U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–970 PDF 2017

EXAMINING THE DEPARTMENT 

OF THE INTERIOR’S SPENDING PRIORITIES AND THE 

PRESIDENT’S FISCAL YEAR 

2018 BUDGET PROPOSAL 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Thursday, June 22, 2017 

Serial No. 115–11 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Chairman Emeritus 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Vice Chairman 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Stevan Pearce, NM 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Scott R. Tipton, CO 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Darin LaHood, IL 

Daniel Webster, FL 

David Rouzer, NC 

Jack Bergman, MI 

Liz Cheney, WY 

Mike Johnson, LA 

Jenniffer Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n, PR 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Vice Ranking Member 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Colleen Hanabusa, HI 

Nanette Diaz Barraga ́n, CA 

Darren Soto, FL 

Jimmy Panetta, CA 

A. Donald McEachin, VA 

Anthony G. Brown, MD 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Jason Knox, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Thursday, June 22, 2017 ............................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Zinke, Hon. Ryan, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Washington, DC, accompanied by Olivia Barton Ferriter, Deputy 

Assistant Secretary Budget, Finance, Performance and Acquisition; and 

Denise Flanagan, Director, Office of Budget .............................................. 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 17 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

Kurta, A.M., Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary, April 

26, 2017 Letter to the Hon. Matt Gaetz, House of Representatives ......... 104 

List of documents submitted for the record retained in the Committee’s 

official files .................................................................................................... 106 

Speer, Robert M., Department of Defense, Acting Secretary of the Army, 

May 31, 2017 Letter to the Hon. Stevan Pearce, House of Representatives ................................................................................................................ 69 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON EXAMINING THE 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR’S SPENDING PRIORITIES AND THE PRESIDENT’S 

FISCAL YEAR 2018 BUDGET PROPOSAL 

Thursday, June 22, 2017 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:35 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Bishop, Young, Gohmert, Lamborn, 

Wittman, McClintock, Pearce, Gosar, Labrador, Tipton, LaMalfa, 

Westerman, Graves, Hice, Radewagen, Bergman, Cheney, Johnson, 

Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n; Grijalva, Bordallo, Costa, Sablan, Tsongas, 

Huffman, Lowenthal, Beyer, Torres, Gallego, Hanabusa, Barraga ́n, 

Soto, Panetta, McEachin, and Clay. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, the Committee will come to order. The 

Committee on Natural Resources is here. We are happy to hear testimony from the Secretary of the Interior that examines the 

Department of the Interior’s spending priorities, as well as the 

budget proposals. 

Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral statements at hearings are 

limited to the Chairman, the Ranking Minority Member, and the 

Vice Chair. This will allow us to hear from our witness sooner, and 

help Members to keep on some kind of schedule, because we are 

on a tight schedule, especially Mr. Zinke. 

Therefore, I am going to ask unanimous consent that all other 

Members’ opening statements be made part of the hearing record 

if they are submitted to the Committee Clerk or the Subcommittee 

Clerk by 5:00 p.m. today. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

Let me start. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me recognize myself for my original opening 

statement. 

Mr. Zinke, I want to welcome you back here to the Committee. 

It is good to have you back here in this particular room. I want to 

personally thank you at the very beginning for being here. 

I also want to thank you for visiting my home state, and for 

doing that. You and your Department have brought transparency, 

more transparency over the past few months than I think has happened in the entire 111-year history of the Antiquities Act. What 

you did was a first-of-its-kind, inclusive process that actually tried 

to assess local support for monuments. And I want to thank you 

2 

for conducting that review, you did it with aplomb, even if you 

made fun of what I was wearing. I was not going to a golf course, 

I was legitimate. 

You also, I think, are bringing a breath of fresh air to the 

Department. You clearly understand why the Department was created and what its core statutory functions are, and how they have 

strayed over the few years. Mismanagement, as I view it, of 

Federal lands did not start recently. It has gone on for several decades, long before the Obama administration was there. But I have 

to admit the layers of arbitrary rules and regulations over the past 

8 years, especially the last 2 years, seem to compound the challenges that we have with the Department of the Interior. 

So, what I hope to do is be able to have a new relationship that 

is here that will work in concert with you to give you whatever 

kinds of tools are necessary to produce the kinds of reforms that 

you have been talking about in public. 

Over the past few months, you have taken numerous actions to 

re-establish core agency functions and begin addressing regulatory 

excesses. I am very proud of you for doing that. You have facilitated a diverse and abundant energy development strategy, and 

made clear your priorities for things like the USGS funding increase, offshore development, the 5-year planning process, which, I 

think, shows a commitment to make America stronger through 

energy security. I appreciate you doing that. 

I am also appreciative, especially for this Committee, of your 

prioritization of resource needs to address the Park Service’s massive deferred maintenance backlog. Once again, that is something 

that must take place. 

