[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
NO ROAD MAP, NO DESTINATION, NO JUSTIFICATION: THE IMPLEMENTATION AND
IMPACTS OF THE REORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
=======================================================================
OVERSIGHT HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
Tuesday, April 30, 2019
__________
Serial No. 116-13
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources
[GRAPHIC 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
36-257 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair
DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Vice Chair
GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs
ROB BISHOP, UT, Ranking Republican Member
Grace F. Napolitano, CA Don Young, AK
Jim Costa, CA Louie Gohmert, TX
Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, Doug Lamborn, CO
CNMI Robert J. Wittman, VA
Jared Huffman, CA Tom McClintock, CA
Alan S. Lowenthal, CA Paul A. Gosar, AZ
Ruben Gallego, AZ Paul Cook, CA
TJ Cox, CA Bruce Westerman, AR
Joe Neguse, CO Garret Graves, LA
Mike Levin, CA Jody B. Hice, GA
Debra A. Haaland, NM Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS
Jefferson Van Drew, NJ Daniel Webster, FL
Joe Cunningham, SC Liz Cheney, WY
Nydia M. Velazquez, NY Mike Johnson, LA
Diana DeGette, CO Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Wm. Lacy Clay, MO John R. Curtis, UT
Debbie Dingell, MI Kevin Hern, OK
Anthony G. Brown, MD Russ Fulcher, ID
A. Donald McEachin, VA
Darren Soto, FL
Ed Case, HI
Steven Horsford, NV
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU
Matt Cartwright, PA
Paul Tonko, NY
Vacancy
David Watkins, Chief of Staff
Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel
Parish Braden, Republican Staff Director
http://naturalresources.house.gov
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS
TJ COX, CA, Chair
LOUIE GOHMERT, TX, Ranking Republican Member
Debbie Dingell, MI Paul A. Gosar, AZ
A. Donald McEachin, VA Mike Johnson, LA
Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon, PR
Raul M. Grijalva, AZ Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio
--------
CONTENTS
----------
Page
Hearing held on Tuesday, April 30, 2019.......................... 1
Statement of Members:
Cox, Hon. TJ, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California................................................. 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 3
Gohmert, Hon. Louie, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 4
Prepared statement of.................................... 5
Statement of Witnesses:
Bromwich, Michael, Founder and Managing Principal, The
Bromwich Group, Washington, DC............................. 21
Prepared statement of.................................... 23
Cameron, Scott, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Policy, Management and Budget, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, DC................................... 6
Prepared statement of.................................... 8
Questions submitted for the record....................... 11
Clark, Jamie, President and CEO, Defenders of Wildlife,
Washington, DC............................................. 27
Prepared statement of.................................... 28
Frazier, Harold, Chairman, Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Eagle
Butte, South Dakota........................................ 13
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Additional Materials Submitted for the Record:
List of documents submitted for the record retained in the
Committee's official files................................. 54
Submission for the Record by Rep. Cox
National Parks Conservation Association, John Garder,
Senior Director of Budget and Appropriations, Testimony
for the Record......................................... 50
Submission for the Record by Rep. Grijalva
USET--United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty
Protection Fund, Testimony for the Record.............. 51
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON NO ROAD MAP, NO DESTINATION, NO JUSTIFICATION: THE
IMPLEMENTATION AND IMPACTS OF THE REORGANIZATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR
----------
Tuesday, April 30, 2019
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Committee on Natural Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. TJ Cox
[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Cox, Dingell, Grijalva; Gohmert,
Gosar, and Bishop (ex officio).
Mr. Cox. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
will now come to order.
The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is meeting
today to hear testimony on ``No Road Map, No Destination, No
Justification: the Implementation and Impacts of the
Reorganization of the Department of the Interior.''
Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at
the hearing are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking
Minority Member. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all
other Members' opening statements be made part of the hearing
to record today if they are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. TJ COX, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Mr. Cox. One of the first things Ryan Zinke did after
becoming Secretary was try to implement a massive solution in
search of a problem. The weakness in that approach to
reorganizing the 70,000-employee Department of the Interior
became clear early in the process.
We have not seen data to show that there is a problem. We
have not seen data to prove that a reorganization was the way
to solve the problem. Nor have we seen a cost benefit analysis
or workforce planning data. No measurable goals; no
comprehensive plan. And that is worth repeating. A massive
reorganization, and we have seen no plan. The Department has
provided no plan to know if the reorganization is achieving its
goals. We have not seen a timeline.
In 2018, the Government Accountability Office laid out what
agencies need to do if they want their reorganization to be
successful. Unsurprisingly, the recommendations include all the
basic considerations that I mentioned, which have not been
provided by Secretaries Bernhardt or Zinke.
Before being elected to Congress last year, I owned a
couple of businesses and a community development organization.
And as a businessman, I can tell you with confidence that if I
tried to tell company investors or shareholders that I was
going to reorganize the company without showing them evidence
of a need to do so, or a way to measure that success, a plan, I
would be laughed out of the room. Yet, that is precisely the
case at the Department of the Interior.
The actions that have been taken so far in the name of the
reorganization have already had significant impacts. Starting
in 2017, dozens of the most experienced, most effective
employees were moved out of their positions, into positions for
which they had no qualifications or interest, and with very
little notice. Most felt the moves were punitive or based on
political ideology.
The Office of the Inspector General was not able to
determine whether the law was broken because documentation was
so shoddy. These moves have lowered morale, created a culture
of fear, and forced people and institutional knowledge out of
the agency. And this was perhaps not an accident.
About $60 million of funding has been diverted for the
reorganization at a time of major proposed cuts to the
agencies. That kind of money could fund critical infrastructure
projects for people in the Central Valley of California, who
desperately need clean drinking water. It could have helped a
number of national parks address their maintenance backlogs. It
could have helped fund more than enough people to help Interior
get rid of its FOIA backlog to allow the American people to
know what their agency is doing.
To try to uphold our constitutional prerogative to provide
oversight on this major undertaking, this Committee has
repeatedly sought information from Interior. We have been
repeatedly denied.
Most recently, we tried to make it as easy as possible for
them. In March 2017, President Trump issued Executive Order
13781, directing the heads of each executive agency to submit
to the Office of Management and Budget a reorganization plan
within 180 days.
On April 10, Chairman Grijalva and I sent an official
documents request to Interior asking for that plan. Not all
correspondence, not all records, not even two documents, just
one single document. We know it exists. We have the e-mail that
says it is ready for final delivery. We even gave Interior the
file name of the document so they didn't have to spend time
looking for it. It is Agency Reform Plan--FINAL 9.12.17.pdf. I
am not sure how much easier or quicker we could have made it,
but we still don't have it.
If Secretary Bernhardt wants to implement the Zinke
reorganization plan, he needs to start by providing Congress
with a complete justification and a plan. He needs to work with
Congress, this Subcommittee, the American people, and Interior
employees, instead of seeing us as obstacles to overcome.
A reorganization can do a lot for an agency if it is done
right. Let's work together to make sure it is.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cox follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. TJ Cox, Chair, Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations
One of the first things Ryan Zinke did after becoming Secretary was
to try to implement a massive solution in search of a problem. The
weakness in that approach to reorganizing the 70,000-employee
Department of the Interior became clear early in the process.
We have not seen data to show there is a problem. We have not seen
data to prove that a reorganization was the way to solve the problem.
Nor have we seen a cost benefit analysis or work force planning data.
No measurable goals. No comprehensive plan. That's worth repeating--a
massive reorganization--and we have seen no plan. The Department has
provided no monitoring plan to know if the reorganization is achieving
its goals. We have not seen a timeline.
In 2018, the Government Accountability Office laid out what
agencies need to do if they want their reorganizations to be
successful. Unsurprisingly, their recommendations include all the basic
considerations that I mentioned, which have not been provided by
Secretaries Bernhardt or Zinke.
Before being elected to Congress last year, I owned a couple
businesses and a community development organization. As a businessman,
I can tell you with confidence that if I tried to tell company
investors or shareholders that I was going to reorganize a company
without showing them evidence of a need to do so or a way to measure
success, a plan, I would be laughed out of the room.
And yet that is precisely the case at the Department of the
Interior.
The actions that have been taken so far in the name of the
reorganization have already had significant impacts. Starting in 2017,
dozens of the most experienced, most effective employees were moved out
of their positions, into positions for which they had no qualifications
or interest, with very little notice. Most felt the moves were punitive
or based on political ideology. The Office of the Inspector General was
not able to determine whether the law was broken because documentation
was so shoddy. These moves have lowered morale, created a culture of
fear, and forced people and institutional knowledge out of the agency.
That was perhaps not an accident.
About $60 million of funding has been diverted for the
reorganization at a time of major proposed cuts to the agencies. That
kind of money could fund critical infrastructure projects for people in
the Central Valley of California who desperately need clean drinking
water. It could have helped a number of National Parks address their
maintenance backlogs. It could have funded more than enough people to
help Interior get rid of its FOIA backlog to allow the American people
to know what their agency is doing.
To try to uphold our constitutional prerogative to provide
oversight on this major undertaking, this Committee has repeatedly
sought information from Interior. We have repeatedly been denied. Most
recently, we tried to make it as easy as possible for them. In March
2017, President Trump issued Executive Order 13781, directing the heads
of each executive agency to submit to the Office of Management and
Budget a reorganization plan within 180 days.
On April 10, Chairman Grijalva and I sent an official documents
request to Interior, asking for that plan. Not all correspondence, not
all records, not even two documents. Just one single document. We know
it exists. We have the e-mail that says it is ready for final delivery.
We even gave Interior the file name of the document, so they didn't
have to spend time looking for it: Agency Reform Plan-FINAL
9.12.17.PDF. I'm not sure how much easier and quicker we could make it.
But we still don't have it.
If Secretary Bernhardt wants to implement the Zinke reorganization
plan, he needs to start by providing Congress with a complete
justification and a plan. He needs to work with Congress, this
Subcommittee, the American people, and Interior employees, instead of
seeing us obstacles to overcome.
A reorganization can do a lot of good for an agency if it's done
right. Let's work together to make sure it is.
______
Mr. Cox. With that, I now recognize Ranking Member Gohmert
for his opening statement.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. LOUIE GOHMERT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Chairman Cox, for holding this
hearing--for two reasons: (1) because transforming the
Department of the Interior is an important topic that does
deserve additional congressional scrutiny; and (2) because this
hearing falls completely within the jurisdiction of this
Committee, which I hope will continue through the 116th
Congress.
The reorganization of the Department of the Interior is
just a small part in a larger effort of this Administration to
overhaul the entire Federal Government to make it more
efficient and effective. In fact, in the Department of the
Interior, as the Chairman alluded to, there is a tremendous
backlog of $10 billion or more in simple maintenance repair
with what property the Department of the Interior has. Yet, in
recent years, the trend has been to acquire more and more
property without even bothering to repair and maintain the
property it had.
I welcome the reorganization. I think it is past time that
such should have been done. And it is consistent with the
directive; in March 2017, President Donald Trump issued
Executive Order 13781, directing the head of each agency to
submit reorganization plans in order to improve the efficiency,
effectiveness, and accountability of that agency.
In response to this Executive Order, former Secretary Ryan
Zinke, when he was not having to answer claims against him that
kept him busy and cost him a tremendous amount of individual
money, he began undertaking bold reforms, modernizing the way
the Department of the Interior operates. I am confident the
newly confirmed Secretary, David Bernhardt, will be able to
continue and complete the historic reorganization of the
Department.
Ultimately, this reorganization will result in reduced
bureaucratic redundancy, increased Federal accountability,
improve coordination between the Federal Government, state
agencies, and local governments, while spending less money. I
too look forward to seeing the reorganization plan.
The Department of the Interior has already made headway on
this reorganization by transforming the past management
structure of the Department, which consisted of 8 bureaus, 49
regions, each operating in a unique patchwork of boundaries,
into 12 unified regional boundaries based on watersheds and
ecosystems.
This approach will allow the Department to move away from
the one-size-fits-all solutions and focus resources on better
serving their new regional boundaries. These new management
plans will decrease redundancy while making coordination
between different land management agencies more efficient.
Moving the decision makers of the Department closer to the
field will add an increased level of accountability not
available within the current model of concentrating bureaucracy
in DC. Many decision makers within the Department of the
Interior are located thousands of miles away from the land and
people that their decision will affect.
For example, the Bureau of Land Management oversees nearly
385,000 miles of public lands; 99 percent of this land is in
western states and Alaska. Why should these lands continue to
be managed by decision makers inside this beltway?
While several details of the reorganization plan remain
unconfirmed, I am afraid, based on the title of today's
hearing, the Majority merely intends to spend time criticizing
and tearing down the plan. That said, I hope we don't miss the
opportunity to truly explore how the Department of the Interior
can evolve to better serve the American people and participate
in a fruitful discussion.
Historically, agency reorganizations have not been a
partisan issue. Many different agencies and bureaus have
attempted reorganization plans throughout this Nation's history
by both Republican and Democratic administrations. There is
much that could be done to transform the Department of the
Interior to better address the challenges it will face in the
21st century, and I am glad we are holding the hearing today to
explore those options. I look forward to hearing testimony
today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gohmert follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Hon. Louie Gohmert, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
Thank you, Chairman Cox, for holding this hearing. And for two
reasons: first, because transforming the Department of the Interior is
an important topic that does deserve additional congressional scrutiny;
second, because this hearing falls completely within the jurisdiction
of this Committee, which I hope will continue through the 116th
Congress.
The reorganization of the Department of the Interior is just a
small part in a larger effort of this Administration to overhaul the
entire Federal Government to make it more efficient and effective. In
fact, in the Department of the Interior, as the Chairman alluded to,
there is a tremendous backlog of $10 billion or more in simple
maintenance repair with what property the Department of the Interior
has. Yet in recent years the trend has been to acquire more and more
property without even bothering to repair and maintain the property it
had.
I welcome the reorganization. I think it is overtime, that is past
time, that such should have been done. And it is consistent with the
directive. In March 2017 President Donald Trump issued Executive Order
13781, directing the head of each agency to submit reorganization plans
in order to improve the efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability
of that agency.
In response to this executive order, former Secretary Ryan Zinke,
when he was not having to answer claims against him that kept him busy
and cost him a tremendous amount of individual money, he began
undertaking bold reforms, modernizing the way the Department of the
Interior operates. I am confident the newly confirmed Secretary, David
Bernhardt, will be able to continue and complete the historic
reorganization of the Department.
Ultimately, this reorganization will result in reduced bureaucratic
redundancy, increased Federal accountability, improve coordination
between the Federal Government, state agencies, and local governments,
while spending less money. I too look forward to seeing the
reorganization plan.
The Department of the Interior has already made headway on this
reorganization by transforming the past management structure of the
Department, which consisted of 8 bureaus, 49 regions, each operating in
a unique patchwork of boundaries, to 12 unified regional boundaries
based on watersheds and ecosystems.
This approach will allow the Department to move away from the one-
size-fits-all solutions and focus resources on better serving their new
regional boundaries. These new management plans will decrease
redundancy while making coordination between different land management
agencies more efficient.
Moving the decision makers of the Department closer to the field
will add an increased level of accountability not available within the
current model of concentrating bureaucracy in DC. Many decision makers
within the Department of the Interior are located thousands of miles
away from the land and people that their decision will affect.
For example, the Bureau of Land Management oversees nearly 385,000
miles of public lands; 99 percent of this land is in western states and
Alaska. Why should these lands continue to be managed by decision
makers inside this beltway?
While several details of the reorganization plan remain
unconfirmed, I am afraid, based on the title of today's hearing, the
Majority merely intends to spend time criticizing and tearing down the
plan. That said, I hope we don't miss the opportunity to truly explore
how the Department of the Interior can evolve to better serve the
American people, participate in a fruitful discussion.
Historically, agency reorganizations have not been a partisan
issue. Many different agencies and bureaus have attempted
reorganization plans throughout this Nation's history by both
Republican and Democratic administrations. There is much that could be
done to transform the Department of the Interior to better address the
challenges it will face in the 21st century, and I am glad we are
holding the hearing today to explore those options, and I look forward
to hearing testimony today.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
______
Mr. Cox. Thank you. I would like to introduce our
witnesses.
Mr. Scott Cameron is the Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget at the Department
of the Interior. Mr. Michael Bromwich is the Founder and
Managing Principal of The Bromwich Group; after the Deepwater
Horizon spill, Mr. Bromwich spent 18 months at the Department
of the Interior, leading the reorganization of the Minerals
Management Service. Ms. Jamie Rappaport Clark is the President
and CEO of Defenders of Wildlife; from 1997 to 2001 she was the
Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Mr. Harold
Frazier is Chairman of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, based in
South Dakota; Chairman Frazier also serves as President of the
Great Plains Tribal Chairmen's Association.
Under Committee Rules, oral statements are limited to 5
minutes, but your entire statement will appear in the hearing
record.
The lights in front of you will turn yellow when there is 1
minute left, and then red when time is expired.
After witnesses have testified, Members will be given the
opportunity to ask questions.
And with that, the Chair now recognizes Mr. Scott Cameron.
STATEMENT OF SCOTT CAMERON, PRINCIPAL DEPUTY ASSISTANT
SECRETARY FOR POLICY, MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Cameron. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Gohmert. I am delighted to be with you this morning to discuss
the Department of the Interior's reorganization effort. I do
have a few opening remarks, and I appreciate that my full
written statement will be submitted for the record. Thank you
for that.
The Department's reorganization is in response to President
Trump's 2017 Executive Order to reorganize the executive branch
to better meet the needs of the American people in the 21st
century. Our agency's reform plan highlights the need to
modernize and plan for the next 100 years of land and water
resource management.
The first and very significant step we took toward
reorganization was to create 12 unified regions that align most
of our bureaus within shared geographic boundaries and, more
importantly, shared geographic perspectives. After much input
from the Department's career senior executive staff, Congress,
governors, and external stakeholders, including consultations
with Indian tribal leaders, the map was finalized and the
unified regions took effect on August 22, 2018.
Importantly, these new unified regional boundaries replaced
a confusing array of 49 separate but overlapping regional
boundaries among our 9 bureaus and offices.
Reorganization makes it easier for the public and our
partners to do business with us by, first, reducing the
confusion that the many different bureau boundaries caused. The
new structure enables improved coordination among Federal,
state, and local agencies, and provides a structure for
delegating more decision-making authority to regions to better
serve the needs of our customers and partners, especially on
matters affecting multiple bureaus.
We will also create more opportunities for employee career
advancement and movement across bureaus by promoting cross-
bureau collaborative work within each region. We will improve
efficiency by sharing resources for common administrative
services, such as information technology, human resources, and
procurement. Indeed, we are in the process of receiving and
analyzing three independent contracts to evaluate those
management functions of the Department.
After the unified regions were established we asked current
bureau career executive leaders in the 12 regions to form
regional executive committees and to select one of their peers
as a Regional Facilitator. The Regional Facilitator temporarily
serves as a central point of contact in each of the unified
regions. The members of the 12 regional executive committees
are responsible for sharing information and exploring how to
work with each other more closely on programmatic and
administrative support teams within their unified regions.
We have also proposed moving elements of the Bureau of Land
Management and the U.S. Geological Survey's headquarters
operations west to bring them closer to the public that they
interact with most frequently.
As a result of the reorganization, the Department is better
positioned to accomplish our mission and serve the needs of
your constituents. Our staff will be able to do their jobs
better as we increase our ability to share knowledge and
resources across our bureaus. We will reduce risks to the
organization and the confusion that is introduced through
inconsistent policies for things like cyber security,
acquisition, and human resource management.
