blatant insult to those who
stood up and served in the military, those with daily challenges of
living with a disability, and our elderly who live in a country that
sadly seems to be losing reverence for those that came before them.
Blaming this group of Americans as Zinke floats hiking entry fees for
others is also a needless insult and burden.
Surely the Secretary can consider more palatable cost-saving
measures other than nickel and diming our veterans, the disabled, and
the elderly while perpetuating disrespect of those who deserve more
from the leaders of this country.
Sincerely,
Joseph R. Chenelly,
Executive Director.
______
GreenLatinos,
Washington, DC
March 14, 2018
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Chairman Bishop and Ranking Member Grijalva:
On behalf of GreenLatinos--a national network of Latino
Environmental and conservation advocates--we submit this letter for the
record during the Committee's upcoming hearing on the Department of the
Interior's (DOI) policy priorities and Fiscal Year 2019 budget.
As an organization that represents one of the fasting growing
minority populations in America on matters of environmental and
conservation policy we remain deeply concerned with the drastic cuts
that Secretary Zinke and the Trump Administration have proposed for the
agency. An overall reduction in the agency's budget by 14 percent from
2017 enacted levels will have visceral adverse impacts to parks
visitation, cultural heritage programs, land acquisition, and rural
water and drought mitigation efforts--which disproportionately impact
minority and low-income communities, particularly in the southwest
region of the country.
Many of the proposed cuts will greatly impact GreenLatinos member-
driven core policy priorities (which include: environmental justice,
civil rights, and public engagement; Indigenous rights and sovereignty;
climate and clean air; toxics and pesticides; and clean water) and we
wish to share a few of those concerns with your committee.
On the environmental justice, civil rights, and public engagement
priorities--it is deeply concerning to us that the agency has regressed
on its commitment to inclusion, transparency, and the enforcement of
policies and practices that impact the civil rights of both the public
and the employees within the agency. For example, there has been little
action to correct the agency's deficiencies that have been indicated
from employee surveys indicating a pattern and practice of sexual
harassment within the department. Further, a recent report from this
Committee's minority staff have highlighted concerning gaps in the
agency's anti-harassment policies to protect workers at all levels.
Secretary Zinke's watering down of the agency's commitment to efforts
that ensure the nation's cultural resources and programs reflect the
rich and diverse tapestry of America, as evidenced by the proposed
strategic plan language that eliminates those efforts as an agency goa,
are both troubling and disappointing.
Our commitment to climate and clean air priorities also remains
under threat with some of the agency's proposed cuts. For example,
proposal includes a cut of nearly $13 million to the Bureau of Land
Management's (BLM) Renewable Energy program while prioritizing
expansion of oil, gas, and coal. Additionally, The Bureau of Ocean
Energy Management (BOEM) proposes a 15% cut its renewable energy
program, which will have tremendous consequences on the development of
deployment of offshore wind energy--an important component of a clean,
renewable energy future. Clean Water continues to remain a chief
priority for GreenLatinos. It is troubling to our organization and its
members that the agency, through the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) has
proposed significant cuts to the WaterSMART program (a 92% cut to Title
XVI water recycling project and a 65% cut for WaterSMART efficiency
grants), a critical program to ameliorate the impact of drought through
conservation, water-use efficiency, and water reuse projects. Equally
concerning to our members is the $50 million dollar decrease in funding
for rural water projects--projects specifically aimed at addressing
water scarcity in the most vulnerable communities.
We urge the committee to explore these concerns with Secretary
Zinke and advocate strongly for a course correction in these important
areas from DOI. These policy and funding decisions will have deep and
lasting impacts for many vulnerable communities, including Latino and
low-income families. We feel strongly that fostering transparency and
public input, protecting civil rights and promoting environmental
justice, maintaining a commitment to address climate change and protect
clean air, ensuring clean water--particularly for vulnerable
communities, and respecting the sovereignty and rights of indigenous
communities are all critical aims that should be pursued with
tremendous rigor.
______
NATIONAL DISABILITY RIGHTS NETWORK
Protection & Advocacy for Individuals with Disabilities
To blame a fee hike on admission to the most visited national parks on
veterans, people with disabilities and the elderly is uninformed,
hurtful, and frankly unconscionable. Collectively our national parks
can be seen ``as cumulative expressions of a single national
heritage.'' When speaking of that national expression of a single
heritage, NDRN encourages Secretary Zinke to be more considerate of the
lived experiences of all Americans.