We are proceeding deliberately and intentionally on all
aspects of reorganization. We will develop new performance
measures to evaluate our success and return on investment. We
will consider results over time and on a regional basis to
determine our success and to identify areas where we still need
to improve.
The key here is flexibility. We are looking for an approach
that will allow us to fine-tune our management strategies from
region to region, reflecting the local needs of the people we
serve in the region.
I look forward to answering your questions and to working
with the Committee to implement the Department's vision for the
reorganization and modernization. Thank you for the opportunity
to testify this morning.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cameron follows:]
Prepared Statement of Scott Cameron, Principal Deputy Assistant
Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget
U.S. Department of the Interior
Chairman Cox, Ranking Member Gohmert, and members of the
Subcommittee, I am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the
Department of the Interior's reorganization.
President Trump's Executive Order 13781, Comprehensive Plan for
Reorganizing the Executive Branch, challenged all Departments and
Agencies to reorganize to better meet the needs of the American people.
The Department welcomed the opportunity to thoughtfully reorganize,
as our structure and functions have not fundamentally changed in half a
century. Our goal was to increase inter-bureau collaboration and
improve interoperability across the Department.
We therefore responded to the White House direction by crafting a
transformational vision that more effectively delivers citizen service
and enables us to perform our work more efficiently. The Department's
reorganization is driven by an imperative to improve inter-bureau
coordination, shift resources to front line activities that interact
with the public, bring decision makers closer to those who are affected
by our decisions, and leverage technology to drive management
improvements across a wide variety of administrative services for the
benefit of our employees and the people they serve. The first and very
significant step to realizing this vision was the designation of 12
unified regions that align most of our bureaus to shared geographic
boundaries and, more importantly, shared geographic perspectives.
The Department of the Interior was established 170 years ago. Like
other government agencies, we must evolve to capitalize on new
opportunities, address modem threats, and meet the needs of a 21st
century citizenry.
Over many decades, new bureaus were established on an ad hoc basis,
each with unique geographic boundaries. This resulted in a complicated
map of 49 regional boundaries among eight bureaus. Bureau regional
leadership quite naturally, but not optimally, focused inwardly within
their own regional boundaries. This limited perspective inhibited a
shared understanding of perspectives of regional stakeholders whose
needs span multiple bureaus. Opportunities to share administrative
capacity across bureaus were difficult to recognize and implement.
Members of the public were frustrated at the pace of decision making by
bureaus that were not working together. In more recent times, physical
and cybersecurity challenges have increasingly become threats to our
employees and visitors, and the facilities, data, lands, and water
resources we manage.
The Department's reorganization will improve coordination and
collaboration among our bureaus and increase our efficiency by making
it easier and more natural to consider the sharing of administrative
services across bureaus at the regional, multiregional, and even the
national levels. We will find creative ways to streamline and
standardize administrative processes and conduct the business of the
Department in the smartest ways possible, particularly in the areas of
information technology, acquisition/procurement and human resources. We
owe it to our employees to provide them with the modern tools and
resources they deserve in their professional lives, and quite frankly
have come to expect as routine in their personal lives.
The establishment of shared regional geographic boundaries
simplifies how people interact with the Department, for our own
employees, for state, local, and tribal governments, and for the
public. Establishment of the unified regional boundaries across bureaus
is the cornerstone for reforming the Department's service delivery to
the public. Within each unified region, bureaus will focus their work
on the same resources and constituents, and this common view will
naturally lead to improved coordination across the bureaus. For the
public, fewer regions makes it easier to do business with the
Department, particularly for projects or issues requiring interactions
across several bureaus. For our diverse mission, the move promotes
inter-bureau collaboration, joint problem-solving, and mutual
assistance.
Perhaps most importantly, operating under common Department
regional boundaries provides certainty for our external customers. By
putting more emphasis on shared geography and inter-bureau coordination
we are making it more realistic for our 70,000 employees to pursue
cross-training outside their home bureau. Closer ties to sister bureaus
at a regional level also makes it more realistic for our employees to
consider career advancement opportunities in a sister bureau. Our goals
are both aggressive and attainable. We will increase the efficiency,
effectiveness, and accountability of how the Department serves our
internal and external stakeholders while reducing confusion, risk, and
duplication.
The Department's unified regions are rooted in science and focused
on watersheds and ecosystems. To get to the final boundaries, the
Department held discussions with senior leaders in the Department and
the bureaus, and we engaged our field employees, tribes, states,
environmental groups, and our many other pa1tners and stakeholders. We
hosted 8 listening sessions for our employees to provide forums for
them to hear from, and talk directly to, Departmental officials about
the reorganization and proposed regional boundaries.
We conducted extensive tribal consultation, both formal and
informal. These conversations included 11 formal consultation sessions
and an additional 7 listening sessions at tribal offices and
facilities, large gatherings, and other venues. We posted transcripts
of all 18 sessions we conducted. In addition, 32 individuals or groups
submitted comments in response to the tribal listening sessions. The
feedback gathered from the tribal consultation s revealed a preference
for the bureaus serving Indian Country to retain their current
structure rather than becoming part of the unified regions. We
respected that feedback, and as a result, the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
the Bureau of Indian Education, and the Office of the Special Trustee
for American Indians have not realigned their regional field structure
to the new unified regions.
Over a period of almost 2 years, Department of the Interior
officials also met repeatedly with a wide variety of constituents,
including state, local and tribal government elected and appointed
officials; Congress; organizations such as the Western Governors'
Association and the Missouri River Basin Interagency Roundtable;
nonprofit groups; and bureau-specific cooperating organizations such as
the National Parks Conservation Association.
On May 16, 2018, then-Secretary Zinke hosted a Conservation
Roundtable the purpose of which was to engage in robust conversation
about reorganization, among other shared priorities, with non-
government conservation organizations. Participants at the roundtable
represented such organizations as the Association of Fish and Wildlife
Agencies, the National Audubon Society, the Congressional Sportsmen's
Foundation, Delta Waterfowl, The Nature Conservancy, Pheasants Forever,
and the Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership.
We also established a Reorganization Website and posted the unified
region maps, answers to ``frequently asked questions,'' and status
updates of the reorganization effort. This website is still active and
provides two ways of submitting a question, comment or suggestion to
the Department about the reorganization. We respond individually to all
questions and comments received. We listened to everyone who provided
input, and that input helped to shape the Department's ultimate
reorganization decisions on the unified regions in the summer of 2018.
Accomplishments to date include the following: after working
closely with stakeholders and Congress, the unified regions map was
finalized on August 22, 2018. Based on feedback from state governors,
state boundaries were generally followed for the unified region
boundaries with three exceptions where there were over-riding water
resource issues that justified a deviation from the norm (along the
Arizona-Nevada-California borders; the California-Oregon border; and
the Montana-Idaho border). We also made a commitment to governors that
the roles of the Bureau of Land Management State Directors would
continue. This month we revised our Departmental Manual for each of the
affected bureaus to reflect the existence of the unified regions. Those
revisions have been approved and are undergoing the final codification
process.
After finalizing the unified regional map, we identified the
current bureau career executive leaders in the 12 regions, asked them
to form an executive committee in each unified region, and to select
one of their peers as a Regional Facilitator. The Regional Facilitator
temporarily serves as a central point of contact in the unified
regions. The members of the 12 regional executive committees are
responsible for sharing information and exploring how to work with each
other more closely on programmatic and administrative support teams
within their unified regions. The Regional Facilitators participate on
regular calls among their group and their various regional teams; and
weekly calls are scheduled to communicate with the Department.
We are currently exploring what the permanent role might be for an
individual designated as an Interior Regional Director within a unified
region. This person would have a role in convening his or her
colleagues on the regional executive committee and managing issues of
mutual concern. It is worth pointing out that the role of Interior
Regional Director would be established in such a way as to not disrupt
existing bureau statutory authorities or impede communications between
a regional bureau executive and the headquarters leadership of that
bureau. In addition, we are currently examining how a provision in the
Departmental Manual that dates back to the Carter administration and
provides for the role of a Field Special Assistant might relate to what
we have more recently envisioned as an Interior Regional Director.
With the unified regions in place, and Congress having appropriated
$17.5 million in Fiscal Year 2019 for the reorganization, we are now
focused on how best to advance the management of the Department's vast
and diverse responsibilities within the new regional structure. A wide
variety of administrative tasks are necessary to fully operationalize
the new regional boundaries, such as modifications to our financial
management and property systems, and appropriately coding employee
position descriptions to reflect their association with the new unified
regions. These changes will take time, but will enable us to better
plan, organize, manage, and report on activities on a multi-bureau
basis for each unified region.
To better capitalize on shared administrative services, we will
leverage three independent external assessments that examine the
operating practices, especially the effectiveness and efficiencies, of
three administrative functions: human resources management, acquisition
of goods and services, and information technology management. We
believe that the resulting administrative reforms will improve and make
our internal administrative operations more cost-efficient, enabling us
to better invest in the Department's citizen-facing services. By
resolving duplicative and unnecessarily cumbersome administrative
processes, our employees and the Department's customers will save
precious time in completing routine administrative actions. We received
final reports on the assessments of information technology and
acquisitions, and are now beginning to implement priority
recommendations. The human resources assessment will be complete in
September.
In addition to improving internal and external communication and
decision making through the unified regions, and reforming
administrative operations to better serve the American public, there is
a third dimension to our reorganization initiative. In order to better
serve our customers and partners, we will move headquarters elements of
two of our bureaus closer to the people affected by their decisions.
Citizens always benefit when decisions are made by those who are most
familiar with the issue at hand. This is why a key component of
reorganization is moving elements of headquarters operations of two
bureaus--the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Geological Survey--
to the western United States, where the preponderance of these bureau
assets are located and bureau dollars expended, to better serve our
customers.
In 2019, we plan to relocate a very few headquarters elements of
BLM and USGS to the West. Currently, we are actively exploring possible
locations for a future headquarters location for BLM. We hope to make a
decision on a city later this fiscal year. BLM plans to fill certain
vacant headquarters positions and move a small number of employees to
the West--approximately 40 vacant BLM positions or employees are likely
to be relocated in FY 2019. This number represents approximately 10
percent of the BLM headquarters work force. BLM intends to ask
employees to volunteer, rather than forcing people to move.
For its part, USGS' relocation is focused on the Denver, Colorado
metropolitan area, where the bureau already has a significant presence
and significant scientific partners in nearby universities. As a
practical matter, the USGS FY 2019 funding for reorganization would not
enable them to move many employees this year. In neither case have we
made decisions that have committed ourselves legally or financially. As
required by the Appropriations Committee, we will report on our plans
prior to obligating the FY 2019 reorganization funding provided by
Congress.
We are proceeding with reorganization deliberately and
intentionally. It is important to note that improved citizen service is
the driver behind our reorganization. While we have reasonable
expectations that a number of our reorganization actions will
demonstrate savings in dollars and cents, we hope the Committee will
agree with us that faster and smarter decision making by the
Department, and decisions that are more fully informed by local
conditions on the ground represent very real value for the American
people, even if it is difficult to quantify these benefits in a
traditional cost-benefit analysis.
Bureaus and offices have already begun to work across
organizational lines to identify ways to maximize the benefits of the
new regions. The Regional Facilitators and their executive committees
continue to identify best-practices for collaborative efforts, and
specific needs for improving inter-operability across shared services
and in the functional areas of collaborative conservation, recreation,
and permitting. These groups have found their collaborative meetings to
be highly productive and informative.
As a result of these ongoing efforts, we are re-examining some of
the Department's common business operations to leverage consistent best
practices across Interior. In 2020, the budget requests $27.6 million
to continue implementing the reorganization with three areas of focus:
Implementation of the Unified Regions ($12.1 million), Relocation and
Regional Stand Up ($10.5 million) and Modernizing Interior's Business
($5.0 million).
Through reorganization, the Department will be better positioned to
serve our mission and address the needs of the American public.
Regional bureau executives will be empowered to work directly with each
other to proactively address common issues. Fewer decisions will be
referred to Washington DC, and those that are referred to the Secretary
will be more narrowly and clearly defined because of the prior inter-
bureau coordination at the regional level. This joint approach to
problem solving and increased coordination at lower levels of the
organizational structure, grounded in common regions, will reduce
timelines for decisions, allow senior executives to better focus their
attention where it is most needed, and facilitate increased
collaboration and information sharing across DOI bureaus.
Each unified region is unique, with varying levels of Interior
staff, public interest, and types of resources to be managed. The
unified regions will not be administered with a one-size-fits-all
approach. Through increased shared servicing of information management
and technology, procurement, and human resources functions across the
Department, we will enhance the foundation for increased inter-bureau
collaboration and coordination and better invest in our citizen-facing
missions.
Increased standardization in our administrative business processes
will allow the Department to work more efficiently and effectively. We
will be better positioned to take advantage of economies of scale, our
staff will have increased capacity to share knowledge and resources
across bureaus, and we will reduce risks to the organization that are
introduced through inconsistent policies for cybersecurity, purchasing,
and human resource management.
The Department looks forward to working with this Committee to
collectively enhance services to the American people. I am happy to
take your questions at this time.
______
Questions Submitted for the Record to the Honorable Scott Cameron,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget,
U.S. Department of the Interior
Mr. Cameron did not submit responses to the Committee by the
appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record.
Questions Submitted by Rep. Cox
Question 1. During the hearing, Mr. Cameron testified that DOI was
preparing a response to this Committee's April 10, 2019 request for the
document that was e-mailed to Denise Flanagan on September 12, 2017 and
included as an attachment entitled ``Agency Reform Plan-
Final.9.12.17.pdf.'' Committee staff asked that this document be
prioritized for production.
1a. When will DOI produce this document?
1b. How many political appointees are reviewing this document
before you send it to me?
1c. Who are they and what are their titles?
1d. I would like a date by which leadership will send a new e-mail
reversing this directive. Please provide a copy of that e-mail to my
Committee staff the day it sent.
Questions Submitted by Rep. Grijalva
Question 1. During the hearing, Mr. Cameron was unable to answer
questions related to an e-mail chain sent from career staff stating
that documents to all Senators and me were directed to be bottlenecked
through two political appointees handling nominations. I did not vote
on Secretary Bernhardt's nomination. Please provide answers to the
following:
1a. Why was I singled out?
1b. Which political appointee or appointees gave this direction?
Questions Submitted by Rep. Gosar
Question 1. What is the Interior Department doing to reorganize its
geospatial activities, in light of the recent GAO reports, and
enactment of the Geospatial Data Act? Specifically, are you familiar
with the Battenberg Report and do you see any value in consolidating
the dispirit surveying, mapping and geospatial activities across the
Department?
Question 2. In 2005, Interior Secretary Gale Norton testified
before the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, ``The Department
currently uses 26 different financial management systems and over 100
different property systems. Employees must enter procurement
transactions multiple times in different systems so that the data are
captured in real property inventories, financial systems, and
acquisition systems. This fractured approach is both costly and
burdensome to manage.'' What has changed in the last 14 years? What
improvements have been implemented? Are there still over 100 different
property systems? How has the Department reorganized, or how does it
plan to reorganize, to eliminate this duplication? Today, with computer
mapping and geographic information systems, or GIS, there is the
ability to ``map it once, use it many times.'' To what extent has that
goal been reached with regard to property systems and a current,
accurate, multipurpose land inventory or what are your plans to
eliminate such duplication and lack of coordination?
Question 3. President Bush issued Executive Order 13327: Federal
Real Property Asset Management on February 4, 2004. While that
Executive Order exempted ``national forest, national park, or national
wildlife refuge purposes except for improvements on those lands,'' it
did include Section 7, which stated: ``Public Lands. In order to ensure
that federally-owned lands, other than the real property covered by
this order, are managed in the most effective and economic manner, the
Departments of Agriculture and the Interior shall take such steps as
are appropriate to improve their management of public lands and
National Forest System lands and shall develop appropriate legislative
proposals necessary to facilitate that result.'' What steps has the
Departments of Agriculture and the Interior taken pursuant to Executive
Order 13327, particularly with regard to an inventory of land owned by
the Federal Government?
Question 4. Are public lands of BLM and National Forest System
lands included in the Federal Real Property Profile, the database
required by the Federal Assets Sale and Transfer Act (FASTA) of 2016,
(P.L. 114-287) and the ``Federal Property Management Reform Act'' (P.L.
114-318)?
Question 5. Why is the Reorganization good for taxpayers and how
will it improve efficiencies within the Department?
Question 6. What proposals have been developed by the Departments
of Agriculture and the Interior, pursuant to Executive Order 13327,
under the Bush, Obama or Trump administrations with regard to real
property asset management on public lands and National Forest systems
lands generally, and with regard to an inventory of those lands in
particular?
Question 7. Section 201 of the Federal Land Policy and Management
Act (FLPMA) requires the BLM to maintain on a continuing basis an
inventory of all public lands and their resources and other values.
Section 202 of FLPMA requires BLM to rely on resource inventories in
the development and revision of land use plans. Does BLM have a
current, accurate inventory of all public lands? Is it one,
consolidated inventory, or is a dispersed series of files and records?
Is the inventory digital? Is it on the web? Does the public have access
to this inventory? Is it searchable?
______
Mr. Cox. Thank you so much, Mr. Cameron.
The Chair now recognizes Chairman Harold Frazier.
STATEMENT OF HAROLD FRAZIER, CHAIRMAN, CHEYENNE RIVER SIOUX
TRIBE, EAGLE BUTTE, SOUTH DAKOTA
Mr. Frazier. Thank you, Chairman. I am honored to be here
today, and I thank you for allowing me the time to address you
and your Committee.
When this reorganization happened, the tribes in the Great
Plains area, and I am sure throughout the United States, were
never properly consulted. When they came to the Great Plains
region, we were given a picture of a map. That is all we were
given. We weren't given any plans of the purpose of how or why
this change is needed, or how it is going to benefit our
people. It was never done. That is all we were given.
I have been in office going on my fourth term. And one of
the things I have learned is that every reorganization on
behalf of Indian people has never worked. I will give you an
example: the Bureau of Indian Education.
They restructured, they created a new agency. But one of
the things they didn't do is take all the functions from the
BIA, or transfer any of them. And what that caused is no
personnel at our schools. Right now at Cheyenne Eagle Butte
High School, we haven't had a math teacher in 5 years.
I went to a meeting several weeks back and I was told that
in February--or, no, this fall of 2018 the BIE has only filled
23 percent of positions. Today, they are at 43 percent, so we
question that. Where is that money? If they were allocated 100
percent for salaries, where is that money? Is that money going
to go to fund this reorganization? Is this money coming off the
backs of our children, their future that is going to pay for
this reorganization that will never benefit Indian people, or
will never work?
We are always left behind as Indian people. We are not
rocks. We are not trees. We are human beings. We live and
breathe, just as every American in this country.
If there is going to be a reorganization, one of the things
that I think would work is it should come from a grassroots
level up. Instead, many times it comes from Washington, it
comes down, and they have no idea, no clue of what is happening
at the local level. And that is something that I think has
always failed.
Today, we feel that we are being abandoned by the Federal
Government. We have big issues of roads, no infrastructure. But
yet the BIA or nobody is there to help us.
We just got through some flooding that damaged a lot of our
roads on our reservation. One morning I got a call that we had
to shut another road down. And I couldn't think of anybody to
call, because everybody that I have talked to has never come
through for us. So, we truly feel that we are abandoned today.
And, you know, we have treaties with the Federal
Government. We are sovereigns. We need to be treated as such.
Right now, we haven't had a permanent superintendent at our
agency for the past 4 or 5 years. We rotate our area directors,
so everything that is happening today is not working for our
people. It is just a waste of time and money.
If there is truly going to be reorganization, then we
truly, as Indian people, need to be consulted. We need to be
involved because that is our lives. Our people's lives are at
stake. We need to know and dictate where our future is going to
take us. A lot of times we are just ignored.
And like I mentioned earlier, when they come to Rapid City
with this map, and it was my turn to talk, I walked by them and
I faced the wall of the building and I talked to that wall,
because that is the way we are treated by the BIA and by the
Federal Government. We have no voice, we have nothing.
But yet we were here first. You know, this is our country.
This is our home. From the beginning of time we have always
lived in this country and will never leave. We have nowhere
else to go.
Thank you for allowing me the time, and thank you for
allowing me to be here.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Frazier follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Harold C. Frazier, Chairman,
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe
Good Morning. Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and members
of the Committee. My name is Harold Frazier. I am Chairman of the
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of South Dakota. Our Tribe has approximately
21,000 tribal members. The Cheyenne River Indian Reservation in north-
central South Dakota is approximately 2.8 million acres, 135 miles east
to west and 65 miles north to south, and our territory is roughly the
size of the state of Connecticut.
I also serve as Chairman of the Great Plains Tribal Chairmen's
Association, a federally-recognized intertribal corporation, organized
under Section 17 of the Indian Reorganization Act to advocate for our
16 Indian Nations and Tribes of the Great Plains Region.
Generally, our Indian Nations and Tribes have significant land
bases, and even our smaller Tribes are large by nationwide standards.
Our Great Plains Nations and Tribes operate BIE and tribal schools, IHS
health clinics and hospitals, BIA and tribal police, fire and EMT
services, tribal courts, cultural centers, general assistance, elderly
nutrition, early childhood programs, economic development projects,
utilities, water, sewer and sanitation programs. Our tribal governments
work to ensure that our Indian lands and reservations serve our people
as the permanent, livable homes envisioned in treaties.
the interior reorganization is deeply flawed
Our treaties, statutes, executive orders, and Department
regulations require consultation and coordination with Indian nations
on issues that concern self-government, treaty rights, and the Federal
trust responsibility. See Executive Order 13175 (2000); 25 CFR Part
900. Interior completely failed in its duty to consult Indian nations
in an informed manner concerning the impacts on our most basic
governmental services.
Interior came to our Indian Nations with an idea that was not
thought through. To reorganize Interior, the Secretary started with the
flawed premise that one Federal official is the same as another,
regardless of qualifications, background, and training, regardless of
the different Agency missions and operations. No plan was presented--
just a ``river basin'' map, two or three Power Point slides, and
slogans not backed up by facts. ``Interior Regional Offices,'' ``100
year plan,'' ``streamline,'' ``efficiency'' and ``no RIF.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department includes a number of different Bureaus and
Agencies, which have diverse missions, including: Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Indian Education (BIE), Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFS), Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement, National Park Service, Office of Surface
Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, and U.S. Geological Survey.
In reality, it was a RIF: senior BIA staff have been encouraged to
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
leave through extended details to remote locations.
Unlike other DOI areas, Indian Nations represent people. We cannot
afford to have our lives and services disrupted to pursue a Don Quixote
adventure. We need real answers for real issues. We need real world
funding to improve our peoples' living conditions.
the secretary did not understand the needs of indian country
When Secretary Zinke first came into office as the head of the
Department of the Interior, he pledged to work with Indian Tribes as
``equals.'' He said, ``sovereignty must mean something.'' Yet, he
compared Interior to the military and told us that we had too many
senior people nearing retirement age. ``We need more boots on the
ground.''
The BIA's senior executives were moved from post-to-post, region-
to-region. Our Great Plains Regional Director went on detail to other
BIA Regions twice, for 6-month stints. Then he was permanently assigned
as the BIA Regional Director for another Region, and a BIA Area
Director from outside our Region was temporarily assigned to the Great
Plains for 6 months, and then sent back home. Our Great Plains Indian
Nations still do not have a permanent BIA Regional Director.
For us, shifting the chairs throughout the Department was a waste
of time. It meant lots of downtime, lost opportunities and failed
decision making. Interior Headquarters in Washington called back
authority from the existing BIA Regions concerning when to take Indian
lands into trust and other issues--not a Regional approach. As a
result, we can't get a clear answer from the BIA, a focused effort, or
resources for crucial concerns.
We were told in 2017 that Interior was going to reorganize ``for
the next 100 years.'' The Secretary cited to the President's Executive
Order 13781, entitled ``Comprehensive Plan for Reorganizing the
Executive Branch.'' The stated goal was to improve the efficiency,
effectiveness, and accountability of the executive branch.'' \2\
Interior did not have a plan--how efficient is that? Interior said that
the Department's key functions were identified as: ``recreation,
conservation, and permitting.'' That list does not pertain to Indian
Country.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ With 9 Bureaus in 61 Regions, Interior sought to consolidate
into 12 regions based upon watershed boundaries. By unifying the
disparate agency regions, Interior sought to ``streamline'' and save
resources. Each Interior Regional Director (IRD) would report directly
to the Deputy Secretary, the focus was on recreation, permitting, and
conservation, and each IRD position would rotate among the Bureaus and
Agencies. So, for 2 out of 10 years, our BIA Regional Director would be
as the IRD, if we participated in the Reorganization.
At GPTCA, we were very concerned that the Interior Reorganization
process had been started with no real plan, no real dialogue with
Indian Nations, and no understanding of the need for increased funding
for the BIA, BIE and Office of Special Trustee. Interior Reorganization
documents had been drafted without the input of the BIA, BIE and Office
of Special Trustee. Interior did not address Indian issues and did not
prioritize Indian people. Interior was determined to reorganize despite
concerns. Against this background, it would have been irresponsible for
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
us to participate. We said, No.
In August 2018, Interior announced that the new Interior Regions
would apply to all of the Bureaus and Agencies, except BIA, BIE and
Office of Special Trustee. We were told that if Indian Tribes ``opted-
out'' of the Interior Reorganization, there would be no further need to
consult with us on the Reorganization.
The Federal Times Reports that the Interior Reorganization plan
``would assign efforts made by Department of the Interior bureaus--such
as the National Park Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service--into
regions determined by watersheds, wildlife corridors, trail systems and
state boundaries to better coordinate agency efforts on a local scale .
. .'' ``[W]e will take actions to align DOI into the 12 unified
regional boundaries. Bureau regional boundaries will transition from
their current regional structures to participate in the new 12 unified
regional boundaries,'' wrote Interior Deputy Director of External
Affairs Tim Williams. Jessie Bur, Federal Times, ``Interior Finalizes
Boundaries of 12 New Unified Regions,'' August 29, 2018.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Later, Interior updated its proposal to include 13 regions
organized to improve:
Management of Ecosystems;
Interagency interaction and customer service; and
Share Interior's ``frame of reference'' for all Department
Executives.
concerns about the interior reorganization
We were asked to comment. From the Great Plains, our August 2018
comments were:
[The Reorganization] are goals for managing ``rocks and
trees,'' and ``watershed'' basins may work for USFS (Fish), NPS
(Parks), BOR (Water), and BLM (Land), but they do not work for
Native Nations and Native Peoples.
Accordingly, GPTCA declines to support the DOI Reorganization
as it is presently conceptualized. Although no formal plan has
been laid out, the present concept for reorganization would
subject Indian Nations to catch-all Regional USFS-NPS-BOR-BLM
Offices with primary missions being recreation, conservation,
and permitting. We are Native Peoples, not ``trees and rocks.''
We need a better approach. So, our Indian Nations call upon you
to establish DOI-Indian Nation Roundtable Discussions, chaired
by you and the White House, to discuss how to elevate, restore,
fund and empower Native Nations in our government-to-
government, Nation-to-Nation relationship with the United
States . . ..
To be sure, as Native Nations, we must be consulted concerning
the reorganization of other Interior Agencies and Bureaus, but
we must decline the Secretary's Offer to be consolidated with
these agencies.
We reject the concept of consolidating ASIA, BIA, BIE, OST and
other Indian agencies under the umbrella of a unitary ``rocks
and trees'' Regional Director.
NATION-TO-NATION CONSULTATION--Our treaties, acknowledge the
sovereignty of our Indian Nations and Tribes as Nations vested
with the power of war and peace. Through our treaties, we also
secured our right to ``permanent,'' ``livable'' homelands, and
the United States pledged to assist us with education, health
care, and housing . . ..
In light of these fundamental principles, the Secretary of the
Interior should work on an entirely different process to
promote Indian Self-Determination with our Native Nations--
Elevate, Restore, Fund, and Empower our Indian Nations. The
Secretary's process with our Native Nations should be based on
meaningful, informed Nation-to-Nation consultation and any
proposed reorganization should be based upon our mutual consent
to change--because that is required to respect Indian
Sovereignty, Self-Determination, and Treaty Rights . . ..
ELEVATE THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY-INDIAN AFFAIRS (``ASIA'') TO
DEPUTY DEPARTMENT SECRETARY--The Secretary of the Interior
should consult with our Indian Nations concerning the elevation
of the ASIA to the level of the Deputy Secretary of the
Department of the Interior for Indian Affairs. The Deputy
Secretary of the Department for Indian Affairs should work
directly with the Secretary, the White House, and the Congress
. . .. There should be no changes or elimination of our BIA
Regional Offices without our prior consent. We do not agree to
a merger of our BIA Regional Offices into generic ``rocks and
trees'' offices--our BIA offices, their authorities, and their
staff must be available in the future for direct inclusion in
Self-Determination contracting with our Indian Nations. In
addition, the Secretary should re-establish the Office of
American Indian Trust to ensure that the coordinate DOI
Agencies operate consistently with our Treaty Rights and the
Federal Trust Responsibility.
RESTORE INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION, TREATY RIGHTS AND THE
FEDERAL TRUST RESPONSIBILITY TO CORE DEPARTMENT MISSIONS--The
Secretary of the Interior should work with our Indian Nations
to enhance our Indian Self-Determination to provide the maximum
latitude for Indian Self-Determination--the primary decisions
in formulating our tribal government programs and services
should be made by our Indian Nations and Tribes.
FUND THE DEPARTMENT'S TREATY AND TRUST RESPONSIBILITIES--Our
Indian programs were formerly viewed as mandatory programs
since they are required by treaty, but the Secretary of the
Interior has allowed our Indian programs to be classified as
``discretionary'' spending, subjecting us to steep budget cuts
under sequester rules. The Secretary should seek to restore
Indian programs to ``mandatory'' spending status and to fully
fund our unmet needs for services.
EMPOWER--Indian Nations should be respected as the primary
government authority over our Native homelands--that is the
self-government we reserved by treaty . . ..
DOI-INDIAN NATIONS ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSIONS--To move forward to
improve the Department of the Interior and its operations in
Indian Country, the Secretary must work with the White House to
convene DOI-Indian Nations Roundtable Discussions--which the
White House and the Secretary must chair personally to make
real progress. The elected leaders of all Indian Nations should
be invited. The meeting should be a Nation-to-Nation dialogue
with any decisions based upon mutual consent, and with real
back and forth communication between the principals . . ..
The Great Plains Tribal Chairmen's Association did not receive a
response.
establish a new deputy secretary for indian nations
It is time for the Secretary of the Interior to fundamentally
change--prioritize Native Nation issues by establishing a Deputy
Secretary for Indian Nations. GPTCA adopted a Resolution to that
effect:
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the GPTCA calls upon the Secretary
of the Interior to stop the BIA Reorganization . . . [until] an
agreement between the United States and our Indian Nations and
Tribes has been reached concerning the importance of the
following principles:
Honoring our Treaty Rights, including our Right to
Sovereignty, Self-Determination, and Self-Government;
Our Nation-to-Nation Relationship with the United States;
The Sanctity of our Indian trust lands and territory;
Our Rights to Economic Freedom and Liberty;
Federal Trust Responsibility Support for Inherent Rights
to Sovereignty, Self-Determination, and Self-Government;
and
The need to prevent DOI, BIA, BLM, BOR, and National Parks
Service interference with our Inherent Rights and Treaty
Rights . . ..
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that GPTCA calls upon the Secretary of
the Interior to establish a [new] co-equal . . . Deputy
Secretary to oversee the BIA, BIE, OST, OJS and other Indian
Affairs functions, and to re-establish the Office of American
Indian Trust within the Office of the Secretary; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED . . . the existing DOI Budget for Indian
Affairs must be increased and GPTCA calls upon the
Administration and Congress to fully fund our Indian Affairs
budgets; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the United States [must] . . .
protect and promote the interests of Tribal Nations . . . as
matters of paramount importance in any . . . Interior
reorganization effort; and
From the Great Plains, we took our issues to the National Congress of
American Indians, and NCAI passed a resolution, DEN 18-027, which
provides in part:
``NCAI calls upon the Secretary of the Interior to establish
the position of Deputy Secretary for Indian Affairs and to
collect all of the Indian offices and Bureaus under the
authority of the new Deputy Secretary . . ..
See also DEN 18-022.
NCAI decries the so-called ``Thursday Night Massacre,'' when BIA
Regional Directors were to remote locations around the country to work
on issues or with Tribes that they had little familiarity with.'' Many
BIA Regions, including Great Plains, have been impeded for months with
Acting Regional Directors who are unfamiliar with our issues and our
Tribes.
NCAI concludes, ``This reorganization threatens to diminish the
authority of BIA Regional Directors within Interior's overall structure
and seeks to isolate the BIA from other agencies at Interior. This
will, in turn, isolate and weaken the programs and services that those
agencies provide Indian Country. NCAI reiterates our call to the
Administration to halt the Interior and BIA reorganizations so it can
assess their negative impacts on tribal communities, and then integrate
tribal priorities into a revamped restructuring plan.''
As discussed above, Interior officially declared that the BIA, BIE
and Office of the Special Trustee were exempt from the Reorganization,
but there are many jobs open and there is an unwritten policy of
attrition:
The Department has no plans to run a Reduction In Force (RIF).
The reorganization is intended to facilitate inter-bureau
coordination, training, and experience and will therefore
enhance employees' career development and provide job and
advancement opportunities across bureaus. As positions are
vacated through voluntary retirements or moves to new roles,
some of those positions may be filled in a different location.
Interior website FAQs About the DOI Reorganization.
interior did not consider indian nations and did not listen to congress
Interior did not consider Indian Nations or Native peoples when
they formulated the plan. Indian Nations are not ``land and water
management.'' As Indian Nations, we always have difficulty working
across agencies because the other Interior Bureaus and Agencies do not
understand Indian Tribes. Yet, when we told Interior we did not want to
reorganize, Interior stopped consulting us on the Department
Reorganization.
In 2016, Congress called for the creation of an Under Secretary for
Indian Affairs to work across Bureau and Agency lines to promote
interagency cooperation on Indian issues. Title III of Public Law 114-
178, the Indian Trust Asset Reform Act (ITARA) provides:
the Secretary of the Interior [may] establish an Under
Secretary for Indian Affairs who is to report directly to
the Secretary of the Interior and coordinate with the
Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians
(``OST'') to ensure an orderly transition of OST functions
to an agency or bureau within Interior;
Requires Interior to prepare a transition plan and
timetable for how identified OST functions might be moved
to other entities within the Department of the Interior;
Requires appraisals and valuations of Indian trust
property to be administered by a single administrative
entity within Interior; and
Requires Interior to establish minimum qualifications for
individuals to prepare appraisals and valuations of Indian
trust property and allow an appraisal or valuation by a
qualified person to be considered final without being
reviewed or approved by Interior.
Interior has not made any public move to implement this law.
the bia, bie and ihs do not honor the united states' treaty obligations
The BIA has not honored the United States' treaty responsibilities.
For example, our 1868 Sioux Nation Treaty and the Act of March 2, 1889
provided that the United States will maintain an Indian Agency at our
Reservation. Yet, in 2011, during heavy rains, the BIA abandoned our
joint BIA Agency-Tribal Government Building when black mold grew in the
walls after BIA roof repairs failed. The BIA secured its own rental
offices but made no plans to rehabilitate our BIA Agency-Tribal
Government Building, leaving the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe to search
for our own office spaces. We are now located in condemned school
dormitories and catch-all offices around Eagle Butte, South Dakota. Our
Tribal Government is fragmented, services are interrupted. Today, our
joint BIA Agency-Tribal Government Building, which was built in the
1960s when our Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe was ``relocated'' from rich
bottom lands along the Missouri River to the high plains at Eagle
Butte, South Dakota, remains an abandoned eye sore at the heart of our
community--it stands as a monument to the BIA's abandonment of the
Federal trust responsibility.
The BIE has done away with our Agency Education Line Officer,
leaving us with no reservation-wide Federal leadership on education. As
a result, our joint BIE-Public High School, Cheyenne-Eagle Butte High
School, has reached the end of its useful life after 60+ years of
service, the BIE has not kept up on maintenance, so our school is not
even ranked by the BIE for replacement. Our ^20 degree below zero high
plains winter weather blows into the school rooms through the cracks in
the building. Our Cheyenne River students need the immediate
replacement of our school, so they can concentrate on learning rather
than bundling up to fight the cold throughout the school day.
The IHS is down-sizing. The IHS is in the process of
decommissioning our Sioux San Hospital and replacing the Hospital with
a Health Clinic. 20,000 Lakota-Nakota-Dakota people live in the Black
Hills area, and Sioux San serves our Cheyenne River, Oglala and Rosebud
Sioux Tribes with over 100,000 tribal members. We need decent health
care, pre-natal, obstetrics, and post-natal care, surgery, therapy,
good medicine--the same health care that the rest of America receives.
Instead, we receive rationed health care, budget cuts as our service
population grows far faster than the United States as a whole. Native
American peoples and Tribes are growing. We have a strong future, and
we need the United States to honor its treaty promises to provide
education, health care, and other services.
Our infrastructure is crumbling. The Army Corps of Engineers
continues to operate the Oahe Reservoir and Power Plant, generating
over 2 billion kilowatt hours annually--enough to power over 250,000
homes. Yet, the Army Corps has not dredged Lake Oahe because the Corps
allowed upstream mining operations to dump heavy metal and arsenic
contaminated tailings into tributary rivers, polluting the Missouri
River--our tribal drinking water source and the sole source of drinking
water for thousands of neighboring farmers and ranchers. As a result,
our rivers--the Moreau and the Cheyenne River and creeks are flooding,
damaging communities and destroying roads, bridges and infrastructure.
We need real help. Instead, BIA proposed 10 percent cuts for Indian
programs. That's an abdication of the Federal trust responsibility and
pure neglect of our treaty rights, lands, waters and natural resources.
original sovereigns: indians nations, the constitution and our treaties
The Creator made our Lakota People, bringing our spirits down from
among the stars where we dwelt with Wakan Tanka in the time before
time. Our home is Dakota, the land of the Seven Council Fires of the
Great Sioux Nation. Our Grandfathers and Grandmothers put their hearts
and minds together to form our Nation for the general welfare of our
People, and they exercised their inherent liberty in community to
invest our Nation with sovereignty. For thousands of years before the
coming of the United States of America, our Indian Nations and Tribes
were independent sovereign Nations.