______
National Wildlife Federation,
Washington, DC
March 12, 2018
Hon. Raul Grijalva, Ranking Member,
House Committee on Natural Resources,
1324 Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Ranking Member Grijalva:
On behalf of the National Wildlife Federation's (NWF) more than 6
million members and supporters and 50 state and territorial affiliates,
we submit this letter for the record to express our deep concerns with
the Department of the Interior (DOI)'s funding levels proposed in its
fiscal year 2019 budget proposal. Significant cuts to key agency
programs will greatly harm ongoing habitat and wildlife protection
efforts. The agency proposes a $128 million decrease to the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS)--a bureau charged with a mission to
conserve, protect, and enhance fish, wildlife, plants, and their
habitats. This reduction will strain the management of over 500
national wildlife refuges and conservation units visited by over 50
million people annually, and put in greater jeopardy more than 1,600
plant and animal species listed as threatened or endangered.
Conservation programs and efforts within other DOI bureaus are also at
risk. For example, the agency's proposed $263 million cut to the Bureau
of Reclamation (BOR) could impact ongoing fish and wildlife restoration
activities in the Central Valley Project area of California. The Bureau
of Land Management's (BLM) Wildlife Management program is cut by $102
million.
While all of these reductions and the overall proposed funding
level for the agency--representing a 14% cut--are troubling, equally
concerning is the department's approach to public input, stakeholder
engagement, and transparency. Secretary Zinke's agency reorganization
plan, for example, has yet to be publicly released despite reports of
its ongoing implementation. The public must have an opportunity to
input into the agency's reorganization plan, and Congress must have the
opportunity to exercise its important oversight responsibilities with
respect to the details and impacts of this plan. We also note the
recent admission by the agency that it did not properly record many
thousands of public comments--including from the National Wildlife
Federation--in support of plans to protect and conserve the sage steppe
landscapes relied upon by the Greater Sage-grouse, plans agreed to by
eleven Western governors.
We encourage the House Committee on Natural Resources to explore
these issues with Secretary Zinke and to ensure that DOI departmental
decisions are made in the best interest of wildlife and habitat
protection, using the best available science in a manner that is
transparent and open to public input and legislative oversight.
Thank you for your consideration of these issues.
Sincerely,
Laura Daniel Davis,
Vice President, Conservation Strategy.
______
PRESS RELEASE
Social Security WORKS
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 15, 2018
Contact: Linda Benesch, 240-342-4301, [email protected]
Social Security Works Statement for House Natural Resources Committee
Hearing on FY19 Budget
(Washington, DC)--The following is a statement from Alex Lawson,
President of Social Security Works, in reaction to Interior Secretary
Ryan Zinke's proposal to raise fees for visiting national parks:
``The only thing more reprehensible than Ryan Zinke's plan to jack up
fees for visiting national parks is his blaming the price hike on
seniors, Americans with disabilities, and veterans. The average Social
Security retirement benefit is $1,369 a month and the average Social
Security disability benefit is $1,172 a month. If Zinke goes through
with his plan it will make it impossible for millions of Americans to
visit our country's greatest natural treasures.
Zinke is a disgrace to the legacy of President Theodore Roosevelt, and
everyone who has worked hard for over 100 years to make our nation's
national parks accessible to everyone.''
______
VET VOICE FOUNDATION
Twitter
@VetVoiceFound
Disgusting! @SecretaryZinke blames his decision to look into hiking
entrance fees to our public lands and national parks on veterans, the
disabled, and elderly. Shame on you, Secretary Zinke. #VetsVSZinke
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8980.004
.eps9:11 PM--13 Mar 2018
______
PRESS RELEASE
Vietnam Veterans of America
IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 14, 2018 No. 18-2
Contact: Mokie Porter 301-996-0901; 301-585-4000, Ext. 146
Secretary Zinke: Don't Blame Veterans and the Disabled for Raising Park
Entrance Fees
(Washington, DC)--In reaction to Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke's plan
to raise the entrance fees for national parks, saying the National Park
Service must charge more because too many people, including veterans
and the disabled, get in for free, VVA National President John Rowan
issued the following statement:
``Secretary Zinke's rationale to steeply increase the entrance fees for
others, because disabled veterans and active-duty military get in for
free, is a small-minded and mean-spirited jab that pits some citizens
against others. I believe that we, as a nation, are more inclusive and
compassionate than this.