During the Revolutionary War, the United States sought allies. In
1778, the United States entered the first Indian treaty--the Treaty
with the Delaware Nation, establishing a model of peace, friendship and
Nation-to-Nation relations. The 1787 Northwest Ordinance pledged that
``the utmost good faith shall be observed toward the Indians,'' and
Indian ``liberty and property'' shall never be invaded. With this
background, the Constitution established Indian affairs as an area of
Federal responsibility.
The Constitution of the United States acknowledges Indian Nations
as prior sovereigns, with self-governing authority over our territory
and our peoples in the Treaty and Supremacy Clauses. The Constitution's
Commerce Clause establishes government-to-government relations among
the United States and Indian Nations. The Constitution's Apportionment
Clause and the 14th Amendment recognize that Native citizens--``Indians
not taxed''--owe original allegiance to our Indian Nations, participate
in tribal self-government, and are subject to tribal jurisdiction.
In the 1803 Louisiana Purchase Treaty, the United States pledged to
enter treaties with Indian Nations based upon ``mutual consent.'' In
the 1805 Treaty with the Sioux, the United States came to Minnesota--
where the water reflects the clouds--and America sought Sioux Nation
recognition of Federal sovereign authority over two small squares of
land, so the new Nation could build a fort, establish trade and
commerce, and our Dakota People reserved their inherent rights to hunt
and fish the land. The United States promised peace and friendship.
In the 1851 Treaty with the Sioux Nation, and others, the United
States sought peace, friendship and safe passage across the respective
territories of our Indian Nations. Our 1851 Treaty was recognized and
our treaty rights and territory were affirmed by the 1854 Kansas-
Nebraska Act and the 1860 Dakota Territory Act. In 1866-1868, as gold
miners and the Army began to invade our country, Chief Red Cloud and
our Lakota People fought the Powder River War to defend our territory
and our way of life.
In the 1868 Treaty with the Sioux Nation, the United States sought
peace and pledged its honor to keep the peace. For our part, the Sioux
Nation reserved our original, inherent right to self-government,
preserved and reserved our Sioux Nation territory as our ``permanent''
homeland, establishing that when our Lakota-Nakota-Dakota became U.S.
citizens, we retained our treaty rights. As the Supreme Court
recognized in Ex Parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556, 568 (1883):
The pledge to secure to these people, with whom the United
States was contracting as a distinct political body, an orderly
government, by appropriate legislation thereafter to be framed
and enacted, necessarily implies . . . that among the arts of
civilized life, which it was the very purpose of all these
arrangements to introduce and naturalize among them, was the
highest and best of all--that of self-government, the
regulation by themselves of their own domestic affairs, the
maintenance of order and peace among their own members by the
administration of their own laws and customs;
Thus, the Article VI reservation of ``all rights'' to Sioux Nation
citizens means that as ``Indians not taxed,'' we, as citizens of the
Sioux Nation and the United States, have all our rights to maintain our
connection to tribal property, our land and our Nation free from
Federal or state taxation.
We fought for our treaty protected lands and our inherent,
inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of our traditional
way of life. Sitting Bull, our Guardian of Freedom, said:
What law have I broken? Is it wrong for me to love my own? Is
it wicked for me because my skin is red? Because I am Lakota?
Because I was born where my father lived? Because I would die
for my people and my country? God made me Lakota.
Acting on the orders of the Secretary's BIA Agent, the BIA Police shot
Sitting Bull in the back, and the Calvary chased his people from their
homes.
Our People's defender Crazy Horse said: ``One does not sell the
earth the people walk on . . .. We preferred our own way of living, and
we were no expense to the Government.'' After the United States
promised peace, he gave up his weapons and then the U.S. Army tried to
take his freedom. When he refused to be jailed, two men held his arms
and a soldier bayonetted Crazy Horse in the back.
Our 1868 Sioux Nation Treaty expressly preserves our original,
inherent liberty and self-government, and the Treaty provides that our
Lakota People retain all of our treaty rights when we become citizens
of the United States, including the right:
Self-Government;
Education;
Health Care;
Agriculture;
Economic Development;
Hunting and Fishing;
Land, Natural Resources, and Waters, and
Our Permanent Homeland.
We have always maintained our rights and we continue to maintain our
rights today.
conclusion
Whoever holds the office, the Secretary of the Interior should
respect Indian Nations and Tribes as the original American sovereigns
and understand that our Native peoples are working to make the Indian
Self-Determination Policy a success. We are Native Peoples, not Rocks
and Trees, or Oil and Gas Fields. Many of our Indian Nations are
located on remote lands far from economic centers. Life is hard.
Resources are scarce. We need a government-to-government partnership
with the Federal Government to help us make our Indian lands, viable
homelands.
Our Indian kids need a fair chance at education. At Cheyenne River,
our High School has not had a math teacher for 5 years! We need a new,
modernized school because our school is over 60 years old. It is worn
out.
We need an Indian reservation road program that actually builds
roads in Indian Country. We need repairs when our rivers flood. The BIA
should step up. DOT should step up, and BIA should call on the Army
Corps to step up.
When Congress considers national Infrastructure, remember Indian
Country. We do not have a match for Federal funding because our Indian
lands are located in the Nation's poorest counties. We need roads,
schools, hospitals, administrative buildings, housing, economic
development, nursing homes and community centers.
We need real solutions for real problems. We don't need Interior to
waste $60 million on Reorganization.
______
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Chairman Frazier.
The Chair now recognizes Mr. Michael Bromwich.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL BROMWICH, FOUNDER AND MANAGING PRINCIPAL,
THE BROMWICH GROUP, WASHINGTON, DC
Mr. Bromwich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Chairman Grijalva,
and Ranking Member Gohmert.
I served in the Federal Government for a total of 14 years.
Most recently, I served as the country's top offshore drilling
regulator in the Department of the Interior, from June 2010
through late 2011. My testimony will focus on the first
principles that should guide a significant government
reorganization, and how they were applied to the reorganization
we undertook at Interior following the oil spill.
First a bit of background. In late April 2010, the
Deepwater Horizon rig was conducting exploratory drilling in
the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico. The rig experienced a
violent blowout that killed 11 people and injured many others.
It was a human tragedy of major proportions, but also an
enormous environmental tragedy.
In early June 2010, I was asked by President Obama to lead
the agency responsible for the oversight of offshore drilling,
at the time known as the Minerals Management Service, or MMS.
We took immediate steps to modify the rules governing offshore
drilling, but we also looked at whether the government's
organizational structure for managing it was the right fit for
the risks that it posed.
We ultimately concluded that it was not, but not before we
developed a detailed understanding of the way the agency
operated and the costs and benefits of changing that structure.
The agency was responsible for three very different missions:
collecting royalties and revenues for the offshore program;
making balanced resource decisions; and developing and
enforcing regulations governing offshore activities. These
three missions conflicted with each other, and the history of
the agency demonstrated that revenue collection was emphasized
at the expense of the other missions.
By the time I arrived at DOI 6 weeks after the initial
explosion, discussions had already begun about reorganizing MMS
to eliminate its structural conflicts. But I was given the
discretion to decide whether or not to do it.
I don't take reorganizations lightly. I have a bias against
them. They are disruptive, expensive, frustrating, and they
tend to depress morale. They create uncertainty and divert
resources. They frequently fail to achieve their objectives.
Reorganizations are too often undertaken for reasons of
executive vanity. They are developed and implemented in haste,
inadequately vetted, based on inadequate analysis and
insufficient consultations with stakeholders, including the
personnel responsible for implementing them. They are a way for
a new executive or executive team to put their imprint on an
organization, whether the changes make any sense or not. Those
are bad reasons for undertaking a reorganization, but those are
the reasons that many are undertaken.
In the case of MMS, we became convinced that a
reorganization was necessary and appropriate, but only after
careful study and consideration of less disruptive
alternatives. I want to emphasize that when we began the
process there was no preordained outcome. We did not decide on
the reorganization that was ultimately implemented and then
work backward to justify it. Instead, we undertook a detailed
process, together with outside consultants who were experts in
organizational diagnosis and reorganizations. We considered a
number of less sweeping changes, including changes to staffing
levels, enhanced training, and other organizational tweaks.
In the end, our analysis and discussions pointed to a broad
reorganization, and my prepared statement goes into detail into
the various steps we took during the process.
Throughout the process we were extraordinarily open about
what we were doing. We were open with the agency's personnel,
with DOI, with the Congress, and with the public. We spoke
frequently about what we were doing and why we were doing it.
The broad contours and most of the specifics of the
reorganization were embraced by Members of Congress of both
parties.
In the more than 7 years since the organization was
completed, its wisdom has been demonstrated. I have just told
in very abbreviated form the story of a rare species: a
successful government reorganization. As I said at the outset,
I know very few of the details of the proposed and far broader
DOI organization that is the subject of this hearing, but I
gather I am not alone, because the details of the
reorganization have not been shared widely with agency
personnel, the Congress, or the public, including local
stakeholders, communities, and Native American tribes. That's a
problem.
I am aware of no internal or external studies of any kind
that have made the affirmative case for the proposed DOI
reorganization. I am aware of no analyses or studies that have
presented the anticipated benefits of the reorganization and
balanced them against anticipated costs.
A number of questions should be asked about the proposed
reorganizations, questions that I have detailed in my prepared
statement. Without addressing those issues, it is hard for me
to see how DOI gets the internal and external buy-in necessary
to achieve long-term benefits from the proposed reorganization.
Thank you very much for your time and attention, and I am
happy to answer any of your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bromwich follows:]
Prepared Statement of Michael R. Bromwich, Managing Principal, The
Bromwich Group
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member and members of the Committee, my name
is Michael R. Bromwich. I served in the Federal Government for a total
of 14 years, as a Federal prosecutor, special prosecutor and as the
Inspector General for the Department of Justice. Most recently and most
relevant to this hearing, my public sector career included serving as
the country's top offshore drilling regulator in the Department of the
Interior (``Interior,'' or ``DOI'') from June 2010 through late 2011.
Over the last 20 years, as both a lawyer and consultant, I have
dealt extensively with organizations dealing with change and reform--
both in the private sector, and with public agencies on the local,
state, and Federal level. My views are based on that experience.
I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to address issues
related to the Department of the Interior's proposed reorganization.
There is little detailed information about the proposed DOI
reorganization in the public domain--thus, the title of this hearing--
and therefore my testimony will primarily address the principles,
process, and implementation that should guide the thinking and actions
of the personnel undertaking a significant government reorganization.
We applied those principles to the important reorganization we
undertook at Interior following the 2010 Gulf Oil Spill. I think that
is a case study of a reorganization that was done the right way.
First, a bit of background familiar to most of you. In late April
2010, the Deepwater Horizon rig was conducting exploratory drilling in
the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico. The rig experienced a violent
blowout that killed 11 people working on the rig and injured many
others. It was a human tragedy of major proportions. It was also an
enormous environmental tragedy because the accident released more than
3 million barrels of oil into the Gulf over the course of nearly 90
days before the well was finally capped. Nine years later, the full
extent of the environmental damage is still being determined through a
broad range of scientific studies.
In early June 2010, I was asked by President Obama to help deal
with the crisis caused by the oil spill and its aftermath, and to lead
the agency responsible for the oversight of offshore drilling--at the
time known as the Minerals Management Service, or MMS. The task was
two-fold: to help the Administration deal with the immediate crisis and
its after-effects, and to undertake efforts to reduce the risks of
future explosions and spills.
To reduce those risks, we promptly adopted a set of tighter rules
and requirements designed to raise the bar on safety for deepwater
drilling, initially on an emergency and then on a permanent basis. But
we also looked more broadly at whether the government's organizational
structure for managing and regulating offshore drilling within DOI was
well-suited to the challenges and risks posed by offshore drilling and
production. We ultimately concluded that it was not, but not before we
developed a detailed understanding of the way the agency operated, and
the costs and benefits of changing that structure. We also had to deal
with the fact that through no fault of its personnel, the agency was a
victim of lost credibility because of mission confusion, structural
conflicts of interest, a shortage of resources, and a misallocation of
those resources.
We were not discovering a new problem--the same structures had been
in place for almost 30 years--but the spill focused long overdue
attention on the relationship between agency structure and agency
mission. Since its creation in 1982, MMS had been responsible for three
related but distinct aspects of offshore exploration and production.
First, it was responsible for collecting royalties and revenues for the
offshore program, including from lease sales and oil and gas
production. Second, it was responsible for making balanced resource
decisions concerning where, when, and to what extent offshore regions
should be available for exploration and production by oil and gas
companies. Third, MMS was responsible for developing appropriate
regulations governing offshore activity and enforcing those regulations
to ensure that such operations were conducted as safely and responsibly
as possible.
On paper, these three missions had the potential to be in
conflict--and in fact they were. Over time, the assessment and
collection of money from lease sales and oil and gas production drove
the priorities of the agency. The Federal Government's appetite for
revenues and royalties shaped decisions that were consistently pro-
exploration and production. Little time and attention were devoted to
developing appropriate regulations that kept pace with technological
developments in offshore drilling. And even less attention was devoted
to enforcing those regulations and holding companies and individuals
accountable for violations.
When the President's Oil Spill Commission interviewed the former
directors of MMS following the 2010 spill, they were asked to identify
their top priority when they managed MMS. Across MMS directors from
administrations of both parties, their consistent answer: to maximize
revenue for the Federal Treasury. Nor was that surprising, because
offshore activity generated massive sums of revenue for the Federal
Government--in many years second only to the individual income tax. But
the priority given to generating revenue meant a bias in favor of
development over environmental protection, and the virtual neglect of
the agency's regulatory and enforcement functions.
In the wake of the spill, the structure of MMS immediately began to
receive the scrutiny that it deserved. The blame for Deepwater Horizon
fell squarely on the shoulders of three companies who collaborated on
drilling the Macondo well. Even so, leaders in the Administration,
Congress, and industry began discussing ways to strengthen the ability
of the Federal Government to regulate offshore drilling. By the time I
arrived at DOI 6 weeks after the initial explosion, discussions had
already begun about the possibility of reorganizing MMS to eliminate
its structural conflicts. Secretary Ken Salazar was on record as
favoring a restructuring. Even so, I was given the discretion to
decide, after my team's own review and analysis, whether to undertake a
reorganization.
I do not take lightly reorganization proposals. Indeed, I have a
bias against them. They are disruptive, expensive, frustrating--and
tend to have an adverse effect on morale. They create uncertainty and
divert resources from the mission. They frequently fail to achieve
their objectives.
In my experience, reorganizations are too often undertaken for
reasons of executive vanity. They are frequently developed and
implemented in haste, inadequately vetted, based on inadequate
analysis, and insufficient consultations with stakeholders, including
the personnel who will be responsible for implementing them.
Reorganizations are a way for a new executive or team of executives to
put their immediate imprint on an organization, whether the changes
make management and organizational sense or not.
Needless to say, those are bad reasons for undertaking a
reorganization. Unfortunately, many reorganizations both in the public
and private sectors are undertaken for such reasons. They are proposed
and implemented to show energy, initiative and action--frequently in
response to vague concerns about inefficiency, unresponsiveness, or
failure to deliver expected services, but sometimes just so that a new
executive or executive team can fly the banner of change. Without
careful analysis of the problems being addressed, whether the solution
of reorganization matches the problems that are being addressed, and
how to mitigate the very real risk that the reorganization might make
things worse, a reorganization can easily become a fool's errand and a
destructive undertaking.
In the case of MMS, we became convinced that a reorganization was
necessary and appropriate, but only after careful study and
consideration of less-disruptive alternatives. Our goals were clear: we
wanted to improve the agency's ability to appropriately balance the
risks and benefits of offshore exploration and production--to make
balanced offshore resource development decisions; to enforce existing
regulations, and develop new regulations, based on risk management
principles; and to continue to generate revenue for the U.S. Treasury.
But we looked for ways to generate revenue without sacrificing the need
to arrive at balanced resource development decisions, and without
starving the regulatory and enforcement missions of the agency, which
had been the case in the past.
I want to emphasize that when we began the process there was no
pre-ordained outcome. We did not decide on the reorganization that was
ultimately implemented and then work backward to justify it. Instead,
we undertook a detailed fact-gathering and analytic process, together
with outside consultants who were experts in organizational diagnosis
and reorganizations. Because I was aware of the potential destructive
impact on operations and organizational morale of a broad
reorganization, we considered a number of less sweeping changes,
including changes to staffing levels, training, and other
organizational tweaks. We also examined closely the offshore regulatory
regimes of other nations, including those of the United Kingdom and
Norway, which underwent similar organizational reforms following their
own offshore accidents, to see what we could learn from their
experiences.
Though we had no pre-determined destination, our analysis and
consultation in the end pointed to a broad reorganization. However, we
did not arrive at this decision until we had taken a number of
important steps, including comprehensive fact-gathering and data
collection, deep engagement with agency personnel, and extended
qualitative and quantitative analysis. Only after those steps were
completed did we conclude that we needed to fully separate the revenue
collection, resource development, and regulatory and enforcement
functions into three separate entities--ONRR, BOEM, and BSEE.
The initial phase of our work, which lasted approximately 3 months,
focused on extensive engagement with all agency personnel to obtain
broad information and feedback. Together with our outside consultants,
we visited the agency's field locations on multiple occasions,
conducted extensive discussions with agency personnel, and collected
and analyzed agency data.
The second phase, which similarly took approximately 3 months,
focused on developing strategic and organizational alternatives,
soliciting responses and feedback from agency personnel, and conducting
numerous working sessions that focused on those alternatives.
The third phase, which also took several months, centered on
developing a final reorganization plan. That included obtaining sign-
off from within the agency and more broadly from within DOI. It also
included socializing the proposed reorganization with the field, so
that field personnel knew the specifics of the plan, could contribute
suggestions as the plan was being finalized, and would more readily
accept the changes that were ultimately agreed upon.
Throughout this process, we were extraordinarily open about what we
were doing. We were open with the agency's personnel, with DOI, with
the Congress, and with the public. We spoke frequently about what we
were doing and why we were doing it. We consistently engaged with
internal and external stakeholders--for example, I personally spoke
with industry groups and testified about the specifics of the agency's
reorganization plans multiple times before this Committee and other
congressional committees. That engagement process was key to the
ultimate broad acceptance of the reorganization.
Let me focus briefly and more specifically on engagement with the
personnel of the agency because in my judgment that is a key to the
success or failure of a reorganization. From the outset, agency
leadership and our outside consultants conducted in-person visits with
the agency's field offices. We introduced our outside consultants, who
returned to the field on numerous occasions. We openly discussed the
purposes and goals of the organizational review. We met frequently with
members of regional leadership, as well as line personnel, to better
understand the nature of their roles, the challenges they faced, and
the changes they believed would enhance their ability to perform their
jobs.
As the prospect of change became more real, the anxieties of field
and headquarters personnel increased. That was especially true for
personnel in the field, especially in the Gulf where most of the
agency's personnel were located. A combination of agency leadership and
outside consultants made themselves available to answer questions and
address concerns on a continuing basis. We provided reassurances that
the reorganization was not a cover for people losing their jobs or
increasing their workloads. Those open lines of communication
contributed to the ultimate acceptance and buy-in by agency personnel.
Even though the final decisions were being made in Washington, DC, we
knew that we needed to fully involve personnel at all levels of the
agency in the discussions about the shape of the new agencies at every
stage of the process--and we did so.
We initially split off the revenue collection function, but it took
more than a full year to complete the implementation and create BOEM
and BSEE as separate, standalone agencies. Not everyone was pleased
that we consulted so widely and that the process took so long. We dealt
with some impatience, including from the White House, but we refused to
accelerate the process. We knew the complexities we were dealing with,
the interdependencies between the functions we were assigning to BOEM
and BSEE, and the budgetary, personnel, and IT issues we needed to
solve before we could launch the new agencies. We knew we only had one
chance to get it right and we took the time that we needed. The costs
of getting it wrong were simply too great. I was given the support to
stick to the timetable we had very carefully developed.
The broad contours and most of the specifics of the reorganization
were embraced by Members of Congress, and the President's Oil Spill
Commission. I testified at hearings on the reorganization and on then-
Chairman Doc Hastings' proposal to codify the reorganization, H.R.
2231, which he and the other members of this Committee who spoke to the
issue agreed was necessary and appropriate. According to Chairman
Hastings,
``In the wake of the Deepwater Horizon accident it became
apparent that the structure of the regulatory agency charged
with oversight of offshore energy production was inadequate.
While the Department of the Interior has reorganized their
offshore agencies, reforms need to be codified into law . . .
.''
https://naturalresources.house.gov/newsroom/
documentsingle.aspx?Document ID=269447.
In the more than 7 years since the reorganization was completed,
its wisdom has been demonstrated. The agencies function separately and
independently, with their own distinct and separate missions. They are
free of the conflicts and questions about independence and technical
expertise that previously plagued MMS. They have established and
maintained strong relationships with each other that have kept the
processes of the two agencies operating effectively. Each agency has
its own management that is able to maintain focus on that agency's
mission and performance, and to advocate for its personnel and
resources. Personnel within both agencies have clearer career paths and
opportunities for professional development, which ultimately benefits
the public.
I have just told, in abbreviated form, the story of a rare
species--a successful government reorganization. As I said at the
outset, I know very few of the details of the proposed and far broader
DOI reorganization that is the subject of this hearing and has been in
the works for some time. But I gather I am not alone in that regard
because the details of the reorganization have not been shared widely--
with agency personnel, the Congress or the public, including local
stakeholders, communities, and Native American tribes.
Unlike the BOEM-BSEE reorganization, I am aware of no internal or
external studies of any kind that have made the affirmative case for
the proposed DOI reorganization. Despite the breadth of the proposed
reorganization, and its far-reaching impact, this is only the second
congressional hearing that has focused on it. Similarly, I am aware of
no GAO analyses, white papers or studies that have presented the logic
for--and detailed the anticipated benefits of--the reorganization and
balanced them against anticipated costs.
A number of questions should be asked about the proposed
reorganization:
Have the costs and benefits of the reorganization--
quantitative and qualitative--been identified, analyzed,
and discussed?
How will the reorganization improve the efficiency and
performance of DOI component agencies, and of the agency as
a whole?
How will the delivery of services to the public be
improved by the reorganization?
With what frequency has DOI leadership spoken with agency
personnel most directly affected by the reorganization?
What mechanisms have been created to address agency
personnel questions and concerns?
How will DOI deal with the disruption, uncertainty, and
adverse impact on agency morale that is inherent in
reorganizations?
What assurances have agency personnel been given that the
reorganization is not another front in the war declared by
the former secretary on career agency personnel?
Without specific discussion and analysis that addresses these
issues--and that is shared broadly with stakeholders--it is hard for me
to see how DOI gets the internal and external buy-in necessary to
achieve long-term benefits from the proposed reorganization.
An ambitious reorganization of the kind that DOI has proposed must
be based on detailed data collection and analysis, sustained
consultation with affected internal and stakeholders, and broad sharing
of information with the Congress and with the public. And for the
reorganization to succeed, its architects must be willing to make
changes and adjustments, and even reverse course, if proposed changes
run into unanticipated obstacles, or simply don't make sense.
Based on the title of this hearing, and some of the correspondence
I have reviewed between the Congress and DOI, many of these
prerequisites for a successful reorganization have not been met. Unless
that changes, the prospects for a successful reorganization on the
scale that has been proposed are not rosy and it will likely fail to
achieve its goals of better serving the American people.
Thank you for your time and attention. I am happy to answer your
questions.
______
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Mr. Bromwich. The Chair now recognizes
Ms. Jamie Rappaport Clark.
STATEMENT OF JAMIE CLARK, PRESIDENT AND CEO, DEFENDERS OF
WILDLIFE, WASHINGTON, DC
Ms. Clark. Thank you, Chairman Cox, Chairman Grijalva, and
Ranking Member Gohmert, for inviting me to testify on this
important topic.
With more than 20 years of service with the Federal
Government, I have personal experience with reorganization
initiatives and with leading mission-driven organizations. I
believe the Administration's current effort to reorganize
Department of the Interior distracts from its vitally important
mission, wastes scarce fiscal and human resources, disrupts the
essential and lawful functions of Interior bureaus, reduces
staff capacity, and seriously undermines employee morale.
To succeed there must be clarity, not only on the problems
posed by the existing structure, but how the proposal will
measurably improve performance. Impacts to personnel and
operations must be explicitly considered. Transparency and
public engagement across all affected sectors is vitally
important. The Administration has not satisfied these
fundamental criteria. Their plan suffers from a lack of crucial
details, transparency, accountability, and public engagement.
They have never really described a compelling need for
reorganization.
Consideration of critical questions about the scope,
purpose, impacts, benefits, and risks of such a radical
transformation have not been reconciled. In the absence of
clear and compelling information, many critical questions still
remain.
Will the Department involve the public, Congress, and
stakeholders in its reorganization efforts? As the Department
directs staff and resources away from mission critical
activities, it is doing so without seeking legitimate input
from affected constituencies.
Will reorganization undermine the authority and missions of
Interior bureaus, agencies, and officials? A unified military
command is fundamentally inappropriate for coordinating
Interior bureaus. A distinct mission and responsibilities for
each bureau are established by law. Those missions sometimes
align, but sometimes diverge or even conflict. And that is by
design. Certainly, bureaus can and should coordinate their
actions better to achieve timely outcomes, but they cannot be
legally subordinated to the control of a single unified
regional directorship.
The Administration's proposal of 12 unified regions cut
through watersheds, they cut through states, and even
individual public lands units, confounding management and
complicating relationships with partners. Overlaying new
regions atop current agency boundaries will fracture
relationships developed with stakeholders over many years.
Although Interior touts the new regional overlay as a
reduction in the total number of regions, it will actually
require additional bureaucratic structure. It requires the
creation of a new regional office and staff structures, for
some bureaus by as much as 50 percent.
Is reorganization a vehicle to deliver the Administration's
controversial policy agenda? Given this Administration's agenda
of energy dominance on the public domain, and continuous
attacks on our conservation laws and regulations, it is fair to
question whether their purpose is to support their policy
priorities and weaken the effectiveness of conservation
programs, rather than to achieve objectives of efficiency and
public service in carrying out the Interior Department's
complex and multi-dimensional mission.
Will reorganization displace or reduce staff or distract
department employees from their mission-critical duties? The
Department's talented and dedicated career employees are their
greatest asset. Supporting and investing in them is key to
their mission success. Interior has not only rejected this
principle, its actions repeatedly indicate a belief that public
employees are liabilities, unnecessary bureaucracy, rather than
essential to the Department's important mission and their
success.
Will reorganization siphon critical resources needed to
fulfill essential responsibilities for natural resources
management and protection? At a time of shrinking
appropriations for conservation, for science, for recreation,
and other vital management programs at Interior, it is
irresponsible to invest scarce resources into a process that
will likely fail to improve government performance and provide
a fair return to taxpayers.
The Department of the Interior does not need reorganizing.
It needs leadership. After more than 2 years in office they
should focus instead on filling vacant high-level positions,
including the Directors of the Fish Wildlife Service, the
Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the
Assistant Secretary for Fish, Wildlife and Parks, with
qualified professionals, and addressing the critical
conservation and resource management challenges we face today.
We respectfully urge Congress to suspend this damaging
effort. Pushing forward with this will be the detriment of the
Department, our natural resources, and the Nation. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Clark follows:]
Prepared Statement of Jamie Rappaport Clark, President and CEO,
Defenders of Wildlife
Thank you, Chairman Cox, Ranking Member Gohmert, and members of the
Subcommittee for inviting me to testify on the Administration's efforts
to reorganize the Department of the Interior (``Department'' or
``Interior'').
As a national organization dedicated to the conservation and
restoration of native species of wildlife and plants and their
habitats, Defenders of Wildlife shares a common interest with the
Department in the protection and proper management of America's public
lands, waters and wildlife, and we are committed to working with this
administration, Congress and all stakeholders to achieve this goal.
With more than 20 years of service with the Federal Government,
including the National Guard Bureau, the Department of the Army and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, culminating as Director of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, I also have personal experience with
reorganization initiatives.
The Administration's current reorganization effort is at best a
distraction from the Department's vitally important mission and a waste
of increasingly dwindling resources. At its worst, the proposal
threatens to disrupt the essential functions of Interior bureaus and
agencies while distracting staff and seriously undermining morale. Our
questions about reorganization have only become more numerous with the
dearth of information on the process and as more and more concern
radiates from within the Department.
The agencies, bureaus, and programs administered by the Interior
Department are profoundly important to conserving and managing the
natural resources that define our Nation and the values we share. Three
Interior agencies, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National
Park Service (NPS), and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) steward vast
areas of public lands and waters and manage fish, wildlife and plant
species that touch the lives of every American and are an indispensable
part of our Nation's natural heritage. Other bureaus bear vital
responsibilities for water management, scientific programs, management
of the Nation's minerals, and upholding trust responsibilities to
tribes.
Improving the effectiveness, efficiency of operations and public
responsiveness of Federal departments and agencies is always an
appropriate goal for government. Defenders of Wildlife itself maintains
a Center for Conservation Innovation whose mission is to identify and
develop innovative ways to improve the performance of the Endangered
Species Act and other conservation programs.
But restructuring Federal departments and processes is a daunting
challenge that can pose serious risks of disruption to the ongoing and
vital responsibilities of the government. To succeed, there must be
clarity on not only the problems posed by the existing structure, but
also how proposed reorganization will measurably improve performance.
Problems and solutions must be evaluated in the light of the specific
legal obligations and missions of the various affected bureaus and
agencies. Impacts to personnel and operations must be explicitly
considered. A realistic appraisal of benefits and costs, including
unintended consequences, must be carefully evaluated prior to
initiating action. Transparency and public engagement across all
affected sectors are vitally important.
The Administration has not satisfied these fundamental criteria in
pursuing its current proposal. To the contrary, this administration's
reorganization plan for Interior has from the outset suffered from a
lack of crucial details, transparency, accountability and public
engagement. The recent change in leadership at the Secretarial level
has only further muddled the goals and rationale for reorganization.
This administration has never described a compelling need for
reorganization, even as the current process continues to interfere with
Interior bureaus and agencies achieving their missions and disrupt
staff responsible for managing and conserving our natural resources. It
appears as if an original sweeping decision was made to reorganize the
Department for political reasons without even considering critical
questions about the scope, purpose, impacts, benefits and risks of such
a radical transformation.
In the absence of clear information on the nature and purposes of
reorganization, many critical questions remain.
Will the Department involve the public, Congress and stakeholders in
its reorganization effort?
The lack of information, outdated and conflicting reports, and
failure to engage the public and Congress surrounding the proposed
reorganization is remarkable and suggests that the Administration would
prefer ambiguity and obscurity regarding the true purposes and impacts
of the effort. Equally disturbing is that the Department's political
leadership doesn't itself appear to understand the magnitude of their
initiative well enough to articulate and defend it. Even as the
Department seeks additional appropriations from Congress and directs
more staff and resources away from mission critical activities to
reorganization, it is doing so without updating and seeking input from
affected constituencies. Notably, the House of Representatives
Committee on Natural Resources requested basic information on
reorganization from the Secretary of the Interior just this month and
he has missed the deadline to respond. Previous attempts to reorganize
and restructure Federal agencies have failed when leadership declined
to engage the public in their plans or ignored input from
constituencies they were appointed to serve.
Will reorganization undermine the authority and missions of Interior
bureaus, agencies and officials?
Former Secretary of the Interior Zinke publicly advanced the idea
of a unified regional command structure for the Department as part of
the Administration's proposed reorganization. While it is not clear
that Secretary Bernhardt fully embraces that concept, the scant
information available indicates that, while Interior bureaus and
agencies will continue for the most part to report to their own
leadership, at least some decision-making authority will also be given
over to new ``Interior Regional Directors,'' each responsible for 1 of
12 ``Unified Regions.'' That proposal raises serious concerns for the
integrity of the Department's management.
The model of a unified military command is a fundamentally
inappropriate structure for coordinating Department bureaus and
agencies. Each bureau has a distinct mission and responsibilities
established by law. Those missions sometimes align, but sometimes
diverge or even conflict--and that is by design. The public lands
systems administered by FWS, NPS and BLM each have distinct statutory
missions, with management directed and constrained by the specific laws
that govern each system. For example, balanced energy development may
be appropriate on BLM's lands, but not the National Wildlife Refuge
System or the National Park System. In addition, some of Interior's
bureaus, such as FWS and the Bureau of Safety and Environmental
Enforcement (``BSEE'') exercise regulatory authority over the
activities of other agencies to ensure protection of paramount values
such as wildlife resources and public safety. The Department's existing
structure provides public interest protections in the form of
appropriate interagency checks and balances while promoting
accountability and mitigating the risk of agency capture.
Certainly, agencies carrying out their individual responsibilities
can and should coordinate actions to achieve timely outcomes for
activities like permitting, but they cannot legally be subordinated to
the control of a single unified regional directorship. Only FWS, for
example, has legal authority to manage the National Wildlife Refuge
System or enforce the Endangered Species Act and Migratory Bird Treaty
Act; only the NPS has authority to manage our national parks; only BSEE
can determine whether offshore drilling authorized by the Bureau of
Ocean Energy Management complies with appropriate environmental and
safety requirements. No other office or administrator of any other
bureau can direct decisions reserved by law to these agencies. For
these reasons, the concept of Interior Regional Directors may be both
inappropriate and fundamentally unlawful.
A related proposal involves the creation of 12 uniform regional
boundaries for the Department's bureaus and agencies, ostensibly to
improve coordination and service for Interior's customers and the
public. But this is another concept that recklessly misses the mark.
First, the ``unified'' regions cut through watersheds, states and even
individual public lands units, confounding management and complicating
relationships with partners. As just one example, the Upper Mississippi
National Wildlife Refuge would be divided between two regions, with one
bank of the Mississippi River in Region 3 and the other in Region 4. To
whom should the refuge manager report? Second, overlaying the new
regions atop current agency geographic orientations would fracture the
functional relationships that those offices have developed with states
and stakeholders over many years.
Finally, these unified regions would actually require additional
bureaucratic structure for some agencies. Although the Administration
touts the new regional overlay as a reduction in the total number of
regions now administered by Interior bureaus and agencies, the truth is
that it expands the number of regions for each bureau by as much as 50
percent, requiring the creation of new regional offices and staff
structures. The FWS, for example, is currently organized across eight
regions; the reorganization proposal would require the agency to create
four new offices to cover the Department's 12 ``unified'' regions (as
well as requiring the existing regional offices to drastically realign
their boundaries). Similarly, the NPS would also be required to expand
its regional structure from 7 regions to 12 to cover the newly drawn
``unified'' regions. This is a remarkable and unjustifiable expansion
in bureaucracy, and an utter violation of the principle that ``form
follows function,'' with an increasingly confusing and top-heavy
bureaucratic structure shifting scarce resources away from actions on
the ground and responding to stakeholder needs.
And, of course, the purportedly ``unified'' Departmental regions
are in fact anything but unified. In the face of vigorous opposition
from states fearing disruption of established working relationships,
the Department decided a year ago that the BLM, the bureau that manages
more of the Department's lands than any other, would not be part of the
new regional structure, but rather would retain its current state
offices. Similarly, hearing concern from tribes, the Department has
withdrawn the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Bureau of Indian
Education from the new ``unified'' structure. Stakeholders with
business before the Department would now face a chaotic and confusing
regional structure that would impede, not foster, sensible coordination
among Interior's bureaus and agencies. It is difficult to understand
how this new regional structure could conceivably provide any benefit
to outweigh its obvious costs.
Defenders of Wildlife does agree that agencies and bureaus involved
in natural resource management and conservation should be attuned to
ecological boundaries. For instance, we have long supported efforts
such as Interior's Landscape Conservation Cooperatives to coordinate
conservation programs at a landscape level. Similarly, we supported
BLM's ``Planning 2.0'' regulatory initiative for its incorporation of
landscape-scale concepts in land management planning. Neither of these
initiatives compelled an upheaval of structure, reporting alignments or
shifting of responsibilities; instead, they simply promoted coordinated
conservation and land management. Yet this administration worked with
congressional allies to undermine or scuttle these initiatives along
with other ecologically mindful policies and programs.
Is reorganization a vehicle to deliver the Administration's
controversial policy agenda? Will it impede Interior bureaus
and agencies from achieving outcomes in accordance with their
missions and responsibilities that may not be a priority for
this administration?
Given this administration's natural resource management agenda,
including the imposition of ``energy dominance'' on the public domain
and attacks on our conservation laws and regulations, it is fair to
question whether the purpose of reorganization is actually geared to
support these policy ends, rather than to achieve objectives of
efficiency and public service in carrying out the Department's complex
and multi-dimensional mission.
The Administration and the Department have vigorously pursued
regulatory rollbacks and eliminated policies and programs that
supported more effective, efficient natural resource management at
landscape scales and across jurisdictional boundaries, belying their
stated objective of improving land and resource management. These
rollbacks include:
Undoing carefully crafted, collaborative, balanced
conservation planning, such as the Integrated Activity Plan
for the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and the National
Greater Sage-Grouse Conservation Strategy;
Endorsing congressional efforts to reverse policies that
required more effective, efficient management of public
resources;
Eliminating, revoking, or disbanding nearly two dozen
policies, programs and collaborative efforts to address
climate change across the country; and
Proposing regulatory changes under the Endangered Species
Act that will result in additional harm to listed species
and significantly exacerbate their recovery.
At the same time, the Administration is prioritizing single uses of
our public lands, waters and natural resources and devolving management
authority to states, creating a patchwork of inconsistent and
misdirected natural resource policies. Reorganization aimed at
weakening the effectiveness of conservation programs and prioritizing
narrow economic interests would be in line with the Administration's
agenda--and would have serious impacts on the conservation and
restoration of fish and wildlife, essential habitats, irreplaceable
historic and cultural resources, and other public values on more than a
billion acres of Federal public lands and waters.
The Administration's lack of congressionally confirmed leadership,
reliance on ``acting'' officials, and proposed budget cuts further
reflect disdain for effective government and beg the question of
whether reorganization is more about ``dismantling the administrative
state'' to better serve development interests than stewarding natural
resources for the continuing and future benefit of all Americans.
Will reorganization displace or reduce staff and distract Department
employees from their mission critical duties?
Its talented, driven and dedicated career employees are the
Department's greatest asset. Supporting and investing in these public
servants is the key to the success of the Department's mission.
Unfortunately, this administration's actions repeatedly indicate a
belief that public employees are liabilities--``unnecessary
bureaucracy''--rather than essential to the Department's success. For
example, in 2017, former Secretary of the Interior Zinke pledged to
shrink the Department by 4,000 employees, or about 8 percent of the
full-time staff, consistent with the Administration's promise to slash
agency budgets and the Federal work force. His widely touted pledge was
pursued with seemingly little understanding of the impacts on people or
programs and even less justification and rationale for his decision.