``By discounting fees, we honor our veterans and our seniors and bring
a bit of inexpensive enjoyment to our disabled citizens. Does Mr. Zinke
really think that citizens who pay $25 or $30 per carload to enjoy some
of our most popular national parks are going to pay twice as much? Does
he really believe that they will buy his ill-conceived argument that
because veterans get in for free, the rates must be doubled for
everyone else?
``Secretary Zinke's flawed plan needs to be discarded and forgotten.''
______
Rep. Huffman Submission
California Natural Resources Agency,
Sacramento, California
March 13, 2018
Hon. Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House,
Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Democratic Leader,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC 20515.
Hon. Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader,
Hon. Charles Schumer, Senate Minority Leader,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC 20510.
Re: Shasta Dam and Reservoir Enlargement Project
Dear Honorable Representatives Ryan, Pelosi, McConnell and Schumer:
The letter is to express opposition to the Department of the
Interior's proposal to fund design and pre-construction activities
associated with the proposed Shasta Dam and Reservoir Enlargement
Project.
As you may be aware, the Shasta Dam enlargement project would
violate California law due to the adverse impacts that project may have
on the McCloud River and its fishery. California Public Resources Code
section 5093.542 generally prohibits state agencies and departments
from assisting in any way ``in the planning or construction of any dam,
reservoir, diversion, or other water impoundment facility that could
have an adverse effect on the free-flowing condition of the McCloud
River, or on its wild trout fishery.''
California shares the Department of Interior's commitment to
investing in new water storage. In 2014, California voters
overwhelmingly approved a $7.5 billion water bond (Proposition 1) that
provides $2.7 billion to invest in new water storage. The California
Water Commission is reviewing 11 proposed projects as part of a
competitive process and expects to make initial funding determinations
and award early funding this summer. The Shasta Dam enlargement project
would inundate several miles of the protected McCloud River in
violation of state law and therefore is not eligible for Proposition 1
funding.
Leveraging state, local and federal dollars is the most effective
way to ensure that important water storage projects are funded and
built. As such, I ask that you not pursue the Shasta Dam enlargement
project, which disregards California law, and instead work with the
State of California to fund water storage projects consistent with our
California Water Action Plan and Proposition 1.
Sincerely,
John Laird,
Secretary for California Natural Resources.
______
Rep. McClintock Submission
United States Department of the Interior,
Office of the Secretary,
Washington, DC
October 31, 2017
Hon. Rob Bishop, Chairman,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC 20515.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This letter provides additional information and clarification
relating to your October 3, 2017, request for information on Department
of the Interior Secretarial travel use of non-commercial flights.
Enclosed with this letter is a copy of a disk titled
``00005042_001'' that contains an electronic set of the documents
transmitted to your Committee by the Department on October 5, 2017.
This electronic set of documents contains several updates to the paper
copy originally provided to your Committee. First, the disk contains
four additional documents identifying travel policies in the
Department, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the Bureau of
Reclamation. Second, we have identified and included 6 additional
documents relating to Secretarial travel during the years 2011-2015.
With the addition of this new material and other corrections to the
organization of the original document set, the summary of pertinent
information included in our original letter has also been updated to
reflect this new information, as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8980.001
.epsIn addition, for the Committee's convenience, the Department is
providing below descriptions and justifications for Secretary Zinke's
2017 non-commercial travel on behalf of the Department of Interior.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8980.002
.eps[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8980.003
.epsThe above information does not include flights on Air Force One
and other inter-agency mission aircraft.
Finally, as noted in the Joint Statement of Melinda Loftin
(Department of the Interior Designated Agency Official and Director of
Departmental Ethics Office) and Edward Keable (Deputy Solicitor-General
Law), released on September 29, 2017, the Scheduling Office meets
regularly with the Department Ethics Office and Division of General Law
to ensure that all travel is thoroughly reviewed and approved in
advance and that it is fully compliant with all applicable laws, rules,
and regulations. Consistent with this process, these trips were
reviewed and approved in advance by both the Department Ethics Office
and the Division of General Law and were determined to be compliant
with all applicable laws, rules, and regulations.
If you or your staff needs any additional assistance regarding this
production, please contact Micah Chambers, Office of Congressional and
Legislative Affairs, at (202) 208-5348 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Christopher P. Salotti,
Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs,
Department of the Interior.
______
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
Rep. Barragan Submission
--Letter from Rep. Barragan and other Members of Congress
to Secretary Zinke dated October 3, 2017