The Administration also abruptly and without any stated purpose
reassigned and transferred dozens of senior-level employees, sapping
the effectiveness of these executives and their agencies and prompting
some highly capable employees to retire. Affected career professional
were caught by surprise, morale throughout the bureaus was undermined
and external partners and stakeholders were left confused and
frustrated. The Department's Inspector General later found that the
Department had no plan or stated reason for the reassignments, had
failed to consult with the affected employees, and had failed to gather
the information required to make informed decisions about reassignment,
leading a majority of the affected senior executives to conclude that
the effort was political or punitive in nature.
It thus appears to be the prevailing opinion of this administration
that public employees offer little value--unless, of course, they are
serving resource extraction or other development interests, as
evidenced during the partial government shutdown when oil and gas
permitting continued while thousands of Federal employees with other
important public responsibilities were sent home.
We are gravely concerned that reorganization of Interior will lead
to further attempts to shrink the work force by encouraging attrition,
buyouts and early retirements. As Professor Amanda Leiter of American
University noted: ``The process . . . makes clear that this
administration has no real intention of improving Interior but instead
hopes to destabilize the department and encourage staff departures.''
\1\ Rebuilding the Department's cadre of career employees will take
even more time and more resources, all while mission critical programs
and activities increasingly suffer and external stakeholders'
frustration and disdain steadily increase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reorganizing the Administration of Public Lands: Zinke's
Proposal to Revamp Interior Department. The Environmental Forum, May/
June 2018: 50-57; available at www.eli.org/sites/default/files/tef/
thedebate/TheDebateMay2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administration has argued that the potential for employee
disruption and impacts on staff morale would be alleviated by the
imminent retirement of many of Interior's employees and their
replacement with less experienced staff. If that proves true, the
Department will suffer enormous loss of institutional experience and
professional relationships essential to managing the Nation's natural
resources and maintaining the Department's collaborative engagement
with states, tribes, landowners and the public. Of course, it is just
this sort of disrupting influence that may be driving reorganization--
which may also involve relocating some unknown number of employees from
Washington, DC, to elsewhere in the country. Current information is
that entire divisions and programs within BLM and the U.S. Geological
Survey may be transferred west with little justification and
significant costs.
Will reorganization siphon critical resources needed to fulfill
essential responsibilities for natural resource management and
protection?
The Administration is seeking $27.6 million for reorganization in
FY 2020. Expenses to date have been paid from current agency budgets.
At a time of shrinking appropriations for conservation, recreation and
other vital management programs at Interior, it is irresponsible to
invest scarce funding into a process that will likely fail to improve
government performance and provide a fair return to taxpayers. Indeed,
the reorganization has already siphoned critical capacity and resources
from fundamental conservation and management functions across the
Department and the impacts are causing challenges that may be difficult
to overcome. Congress would not be advised to support Interior's
present request for its proposed reorganization.
conclusion
The proposed reorganization of the Department of the Interior
raises profound and troubling questions. Its purposes and goals remain
unclear, as does its actual scope. What does seem clear, however, is
that it is likely to be a wasteful and disruptive distraction to
Interior's bureaus and agencies and their dedicated employees, some of
whom will face years of uncertainty about their professional careers
and their personal lives. The Nation's lands, waters, and wildlife will
be better served by focusing on the critical conservation and natural
resource management challenges Interior faces today. We respectfully
urge Congress to suspend this damaging effort.
Pushing forward with this ill-considered, poorly communicated
proposal will continue to interfere with Interior's ability to engage
with critical management challenges, to the detriment of the
Department, our natural resources and the Nation. It will take decades,
and require fiscal resources the Federal budget is likely ill-prepared
to support, to recover from the dislocation and disruption caused by
this proposed reorganization.
Thank you for inviting me to testify at this important hearing. I
look forward to working with the Subcommittee to support the Department
of the Interior and its employees in achieving its critically important
conservation mission. Our stewardship responsibility today and to
future generations deserves no less.
______
Mr. Cox. Thank you, everyone, for your valuable testimony.
The Chair will now recognize Members for questions.
Under Committee Rule 3(d), each Member will be recognized
for 5 minutes. With that, I would like to recognize myself for
the first 5 minutes.
Mr. Cameron, Chairman Grijalva and I asked for a single
document, the only single document that I know exists that
could resemble a comprehensive plan, because the Executive
Order required it. We haven't gotten it, and I know it was
completed. It was prepared for delivery. And I went to the
trouble of locating it in your files for you just to make it as
easy as possible. But somehow you can't seem to find it and get
it to this Committee. Committee Staff has asked you to
prioritize it for this hearing over other requests.
I can only conclude that some review process among
political appointees is holding it up. What is the delay? I
certainly hope you are not trying, I don't mean to say that you
are hiding anything, but we have asked for this document, it
has not been produced for this Committee, for this Congress,
for public consumption.
Mr. Cameron. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. I
am aware of that specific request. And our Office of
Congressional Relations is in the process of producing a
response for the Committee.
I think it is worth pointing out that the document in
question was actually a submission from Secretary Zinke to OMB.
And as such, it didn't represent a final document in terms of
representing the views of the White House.
Mr. Cox. I am going to take it that is a commitment to
providing the Committee with that document. Can you give us a
date for that delivery?
Mr. Cameron. Sir, I am not in a position at this point to
promise you that we are going to give you the document. I will
promise you that we will be responding to the letter, and I
hope shortly.
Mr. Cox. Thank you.
Chairman Fraser, is there any evidence at all--and I think
you already testified to this remark, but I just want to hit
the point again--that this reorganization improves services to
federally recognized tribes?
Mr. Frazier. What was that?
Mr. Cox. Is there any evidence that you have seen so far
that the reorganization will improve services to federally
recognized tribes?
Mr. Frazier. No. Like I mentioned, all we were given was a
map. No other details were given to us, and I don't believe it
is going to improve services to the tribe.
Mr. Cox. Mr. Cameron, can you elaborate on that? There
seems to be, just from what the Chairman is speaking to us
about, no coordination, no notification, no conversation.
Mr. Cameron. Mr. Chairman, I had an opportunity to have a
conversation with the Assistant Secretary of Indian Affairs
staff before I prepared for this hearing, and my understanding
is that BIA held 11 formal tribal consultation meetings and an
additional 7 listening sessions with tribal leaders around the
country on the reorganization. Because we respect the
sovereignty of Indian tribes, we were not willing to impose, if
you will, the involvement of BIA and BIE in the reorganization
effort on the tribes. And since the tribes have not been
particularly enthusiastic about the notion of their bureaus
being part of the reorganization, we, in fact, have not
included them.
I would suggest that, to the extent there is improved
coordination at a regional level with the other bureaus of the
Department, that that would give Indian tribal leaders one-stop
shopping, if you will, one regional director to talk to, as
opposed to being passed along from the Fish and Wildlife
Regional Director to the USGS Regional Director to the Bureau
of Reclamation Regional Director.
Mr. Cox. Chairman Frazier, any feedback with regard to
that?
Mr. Frazier. Yes. You know what? The only time I recall
them coming these past several years was to Rapid City, and
then, like I mentioned, they only come one time with a map. I
never saw any documentation that there were other consultation
hearings or anything like that.
Most of the time what I have seen is just the decision
making--because nobody is in a permanent position, they are all
in an acting capacity, and a lot of our questions are, their
decisions are never made. I mean we have to chase it, and all
the way up here to Washington sometimes.
Mr. Cox. There is the point there, as I am sure you can
see, Mr. Cameron, that one of the key stakeholders just feels
excluded from the process, regardless of the hearings that you
have had or the meetings that you have had. The point is not
getting across to the people that we need to be talking to.
So, I certainly hope that the feedback from these meetings,
the notes, the agenda, are going to be made part of this plan
and integrated with the plans moving forward.
I am out of time, so the Chair will recognize the Ranking
Member for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cameron, with regard to the title of the hearing today,
are there no road maps, no destinations, and no justification
for DOI reorganization?
Mr. Cameron. Thank you, Mr. Gohmert, for that question. I
would suggest that, actually, we do have all aspects of that.
Essentially, the reorganization has three parts: the unified
region concept, which has already initially deployed, if you
will; there is the notion of saving money to invest in Indian
schools and other departmental services by pursuing shared
services in our back office administrative functions to get
some efficiencies there; and the third prong is the notion of
moving the headquarters elements of BLM and the USGS west to be
closer to where the preponderance of those bureaus' activities
are taking place.
And I would add that there is a precedent, the Bureau of
Reclamation is largely headquartered in Denver right now.
Mr. Gohmert. I appreciate that, and I think it will be
tremendously helpful when Chairman Frazier doesn't have to
chase things to Washington. He can go much more locally to have
his input considered.
And even though, apparently, the 11 hearings and 7
additional listening sessions at tribal offices, gatherings,
and other venues may have indicated a desire not to have
reorganization, I would submit that BIA really does need some
reorganization efforts.
In fact, hearings that we have had in this Committee since
I have been here indicated that, for example, there was an
attorney working for the Clinton administration that
specifically chose to leave out a provision in a contract with
an oil company for offshore drilling, which cost the Federal
Government $10 billion and inured to the benefit of people like
British Petroleum. And that attorney that left out that
provision then went to work for British Petroleum. We tried to
subpoena that attorney, and were told, ``Well, she doesn't work
for the government, so we can't facilitate that.'' And then,
not long after that, I found out she had now come back to work
for the Obama administration.
We also know apparently Mr. Bromwich went to work for DOI a
couple of months after the Deepwater Horizon blowout. Some of
us recall that specifically, and we couldn't believe that DOI
wasn't doing more to go after British Petroleum. And we found
out in hearings here that they had nearly 800 egregious safety
violations when Exxon or others had 1, 2, or so, like that. How
were they ever allowed to keep going?
There were rumors of different bribes and things like that,
and we were assured by the Obama BLM Director and others that
the organization at that point was addressing all those issues
and, in fact, they were very careful to make sure inspectors of
offshore drilling that was under DOI--they sent two people out
at a time to make sure that no bribes were going on because one
would surely report the other if that occurred.
And shortly after it was disclosed at the hearing that,
actually, the two people that were sent out, the last
inspection of the Deepwater Horizon, were a father and son. The
BLM Director didn't last long right after our hearing before
being removed.
So, it appeared clear to me, regardless of what report you
have internally, from an external perspective the DOI has been
in as much need of reorganization of any group I have ever seen
in my life. And from exposure to the Park Service, which seems
to be more about the Park Service--same with Fish and Wildlife,
there are too many people that work there that are more about
themselves to the detriment of the public, not taking care of
repairs.
We heard mention of shrinking budgets, yet we know the Land
and Water Conservation Fund keeps growing and it keeps being
used to acquire property, rather than keeping up with what we
have.
So, I would submit, just based on what I have seen in the
hearings over the years, we are deeply in need of
reorganization. But with the Chairman I sure desire to see the
final product as soon as we can get that, so that we can do
proper oversight. I would encourage you to make that available,
Mr. Cameron. Thank you.
Mr. Cox. Thank you, Ranking Member Gohmert. And now I would
like to recognize the gentleman from Arizona for 5 minutes.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Rappaport Clark,
just a general question.
I was thinking if there was an instruction manual on how to
fundamentally weaken an agency, this is what I think it would
recommend: start by creating a crisis for key agencies, move
them as far away from Congress as possible to minimize contact
with appropriators and authorizers, undermine those
relationships, separate them from the non-profit community that
helps them make informed decisions, then make it clear to the
work force that they are not valued, create a culture of fear
to demand total loyalty, transfer them to jobs for which they
have no qualifications or interest, send them to new parts of
the country, uproot their families and lives, quietly close or
gut programs throughout the agency, take away their decision-
making authority and voice within the Department and put it in
the hands of political appointees, cut them out of the loop so
they don't even know what is happening in the areas they cover,
and downgrade their performance ratings across the board
claiming they could not possibly be good at their jobs.
Ms. Rappaport Clark, how do these attacks on workers
following this manual, which I think is going on, affect our
ability to protect endangered species, address climate change,
or, for that matter, fulfill all the other legal mandates the
DOI has?
Ms. Clark. They don't, Mr. Chairman. It is incredibly
destabilized. Focus is not on the task at hand. Employees are
confused. Stakeholders are confused. Communication is not
flowing, and there is a culture of fear in the Interior
Department, clearly in the Fish and Wildlife Service, given the
reckless nature of senior executive reassignments with no
justification, with no information, with no conversation.
Another round is expected to be coming.
This is an agency, I believe, in crisis, which diverts its
talent, it diverts its responsibilities, it diverts its
attention to addressing species extinction, land management
needs, climate change, all of the water management, all of the
very important natural resource values that that Department is
trusted to oversee and take care of.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, Mr. Cameron, when
you were here just a few weeks ago I showed you this e-mail
chain, which documents to all Senators and myself were directed
to be bottlenecked through two political appointees who were
handling nominations. You had a chance since to learn about
that e-mail. Could you explain to me why I was singled out? I
don't have a vote on the nomination of Bernhardt, didn't have a
vote, and can you tell us the status? What information you have
since we saw you last?
Mr. Cameron. Mr. Chairman, I didn't know anything about
that e-mail chain back then, when you first showed it to me,
and I don't know anything more about it now. To the best of my
knowledge, no Member of the Congress has been singled out. We
are trying to be very responsive. We produced tens of thousands
of pages of documents over the last 2 years, sir, and----
Mr. Grijalva. Mr. Cameron, you are a smart guy. Everybody
knows that. You should have anticipated this question, and that
raises questions about obstruction. Why was one person singled
out? I would like a date, and why then am I singled out?
The e-mail was sent by career staff. Which political
appointee directed career staff to send that e-mail? And is the
directive still in place? And when will it be rescinded?
Those are questions that demand answers, and we have to
have them, as a Committee, not just for myself, but this can
affect any member of this Committee, where they are singled out
not to receive information. I think that whether it is one
individual or not, it is a precedent that I think needs to be
dealt with.
I repeat the same request we had the last time. I think it
is vital information that we have. And when do you anticipate
giving us that information?
Mr. Cameron. Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that Secretary
Bernhardt is very interested in having conversations with the
Congress. I believe he has requested individual meetings with
dozens of Members of Congress, in the process of trying to get
those scheduled over the next several weeks. We are actively
interested in engaging with the Congress, and I hope that you
and the Secretary will have an opportunity to have a
conversation.
Mr. Grijalva. That still doesn't answer the question. I
yield back. Not at all.
Mr. Cox. Thank you. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman
from Utah.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses
for being here.
I assume that you will probably have to make sure that your
testimony is in writing, since very few members of the
Committee are actually here to hear you. We actually had 25
percent of the Committee in attendance until Mr. Gosar showed
up. That percentage just jumped up to 37 percent. It is not a
stellar performance by Congress by any means, but thank you
all. I appreciate you doing that. Let me ask some questions.
Actually, I have heard some of the comments that have come
out from our witnesses calling reorganization disruptive,
expensive, and frustrating, which is also the verb or
adjectives that can be used for the status quo. Right now it is
disruptive, expensive, and frustrating, and much of the
success--certain reorganizations, I think, have been inflated
sometimes.
One of the witnesses said we had to chase this all the way
up here to Washington, which is one of the problems we have
with the Department of the Interior right now, which is why the
reorganization was established or presented in the first place.
The Department of the Interior was established in 1848, and
it came out of bringing programs from three different
departments. At that particular time it was actually the fifth
department that was established. And to say that it was done by
design is really strange. It was done by happenstance. In fact,
even the BLM today, its job and mission is totally different
than the reason for which it was created in the 1930s.
So, what we really need to do is take a step back and try
to look at things and say how can we do something intelligent
and rational in this particular approach. So, let me ask a
couple of specific questions about the topic matter at hand.
Mr. Cameron, BIA, Bureau of Indian Education, and what is
it--the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians, those
are not part of any reorganization process that is being
proposed, right?
Mr. Cameron. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Bishop. OK, so with that, I can still understand why
Chairman Frazier would be frustrated with BIE. To illustrate, I
think it shows the kind of disruption that we have in that
entire process here in Washington. We have jurisdiction over
BIA, as far as oversight is concerned, but not over BIE, which
is in the Labor Committee. If you can figure out why that
happens, and why that worked out, that is another question I
always had.
I was very interested in Bureau of Indian Education issues,
but they were not in the purview, necessarily, of our
Committee--but not legally because of that, simply by
tradition, which is one of the problems that Interior has over
the decades that have been there, is things have been developed
by tradition without legally thinking through them.
So, Chairman Frazier, I agree with what you are saying
about problems with BIE. I hope we can solve it, which is also
one of the reasons I hope Mr. Grijalva will simply schedule a
hearing for a backlog bill because some of that money that is
curated in our park maintenance backlog bill would also be
extended in the House version to the Bureau of Indian
Education. It is an important source of money to try to help
change and reform that system.
Mr. Cameron, let me also ask you. In your written
testimony, you talked about benefits of relocating the DOI from
Washington, DC. Can you just simply explain some of the long-
term savings that a relocation would actually realize?
Mr. Cameron. Yes, Mr. Bishop. There are a number of types
of savings.
For one thing, the rental cost in most cities in the West
is a lot cheaper than in the main Interior building or in
Washington, DC, generally.
Travel costs, travel time. Most of the airplane trips are
from the East Coast to the West Coast. If we had the Geological
Survey headquarters and BLM headquarters out West somewhere,
there would be a lot more 1-hour plane trips instead of 4-hour
plane trips.
Cost of living for our employees is a lot cheaper out West
in most locations than it would be here. And there is a list of
a dozen or so variables that we are looking at.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Let's talk about something specific.
If we actually did increase the effort on the local level to
have better communications between all these different
stovepipe agencies and divisions, can you tell me how that
would possibly impact, let's say wildfire response, wildfire
mitigation if we could coordinate with the Forest Service?
Mr. Cameron. Yes, Mr. Chairman--Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. I like that much better, too.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Cameron. Typically, for most significant issues
multiple bureaus are involved. And the traditional approach has
been, if there are issues or conflicts between bureaus----
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Cameron, you have 25 seconds to say it.
Tell me.
Mr. Cameron. OK. There will be closer coordination, tighter
coordination at the regional level, less decisions kicked up to
Washington.
Mr. Bishop. Look, if you guys have not been conversing or
talking to people--because I remember the first map, which was
done along county lines. Now it is done along state lines. That
came from conversations with the states. I wonder if you have
not been communicating why was Mr. Cason out there--Ms. Sloan
was out in my particular area--talking to people about it? We
have had those conversations.
I am over--I yield back.
Mr. Cox. Thank you. We will now recognize the gentleman
from Arizona, Mr. Gosar, for 5 minutes.
Dr. Gosar. Secretary Cameron, in what ways is the DOI's
reorganization going to improve on-the-ground responses? I mean
I can give you a number of ones from Arizona that we are
looking at: Fish and Wildlife Service reaction in regards to
Lake Havasu, and Forest Service is in part of it, but the RFP
situation for large-scale landscape timber thinnings--tell me
how it is going to act on the ground, the reorganization.
Mr. Cameron. I can give you one good example that is
relevant, especially, I think, to Arizona. I know that you and
the Chairman of the Full Committee are both concerned about
water resource issues in Arizona. Well, the invasive salt
cedar, or tamarisk plant, causes major problems in riparian
areas, in terms of depleting water supply. It goes through BLM
land, it goes through Fish and Wildlife Service land, it goes
through park land, it goes through state and private land, and
it goes through Indian reservations. By increasing coordination
at the regional level on a multi-bureau basis, we can make
smarter decisions, we can allocate our resources more
intelligently, and we can deliver better results for the
American people.
That is just one example. Fire is another, forest
management, water resource management in the Central Valley of
California would be another.
Dr. Gosar. Yes, I think the only drawback to your plan,
though, was that if we were a part of California, from Arizona,
we would ask that the headquarters be in Arizona so that
California came to Arizona for that aspect. No pun intended.
[Laughter.]
Dr. Gosar. Now, how would the regional directors interact?
Mr. Cameron. The bureau regional directors would continue
to have their traditional chain of command to Washington. We
would not be attempting to change any statutory delegations for
any of the bureaus, contrary to what my former colleague at
Interior felt a few minutes ago.
But at the regional level we would have an Interior
Regional Director who would be a coordinator in chief, convener
in chief, to pull his or her peers together to deal with common
issues so that, again, there is more decision making by career
senior executives at the regional level, fewer issues kicked up
to Washington. This has worked in California, for instance,
where Paul Souza, the regional director of the Fish and
Wildlife Service, is coordinating the activities of the Bureau
of Reclamation and the U.S. Geological Survey.
It is great to have one person being able to convene all
the bureaus with equities in an issue, rather than kicking
things up to Washington for decisions 3,000 miles away.
Dr. Gosar. Give me an oversight about accountability.
Part of the problem that we have had in Arizona on a number
of issues has been lack of accountability. Tell me how that
response time is going to change. And what are the steps of
accountability?
Mr. Cameron. We will be working on individual performance
standards for the person who is charged with being an Interior
Regional Director in each one of the regions, and there will be
specific expectations in terms of what that person's scope is
or is not, on a region-by-region basis. And they would be
reporting to the Deputy Secretary in Washington.
So, we will have accountability, but we will not be cutting
out the bureau directors and the assistant secretaries. The
traditional chains of command would also apply.
Dr. Gosar. I am going to be more specific. We had this
debacle in Lake Havasu, where we had a regional director
overstep his direction, a totally illegal action. Give me a
response of how, under the new guidelines, we would have
resolution based upon an egregious attempt to supersede the
rules and regulatory state.
Mr. Cameron. If there was a conflict between our bureaus,
for instance at the regional level, the Interior Regional
Director would be charged with pulling people together,
defining the nature of the conflict, narrowing it to the extent
it could be, clarifying issues that would then be rapidly
elevated to the Secretary's office in Washington, rather than
letting things fester. And we would identify, I think, problems
sooner and get them elevated faster if they couldn't be
resolved at the regional level.
Dr. Gosar. End of the day, can't get resolution. How do we
look at redirecting or putting somebody in a position for
success, instead of failure?
Mr. Cameron. One thing we can do is, by having the people
who are making the decisions closer to the place where the
decisions are going to have impact on the ground--and that is
part of the rationale for moving BLM and USGS headquarters
West, so you will have more informed headquarters people, as
opposed to people who are located thousands of miles away and
have never been on the ground in Maricopa County, for instance,
or St. George, Utah.
Dr. Gosar. Thank you, Assistant Secretary.
Mr. Cox. Thank you so much. I will recognize myself again
for another 5 minutes.
The questions that are being brought up naturally all go
back to the same basic question--regarding the document. We
have requested it, you have had 20 days to review the document,
that should be more than enough time.
And, as you know, the deliberative process, it is not a
legally defensible reason to deny Congress this document. Can
you provide any type of legal justification whatsoever for
withholding the plan?
Mr. Cameron. Sir, for once I am glad I am not an attorney.
I won't dare to go outside of my area of expertise, so I cannot
provide that.
Mr. Cox. Thanks so much. And just back to the general
questions again.
Mr. Bromwich, any evidence at all that this reorganization
strategy or plan is going to strengthen agency decision making?
Mr. Bromwich. Well, if there is, we haven't seen it. And it
is up to the agency to provide it.
I looked at the reorganization website that DOI sponsors.
There has been nothing posted on it since November 1.
One of the key elements of a reorganization, if it is going
to succeed, is to continue to push information out to all of
the stakeholders who are affected by it, most particularly the
employees in the agencies that are going to be affected. And
you can read through everything that is on the DOI
reorganization website in less than half an hour. And as I
said, it hasn't been updated in 5 months since November 1.
So, you can't handle a reorganization that is a mystery
shrouded in another mystery. You need to be open about it. You
need to provide the details of what you're doing. You need to
lay out the costs and benefits that will be accomplished
through the reorganization. None of that has been done.
Mr. Cameron has done a very good job of talking in
generalities, but they are only generalities. And without
having the kind of analysis that undergirds a real and
potentially successful reorganization, it is simply not going
to work. If the reorganization that has been described by Mr.
Cameron, and has previously been described by Secretary Zinke,
were submitted to a board of directors of any major company in
this country, it would be rejected flatly for lack of detail.
Mr. Cox. Thank you. Ms. Rappaport Clark, is there any
evidence at all that the reorganization will provide or improve
protection for endangered species, or other natural resources?
Ms. Clark. Mr. Chairman, I don't see it. And I will echo
what Mr. Bromwich just said. It is disturbingly sparse in
details. And the coordination at the regional level, the
coordination at the field level actually does occur, so sending
headquarters people to the West isn't going to enhance
interagency coordination and collaboration and resource
sharing. It will undermine, actually, bureau director
coordination if half are in the West and half are in the East.
And at the end of the day, employees are confused, and
important resources like endangered species, water, natural
resources, lands are just a big confused mess. I don't see how
it is organized in a way that will allow and support more
efficient decision making or stakeholder engagement.
Mr. Cox. Thank you so much. And Chairman Frazier, what do
you think the Interior could do with the--there has been $60
million spent so far. What you think the Interior could do with
an extra $60 million?
Mr. Frazier. Well, with all of the flooding going on, I can
think of two roads on our reservation that could use it. I
think BIA Route 12 and Route 7 could sure use $60 million. I
think we did an engineering report on one, and it was going to
be over $30 million, so we could better use that money on our
reservations, and I am sure other tribes throughout can use
them, too.
Mr. Cox. Thanks so much. With that, I will yield back my
time and now to Ranking Member Gohmert for 5 minutes.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And Chairman Frazier, I understood you to say that you
didn't recall hearings and what not. But I can assure you the
Committee would be very interested in any suggestions you or
other Native Americans would have for suggestions about
reorganization.
I am one that doesn't really care if there weren't a lot of
internal proposals, especially from top people at DOI. I think
it is a bureaucratic nightmare, and I think the treatment of
Native Americans by BIA and others has not been what it should
have been. So, please consider this as a chance to get
information. If DOI is not interested, I know from Chairman
Cox, we would both, and this Committee would be interested in
any suggestions you have. So, please keep that in mind.
And with regard to the reorganization, Mr. Cameron, I know
you are aware that in recent years, especially the last
administration, but even going before that, the Department of
the Interior has been plagued with harassment claims. And I am
wondering what a reorganization would do to help address some
of these. It is just far too widespread, the reports of
workplace harassment.
Mr. Cameron. Yes, thank you for that question, Mr. Gohmert.
Both under Secretary Zinke and now Secretary Bernhardt,
there is considerable attention being paid on the part of the
Department of workplace harassment issues. Totally
unacceptable. The Department has a no-tolerance policy.
When he was Deputy Secretary, Secretary Bernhardt directed
all the bureaus to come up with action plans that would deal
with the harassment issue. And he held quarterly meetings with
those bureaus to track what they were doing on the harassment
plans.
I have personally participated in a series of site visits
and meetings with employees to communicate the significance of
the issue and the need to deal with it. So, we are going on all
cylinders to try to fix these problems, Mr. Gohmert.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, I figure any organization that has the
kind of harassment claims that DOI has had needs reassessment
and reorganization to try to avoid that. You also need
reassignment of individuals, if they can't be fired. When I was
in the Army, the threat was always you are going to end up on
the island at the end of the Aleutian--just a small listening
post. But if you can't fire them, they need to be reassigned if
they are guilty of any type harassment and you are not able to
fire them, but that ought to be part of any reorganization.
And I would also tell you, with regard to the Park Service,
I was absolutely appalled, being the guy that opened the World
War II Memorial, when barricades had been rented or purchased
and put up in an open air memorial to do nothing but harass the
Nation's veterans that put their lives on the line. And it was
clear, I mean whether it is Mount Vernon, where Federal
Government only owned the parking lot, they did everything they
could to make everybody's life miserable.
I was really proud of Iwo Jima veterans. When I got over to
try to open that memorial for them, the bus of World War II
veterans had already just run over and busted up the barricade.
They said, ``We didn't let the enemy keep us from getting to
the top of Mount Suribachi, and we weren't going to let a
little wooden barricade keep us from the memorial.''
But that kind of harassment of the public in general--and
everybody I talked to at the lowest levels of the Park Service
had nothing to do with it. They loved working with people and
trying to make things accommodating, but that came from high
levels at the Park Service.
I was part of a Christian gathering, maybe 200,000. At the
last minute, high up in the Park Service, they have one small
opening, which forced people to stand in line for hours, and
then they tried to close it down early because they didn't have
enough water because they didn't anticipate the last-minute
directive by the Park Service.
So, please keep in mind those kind of things as you look at
the reorganization. I appreciate it.
Mr. Cameron. Yes, sir, absolutely.
Mr. Cox. We will recognize the gentleman from Arizona for 5
minutes.
Mr. Grijalva. Thank you. Mr. Cameron, in the testimony you
said in response to the feedback that the agency received from
tribes, that the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Indian
Education, the Office of Special Trustee for American Indians
would be left out of the reorganization.
I have a letter here from a BIA regional office telling
tribal leaders in my own district that the Department is
closing an office and consolidating the workload to another
office.
We also heard from Chairman Frazier about the Great Plains
lacking a permanent regional director after the last one was
moved around several times.
We have the communications from the National Congress of
American Indians to Mr. Bernhardt back in December that DOI
``has not consulted with tribes regarding the overwhelming
internal restructuring of BIA within the last 2 years. Much
change has occurred within BIA, none of which was consulted on
with tribes.''
It doesn't sound to me like the tribes are getting their
wish of being left out of the reorganization at this point. I
have been hearing that that is happening throughout Interior.
Mr. Cameron, will you commit to giving this Committee a list of
programs and offices that have been closed, consolidated, or
reduced in staff by more than 30 percent since January 20,
2017, so that we can have that information?
Since we don't have a plan, at least we know what the
unspoken plan is at this point.
Mr. Cameron. Chairman Grijalva, I will be happy to take
that back and see if we can pull together that information.
I would point out that, in every administration going back
to 1849, there are always internal changes that are being made.
At a micro-scale, offices are being opened, offices are being
closed, staff or functions are being moved from one place to
another. So, it shouldn't surprise anyone that something could
be happening in BIA or BIE over a period of time, but it is
unrelated to the broader reorganization activity of the
Department.
I would also like to point out----
Mr. Grijalva. Oh, I will be surprised if we get that
information promptly, to be honest with you, given the track
record here. We don't have a plan. That is in some space that
we can't have access to it, even though it is an Oversight
Committee, even though it is our jurisdiction.
It seems to be a plan that is full of details after the
fact. And even on this request about which was reduced by 30
percent, we will wait and see how the leadership in Interior
responds to that.
Mr. Bromwich, I was going to ask about reorganization and
the issue of how successful it can be or can't be. You pointed
out some points. If a reorganization for the purposes of
efficiency, better response to the public, better enforcement,
and appreciation for the legal mandates that an agency might
have, if that was a reorganization heading in that direction,
for efficiency and response, how do you plan for that?
Mr. Bromwich. You plan for it by identifying what the
inefficiencies and problems are. You identify the problems, and
then you figure out a way to solve them. You don't announce a
global reorganization in response to vague concerns. Maybe a
small number, maybe a large number of specific concerns if the
reorganization is not designed to address them.
That is why you have to have an analysis of what the
problems are. And if you are thinking of a reorganization,
before you announce it you do that analysis. You publicize that
analysis. You discuss the changes you are considering with the
stakeholders, particularly your own employees who are going to
be responsible for implementing it, and then you remain
flexible in making adjustments to it, depending on the analysis
that you do and the feedback that you get.
What seems to have happened here is people fell in love
with a very ambitious reorganization plan without doing the
very important, essential spade work to see what was necessary
and how to accomplish it.
Mr. Grijalva. Would that fit the definition of a vanity
plan?
Mr. Bromwich. Would it fit the definition of what?
Mr. Grijalva. A vanity plan that you said earlier----
Mr. Bromwich. Yes.
Mr. Grijalva. OK.
Mr. Bromwich. Yes. You announce something with a big press
release, a big set of statements, and then staff is left to
fill in the details.
Mr. Grijalva. I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cox. Thank you so much. We will now recognize the
gentleman from Utah, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Mr. Grijalva, that is the way
everything is done around here. It is a vanity plan staging----
Mr. Grijalva. I work out of humility, sir, humility.
Mr. Bishop. Yes, right, OK.
Mr. Cameron, let's talk about some of that spade work that
happens. What does SES mean?
Mr. Cameron. Senior executive service.
Mr. Bishop. And did you not have one of those SES--a 2-day
conference with those people on this plan?
Mr. Cameron. We did, sir. It was more than a year ago. We
brought in all the regional----
Mr. Bishop. Did they have recommendations?
Mr. Cameron. We spent 2 days chatting with them, they gave
us lots of ideas, and we modified our original conception of
the plan based on their feedback.
Mr. Bishop. So, you have implemented those types of things?
Mr. Cameron. Yes, sir. We are in the process of
implementing them.
Mr. Bishop. And as you go and talk to interest groups,
whatever they be, you have implemented those changes, the
changes from the county lines to the state lines. Was that
pushed by the states?
Mr. Cameron. It was pushed by the Western Governors
Association, in particular.
Mr. Bishop. Look, I don't want to actually defend any
bureaucracy in Washington, especially because the Department of
the Interior, let's face it, if you were actually a business,
you would have been bankrupt years ago.
But you have not just been silent on these issues. I am
just looking at this. You already have provided 27,000 pages of
documents in response to questions about Secretary Bernhardt's
schedule. The Committee has received 19,982 pages from the DOI
in response to inquiries on the Trump administration's
revisions on national monuments. You provided the Committee
with telephone records of the Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement Director, requested by the Majority.
DOI has provided a response letter to the Majority seeking
information documents related to their proposed reforms and an
FOIA request. Outstanding Committee requests currently being
negotiated include scheduling transcripts, interviews with four
members of Secretary Bernhardt's staff regarding calendars. You
have been sending stuff up to us. It is not just a void that
happens to be down here.
Are you planning on a third round? Unfortunately, I have a
life outside of this Committee, so I am going to have to leave
after this one. I will apologize for leaving you alone there.
But you are dealing with people. If government was
producing widgets on an assembly line, you could give some kind
of statistical data of what is or is not working. What you are
dealing with right now are individuals, and how can you
maximize the efficiency of those individuals, vis-a-vis the
people that they are allegedly supposed to serve.
From my personal experiences in dealing in the West--and I
live in one of those states that 60 percent of us, 60 percent
of my state is controlled by you, you are the slum lords of
Utah--it is easy to work with the local officials. They live in
the community. They know the situations. They usually are the
most creative.
And almost any time we have a problem, it is as those
creations go up the food chain and end up in Washington. That
is why we have the significant problem of how do we actually
make Washington understand what is happening a 4-hour plane
ride away from what is going on.
So, the question is can you have good, decent people here
in Washington make good, decent decisions? Of course, you can.
Can you have good, decent people in the localities making good,
decent decisions? Of course, you can. Can you have rotten
officials in both places? Yes, and we have. The question is
what would give the propensity of a better organization? How
can people at some point actually know how they can get to a
solution and talk to somebody who is making a decision?
Let's face it. I tell my constituents I have the greatest
job in the world. You don't know what I do and you can't get a
hold of me. And if you don't like the decisions our agencies
do, what are you going to do, fly back to Washington and throw
rocks at the window? It just doesn't happen.
If those decisions are going to be made closer to where the
people are, the propensity will be those decisions will be more
reflective of what their needs are, and there is an opportunity
of getting some kind of feedback. It doesn't happen in the
status quo. It hasn't happened in decades back here with the
status quo.
So, this vision of what can happen is something that I
certainly hope is going to be pursued. Because you are talking
about how we can give services to people. Not responding to
lawsuits, not responding to special interest groups, but how
you can get response back to people, and how they can have
their input.
Now, I would love to ask you some more questions on what
you think you can do, like USGS going to Denver--why you want
to be in Denver I don't know, but the USGS going back there--
what the possibility would be there. But I only have 22
seconds. If you can say something in 15 seconds, go for it.
Mr. Cameron. You are absolutely right, your analysis of the
situation. And by having decision makers within a 1-hour plane
ride instead of a 4-hour plane ride, you are going to have it
easier for constituents to get the decision makers, and you are
going to have people who are making the decisions who actually
understand what is happening on the ground.
Mr. Bishop. I don't want a 1-hour plane ride, I want to
walk around the block to him.
I yield back.
Mr. Cox. Thank you very much, Mr. Bishop. I will recognize
myself for 5 minutes. And to continue along that same vein, I
would like to just add that over 90 percent of Interior
employees already work outside the DC region. So, in fact, what
we kind of said before is this is really a solution in search
of a problem.
But with regard to the unified regions, the question is why
12 regions? Secretary Zinke envisioned having Interior Regional
Directors, or these IRDs in charge of each of these 12 regional
unified regions. And in your testimony you said, ``We're
exploring what the permanent role might be for an individual
designated as an Interior Regional Director.''
You are proposing to stand up an entirely new layer of
bureaucracy without knowing what the people working there will
do all day or what their authority will be. Would that be a
correct statement?
Mr. Cameron. Mr. Chairman, so we are looking at--the focus
would vary from region to region, because the issues in
California are different from the issues in the Southeast or
from the Great Lakes, or from the Northeast. So, the particular
portfolio of an Interior Regional Director would vary, based on
the needs of the area. California and Texas are very different.
Mr. Cox. Thanks. And can you offer how these ideas will be
selected? Will they be chosen by the Executive Resources Board,
which is stacked with political appointees and run by Mr.
Bernhardt?
And last year, I think the plan was for Mr. Bernhardt to
have veto authority over decisions made by the IRB. Is that
still the case?
Mr. Cameron. Well, ultimately, the Secretary of the
Interior is responsible for virtually every decision at the
Department. So, the buck ultimately stops in the Secretary's
office. If these are members of the senior executive service,
which is the current plan, then by definition their selection
would be approved by the Executive Resources Board.
And it is worth pointing out there are career civil
servants on the Executive Resources Board.
I would also like to point out that since President Carter
signed the Civil Service Reform Act in 1978, it has been policy
that SES-ers should be rotating on a fairly regular basis. The
OPM target is 15 percent a year, and that has rarely been
realized.
Mr. Cox. Thanks. And with respect to the plan for Mr.
Bernhardt to veto authority over decisions made by the IRD,
will that still be the case?
Mr. Cameron. Well, as Secretary, ultimately he is
responsible for all key decisions at the Department, as is the
case now, and has been the case for 150 years. So, yes, the
Secretary ultimately has the ability within the constraints of
law to change decisions that are made lower in the
organization.
Mr. Cox. Thanks so much. And to each of the witnesses, is
there anything else you would like to add? And we can start
with Chairman Frazier.
Mr. Frazier. Thank you. One of the things--and I was just
thinking back when we were talking about getting everybody back
together, or how it would be easier for tribes--this past
spring, when we were having flooding, USGS has a measuring
station down along the Moreau River, where I live, in the
community of Whitehorse, South Dakota.
One of the things is they came and they never did talk to
us. And finally, one day we found out they were going down
there to collect data, because we needed to be prepared in case
there was more flooding going to happen. The only way that they
talk to us is I had to send a tribal police officer down to
tell him that I was wanting to get a report on what is going
on.
So, even though a lot of these agencies do not communicate,
do not consult with tribes--USGS, minerals--it seems like they
don't have the experience to know issues of Indian tribes and
Indian people. That is kind of a big issue, and it needs to be
resolved, whether this reorganization happens or not. And this
is the guy to do it, I guess. Thank you.
Mr. Cox. Thank you.
Ms. Rappaport Clark?
Ms. Clark. Thank you. I just have to say I think this is
becoming more confusing.
There seems to be some suggestion that decisions only
happen in Washington. And there are 70,000 employees at the
Interior Department, many of which, as you mentioned, are in
the West. And there are qualified refuge managers, park
superintendents, state directors of the Bureau of Land
Management, all of whom work very closely and collaboratively.
Are there conflicts from time to time? Yes. And I agree
with Mr. Cameron that the buck does stop with the Secretary of
the Interior. But moving and reorganizing to deal with
undefined or ill-defined challenges, it seems to me to be
really wrongheaded and reckless.
And the notion that senior executive service folks are
supposed to be moved around might be true based on a President
Carter-signed memo, but, clearly, the way that it has been
handled by this Administration with surprise letters and no
consultation--and the consultations that have occurred with the
senior executives on this issue are lectures, not conversation.
There is a culture of fear now, Mr. Chairman. And folks are
not sharing their concerns, their thoughts, their contributions
for fear of what will happen when they raise their head and
offer opinions. The employees of the Department are not in a
good place. And this reorganization isn't helping it.
Mr. Cox. Thank you so much. With that, I will recognize the
gentlemen from Texas.
Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Chairman. Well, I want to follow up
on the question for the process of relocating headquarters
staff positions West.
Mr. Cameron, explain the process for relocating
headquarters staff West.
Mr. Cameron. Thank you, Mr. Gohmert. What we are doing is
we are looking at--we are having conversations with the
leadership of USGS and BLM on this topic. We are identifying
geographic options. USGS seems to be honing in on the Denver
Metropolitan Area. BLM less so. I think there are more places
in play. We are having conversations with the General Services
Administration about the availability of office space in
various locations, about the cost of office rent in various
locations.
We are--BLM, in particular, I think, is having
conversations with headquarters staff about who might want to
move West and who might want to go on a voluntary basis. It is
sort of dependent upon the selection of a city. So, those
conversations are ongoing.
Congress appropriated $17.5 million in 2019. We only got
that money around 2 months ago. So, I think it is unreasonable
to think that we would have it all spent and clearly defined by
now. Besides, we have an obligation to communicate with the
appropriators on what our plans are for spending that money.
So, those are just some of the things. In terms of benefit
cost analysis on the administrative functions, we have gotten a
report from one consulting firm on information technology, a
second one on our procurement function, a third one coming out
this summer on human resource management. So, we think we will
have lots of intellectual fodder to make intelligent decisions
to save money on back-office functions so we can have more
dollars going to the front line.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, what are some of the benefits you have
seen from the Bureau of Reclamation moving West?
Mr. Cameron. The vast majority of the headquarters
operation for Reclamation has been in Denver for quite a few
years. To Mr. Bishop's point earlier, it is just a lot easier
for constituents to go to Denver from Utah or from Nevada or
from Arizona or from Texas than to have to go all the way to
Washington, DC if they have a problem.
Also, the people who are located in Denver are much more
familiar with Western issues because they are much more likely
to get out on the ground, to Mr. Bishop's point, as well. So,
we think we have better decision making because we have
elements of headquarters outside of Washington in the vicinity
of the people who are actually being served by those missions
of the Department, and we anticipate with BLM and USGS there
will be similar advantages.
Mr. Gohmert. Well, I know from confronting people that work
for Department of the Interior around different places in the
country, one the most common expressions you hear in response
to our questions is, ``That is above my pay grade, I don't
know.'' So, it would be nice to have the people who are making
those decisions at their pay grades out there closer to what is
happening.
You mentioned previously that the Department of the
Interior commissioned three external assessments examining
human resources management. And that further makes a point--the
USGS was mentioned a number of times in the hearing today. They
were always considered the gold standard when it came to any
type of measurement. And then we have had hearings in this room
where we found out USGS had people that just commonly changed
the actual measurements without any manner or means, no
explanation for why they were routinely changed from what they
factually were.
So, I can't help but think that if people--whether it is
the 90 percent that are out in the field, if they have
supervisors that are closer to them, that we will see better
results and less misapplication.
Mr. Cameron. I think you are absolutely right, Mr. Gohmert.
Having senior management closer to on-the-ground activity is
always going to produce closer supervision, better
communications, and we hope, quite frankly, that more decisions
will be made by solid regional leaders, career SES leaders, and
fewer decisions will be kicked up to Washington, where the
opportunity to make a mistake is perhaps higher, because a
decision maker is remote and not as knowledgeable of local
issues.
Mr. Gohmert. OK, thank you, and I appreciate the Chairman
having the hearing.
Mr. Cox. Thank you so much. I want to thank all the
witnesses again for being here today.
Reorganizations are time consuming and expensive efforts.
As we have heard today, success depends on careful analysis and
meaningful consultation with employees, Congress, states,
tribes, and local governments and other stakeholders. To date,
Interior's reorganization has been done in the dark, without
analysis and meaningful consultation. This Committee has yet to
see any real information. As a result, the Department is
failing in its responsibilities to this country's citizens,
Native nations, and Native peoples. It is failing in its
responsibilities to its employees, and is also failing in its
responsibility to manage its resources for the Nation's future
generations. And that is just unacceptable.
Secretary Bernhardt has an opportunity to course-correct. I
hope he takes that opportunity.
I am going to ask unanimous consent to insert the following
documents into the record: Defenders of Wildlife letter to
Secretary Zinke dated May 29, 2018; Great Plains Tribal
Chairmen's Association, Inc. letter dated August 20, 2013; the
GAO report 18-427, ``Government Reorganization: Key Questions
to Assess Agency Reform Efforts.''
The members of the Committee may have some additional
questions for the witnesses, and we will ask you to respond to
these in writing. Under Committee Rule 3(o), members of the
Committee must submit witness questions within 3 business days
following the hearing, and the hearing record will be held open
for 10 business days for these responses.
If there is no further business, without objection, the
Committee stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]
Submission for the Record by Rep. Cox
Testimony for the Record
John Garder, Senior Director of Budget and Appropriations,
National Parks Conservation Association
Since 1919, National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) has been
the leading voice of the American people in protecting and enhancing
our National Park System. On behalf of our more than 1.3 million
members and supporters nationwide, I write to express our deep concern
with the administration's proposal to reorganize the Department of the
Interior (DOI). Particularly for a proposal of such magnitude, the
effort should offer much greater transparency to the American public
and to lawmakers and should allow for authentic opportunities for
stakeholder involvement. A year into the proposal after many hours of
work by personnel who have other matters to which to attend, there
remains massive confusion. Foremost, it remains unclear what exactly
the purpose of the proposal is beyond vague talking points, what
precisely are the problems to be solved, and how the expenditure of
valuable taxpayer dollars would better serve our public lands, their
stewardship and the American public.
Among our chief concerns is that the conservation mission of the
National Park Service (NPS) could be undermined by the proposed DOI
regional leads. The concept of Interior Regional Directors is worrisome
for several reasons, chief among them that DOI staff could have
authority over NPS regional directors. Line authority over those NPS
career staff would be detrimental to the autonomy and integrity of NPS
decision-making to meet its unique mandate to protect resources and
provide for public enjoyment insofar that it can be consistent with
that protective responsibility. Even without line authority, the
involvement of DOI staff in the careful and science-based decision-
making of NPS threatens confusion and compromises to NPS' mission.
We are also concerned about the lack of transparency in how FY 19
funds are being used and for what exactly valuable FY 20 funds would be
used. Staff confusion and demoralization are additional threats posed
by the proposal.
NPCA commends the committee's oversight of this important issue and
supports your continuing work, and that of appropriators, in this
regard. Absent any clarity from the administration on use of FY 19 and
FY 20 funds and any clear, justifiable demonstration of the reasons for
the reorganization, benchmarks, a timeline and realistic roadmap, and
assurances that the effort would ultimately benefit our public lands
and the Americans who own them, we urge the Congress to take
appropriate and immediate measures to prevent DOI from engaging in this
risky and dangerous effort.
______
Submission for the Record by Rep. Grijalva
Testimony for the Record
USET--United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund
The United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund
(USET SPF) is pleased to provide the House Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations with the following
testimony for the record of its oversight hearing entitled, ``No Road
Map, No Destination, No Justification: The Implementation and Impacts
of the Reorganization of the Department of the Interior.'' USET SPF
supports the House Natural Resources Committee in its exercise of
oversight authority in the case of the Department of the Interior's
(DOI) proposed reorganization. Nearly a year and a half after its
announcement, Indian Country continues to have more questions than
answers from DOI on this massive undertaking. The near-complete lack of
information provided to Tribal Nations is unacceptable, regardless of
whether the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is included in the
reorganization. We continue to urge DOI to provide clarity regarding
reorganization logistics, purpose, and effects on Indian Country, and
to consult with Tribal Nations on these details.
USET SPF is a non-profit, inter-tribal organization representing 27
federally recognized Tribal Nations from Texas across to Florida and up
to Maine.\1\ USET SPF is dedicated to enhancing the development of
federally recognized Tribal Nations, to improving the capabilities of
Tribal governments, and assisting USET SPF Member Tribal Nations in
dealing effectively with public policy issues and in serving the broad
needs of Indian people. This includes advocating for the full exercise
of inherent Tribal sovereignty.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ USET SPF member Tribal Nations include: Alabama-Coushatta Tribe
of Texas (TX), Aroostook Band of Micmac Indians (ME), Catawba Indian
Nation (SC), Cayuga Nation (NY), Chitimacha Tribe of Louisiana (LA),
Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana (LA), Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
(NC), Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians (ME), Jena Band of Choctaw
Indians (LA), Mashantucket Pequot Indian Tribe (CT), Mashpee Wampanoag
Tribe (MA), Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida (FL), Mississippi
Band of Choctaw Indians (MS), Mohegan Tribe of Indians of Connecticut
(CT), Narragansett Indian Tribe (RI), Oneida Indian Nation (NY),
Pamunkey Indian Tribe (VA), Passamaquoddy Tribe at Indian Township
(ME), Passamaquoddy Tribe at Pleasant Point (ME), Penobscot Indian
Nation (ME), Poarch Band of Creek Indians (AL), Saint Regis Mohawk
Tribe (NY), Seminole Tribe of Florida (FL), Seneca Nation of Indians
(NY), Shinnecock Indian Nation (NY), Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Louisiana
(LA), and the Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head (Aquinnah) (MA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Failure to Meaningfully Consult
USET SPF is deeply opposed to the manner in which DOI has conducted
itself as it pursues reorganization activities, and in the absence of
nearly any specifics, to the reorganization itself. Indeed, DOI's
reorganization proposal has been developed with little clarity or
transparency and without meaningful Tribal consultation. Despite
publicized meetings with DOI officials and state and local governments
on the development of the proposal, Tribal Nations were not engaged in
this manner, notwithstanding trust and treaty obligations, and Tribal
consultation was not initiated until May 17, 2018. Prior to and
following the issuance of the DOI's ``Dear Tribal Leader'' letter
seeking input from Tribal Nations, USET SPF, along with Tribal Nations
and organizations across the country, repeatedly sought answers (both
formally and informally) to the myriad questions surrounding the
proposal. To date, DOI has not responded. Rather, DOI officials decided
that BIA would not participate. At a November 2018 meeting of the
Tribal Interior Budget Council, Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs,
Tara Sweeney, indicated that a ``Dear Tribal Leader'' letter (DTLL)
regarding the reorganization and its impacts was forthcoming. Indian
Country continues to await this clarifying letter.
Execution of Trust Obligations and Inherent Federal Functions Must be
Protected
As DOI moves forward with its reorganization, the execution of the
federal government's trust responsibility and obligations must be
paramount. These positions and agencies, and all inherent federal
functions must be preserved. This includes ensuring that all DOI
operating divisions and agencies are focused on upholding these duties.
It is of deep concern that the current reorganization plan appears to
be developed with the Department's natural resources-related functions,
and not its trust obligations, in mind. According to briefings we have
received on the reorganization, the new, unified regions will each be
overseen by a regional director whose charge will be the following
priorities: conservation, recreation, and permitting. The trust
responsibility and obligations are glaringly absent from this list.
In light of this, it remains unclear to USET SPF and others across
Indian Country how DOI will prioritize the execution of the trust
responsibility under the proposed model. Considering the list of
priorities for the new regional directors, how will the reorganization
affect the execution of the trust responsibility and obligations? How
will each operating division and regional director prioritize the
government-to-government relationship? To date, DOI has not provided
satisfactory answers to these very basic questions.
Impacts Remain Unclear
In addition to a lack of clarity surrounding DOI's sacred duty to
Tribal Nations, the practical effects upon the BIA and other bureaus
and functions also remain unclear. While representatives from DOI
continue to state BIA will not participate in the reorganization,
Indian Country has not been given any indication as to how BIA will or
will not be affected, nor whether participation would have any benefit
to Tribal Nations. How will BIA operate under the unified regional
model? How will service delivery change? These unknowns do not allow
for a position on BIA participation.
Further, DOI has yet to provide Indian Country or Congress with a
cost-benefit analysis concerning the reorganization. Yet, DOI continues
to request tens of millions of dollars for the reorganization,
including nearly $28 million for Fiscal Year 2020. As the
reorganization moves forward, this number is likely to increase
exponentially. It is not possible for Indian Country or Congress to
understand the full ramifications of the reorganization without a full
cost estimate, anticipated savings, and better articulated goals.
Need for Broader Consultation
While DOI's attempt at consultation seems to have exclusively
focused on whether BIA will participate in the reorganization, each
agency and operating division within DOI shares in the trust
responsibility and obligation to Tribal Nations. Indeed, Tribal Nations
regularly interact with many of DOI's other divisions, including the
Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife, and the National
Park Service. With this in mind, Tribal Nations must be consulted on
the DOI reorganization as a whole, not merely BIA's participation.
Changes and Restructuring in the Absence of Consultation
We are aware that a number of personnel and programmatic changes
have been made without Tribal consultation and, in some cases, over the
objections of Tribal Nations. While we understand that the Department
is afforded the latitude to make employment decisions, Tribal Nations
should be consulted as senior staff are reassigned--particularly at the
regional level.
Similarly, we note the inclusion of the reorganization as
``Strategy #1'' in DOI's FY 2018-2022 Strategic Plan, which appears to
have been posted to DOI's website on March 5, 2018. This Strategic Plan
has also not received sufficient Tribal consultation. While a listening
session was scheduled in the Eastern Region for August 2017, it was
later canceled and never rescheduled. Nonetheless, the Plan states,
``The DOI intends to establish unified regional boundaries for
its bureaus in 2018 and to further develop this approach in
2019. The goal is to improve overall operations, internal
communications, customer service, and stakeholder engagement.
Aligning geographic areas across the DOI will enhance
coordination of resource decisions and policies and will
simplify how citizens engage with the DOI.''
The contents of the Strategic Plan appear to be in conflict with
DOI's commitment to ensure Indian Country chooses whether to
participate in the reorganization, as well as page 11 of the document,
which includes, ``effectively consulting with Tribal governments.''
Importance of the Eastern Region Office
Historically, as part of past reorganization/restructuring efforts,
USET SPF member Tribal Nations have consistently had to fight to
protect the BIA Eastern Region Office. We are adamantly opposed to any
effort to eliminate this office. Previous efforts to fulfill Eastern
Region trust obligations through other BIA regional offices have failed
and proven that Eastern Region Tribal Nation interests are secondary to
the interests of the Tribal Nations within those regions tasked with
providing contracted services. While our most recent discussions with
DOI indicate that the Eastern Region Office would be preserved, its
ongoing relationship with both DOI headquarters and the new, unified
regional offices has not been articulated.
Any Changes must Promote Improved Execution of Trust Obligations
USET SPF member Tribal Nations acknowledge that there may
unnecessary levels of bureaucracy and redundancies at DOI and this
belief is consistent with our organizational effort to modernize the
trust relationship. However, any eliminations or changes must be
accomplished with the intent to (1) achieve more timely and seamless
execution of federal trust obligations, and (2) promote greater Tribal
Nation self-determination.
The current trust model is broken and based on faulty and
antiquated assumptions from the 19th Century that Indian people were
incompetent to handle their own affairs and that Tribal Nations were
anachronistic and would gradually disappear. It is time for a new model
that reflects a truly diplomatic, nation-to-nation relationship between
the U.S. and Tribal Nations, and that empowers each Tribal Nation to
define its own path. This mission should inform each action taken by
this Administration affecting Tribal Nations, including any
reorganization of DOI.
In addition, any cost-savings must be directed to improved
execution of trust obligations. Any potential cost savings derived from
the reorganization should be redirected to augment the severely
underfunded Tribal programs and trustee services provided by Indian
Affairs, as well as other as other Tribal programs and services
provided by agencies within DOI.
Conclusion
DOI must work to provide clarity to Indian Country prior to moving
forward with further reorganization efforts. This includes much more
than a take-it-or-leave-it approach to the reorganization as it
pertains to Indian Country. USET SPF remains hopeful that the
Department will take the opportunity to modernize the federal
government and execution of the federal trust responsibility in a way
that upholds the obligations of our sacred government-to-government
relationship and promotes the full exercise of Tribal sovereignty. In
the meantime, USET SPF urges Congress to continue to hold DOI
accountable and withhold additional funds for the reorganization until
DOI provides additional information and conducts meaningful
consultation with Tribal Nations. Should you have any questions or
require further information, please contact Ms. Liz Malerba, USET SPF
Director of Policy and Legislative Affairs, at XXX-XXX-XXXX.
______
[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE COMMITTEE'S
OFFICIAL FILES]
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Cox
-- Public Lands Foundation, ``Maintaining the Bureau of Land
Management Headquarters in Washington, D.C., dated
April 2019.
-- GAO Report (GAO-18-427) on Government Reorganization--Key
Questions to Assess Agency Reform Efforts, dated
June 2018.
-- Letter from Defenders of Wildlife to Sec. Zinke, dated
May 29, 2018.
-- Letter from Great Plains Tribal Chairmen's Association to
Sec. Zinke, dated July 15, 2017.
Submissions for the Record by Rep. Grijalva
-- Letter from USET to Tara Sweeney, Asst. Sec. Indian
Affairs, Bureau of Indian Affairs, dated September
21, 2018.
-- USET SPF Resolution No. 2019 SPF:005--Opposition to DOI
Reorganization.
-- Letter from USET to Secretary Ryan Zinke of the
Department of the Interior, dated April 13, 2018.
-- Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation,
Testimony for the Record.
[all]