A component of that strategy does include the transferring and 

exchanging of surplus lands. I want to be clear about this, that this 

does not mean a wholesale transfer of Federal lands. There are 

voices out there who are spreading misinformation, if not downright lies, that our goal is to try to sell off all the iconic areas and 

landmarks, when actually nobody is talking about that. 

What we are talking about, and clearly understanding, is we 

have to resolve the checkerboard issues of land management, isolated and hard-to-manage isolated parcels of land, and selected 

transfers that would maximize local communities. That is merely 

what we were talking about. That is the goal and the effort of 

where we were going. 

I am also encouraged to hear your public statements, specifically 

concerning federally recognized Indian tribes. These Native 

American issues are important. Many people in the past have given 

lip service to tribal self-determination, but their actions have consistently fallen very short of the rhetoric that is there. 

So, the idea that you have established and desire to improve 

tribal control over tribal lands, rather than blockading economic 

opportunities in Indian Country is refreshing, and I appreciate 

that. 

I also want to thank you for the broader reforms that you have 

talked about, and I want to let you know that this Committee is 

ready to try to do whatever legislation you feel is necessary to help 

you succeed in those kind of broader reforms that you wish to do. 

3 

We all realize that there is a $20 trillion deficit that all of us 

have inherited. What you need to do is, with the funds that are 

available, try to leverage the natural resources and the responsibilities that go with that, develop the energy potential. 

We realize the amount of revenue that has come in has deteriorated over the years, but also access to public land has deteriorated 

over the years, as well as the level of service. I am grateful that 

the Department realizes that and is going to take positive efforts 

to try to improve on all three of those areas. I hope that what we 

can do is to build a future together with your Department to serve 

the communities that your Department actually serves. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bishop follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON

NATURAL RESOURCES

Today, we are pleased to have Secretary Zinke here to testify on the Administration’s budget and broader policy priorities for the Department of the Interior. 

Welcome back to the Committee, Mr. Secretary. 

I’d first like to take a quick moment to personally thank you for being here and 

for recently visiting my home state of Utah. Your Department has brought more 

transparency and accountability to National Monument designations in the past few 

months than the rest of the Antiquities Act’s 111-year history by creating a firstof-its-kind, open, and inclusive process to gather public comments and assess local 

support for National Monuments. Thank you for conducting this review. 

After 8 years, it is a breath of fresh air to have someone leading the Department 

who understands the reason why it was created in the first place—and just how far 

its core statutory functions have strayed since that time. 

Although mismanagement of our Federal lands and Washington’s neglect of local, 

state and tribal communities began long before the Obama administration, the 

layers of arbitrary rules and regulations promulgated over the past 8 years have 

certainly compounded these challenges. 

Congress and the executive branch working in concert is the only way for us to 

overcome years of mismanagement at the Interior Department and its sub-agencies. 

As such, I am excited to have you in this role, and an Administration committed 

to reform, so that we can finally partner with the executive branch to actually solve 

problems and help improve the Department’s accountability to taxpayers. 

In just the first few months of the Secretary’s tenure, the Department has taken 

numerous actions to re-establish core agency functions and begin addressing regulatory excesses created by the last administration. 

The President’s 2018 budget reflects a commitment from the Trump administration to increase access to Federal lands, reduce burdensome regulation, and improve 

conservation without unduly impacting economic development. 

I am also pleased with several clear priorities put forward within this request to 

help facilitate a diverse and abundant energy development strategy. From supporting onshore development through increased USGS funding in mineral assessments, to offshore development, with the re-initiation of the 5-year plan process, 

you’ve committed to making America stronger through energy security. 

I am also pleased with the Administration’s commitment to improve management 

of existing Federal lands and resources rather than growing the bureaucracy and 

siphoning money from productive uses to expand Federal land acquisition. This includes prioritizing resources to address the Park Service’s massive deferred maintenance backlog. 

A component of this strategy must include transferring or exchanging surplus 

lands in and around local communities. To be clear, this does not mean a wholesale 

transfer of our Federal lands. There are special interests and voices out there 

spreading lies who want the public to think these efforts amount to selling iconic 

parks or landmarks, when nobody here is talking about that. We—members of both 

political parties—are simply talking about resolving checkerboard land issues, removing isolated and hard to manage parcels, and selectively transferring certain 

lands to maximize the benefits of those lands to local communities. 

I’ve been very encouraged to hear your public statements about improving selfdetermination for our First Americans, federally recognized Indian tribes. Under 

previous administrations there’s been a lot of lip service paid to tribal selfdetermination, but actions have consistently fallen short of the rhetoric. I look 

4 

forward to working with you to actually improve tribal control over tribal lands 

rather than blockading economic opportunities for Indian Country. 

The shared priorities of balancing our budget, improving land management and 

expanding access can’t be fully achieved without broader reforms. So, in addition to 

our discussion on budget priorities, I also look forward to hearing your thoughts on 

how this Committee can provide the Administration with the tools necessary for it 

to succeed. 

Amidst a nearly $20 trillion national debt that they inherited, I commend 

President Trump and Secretary Zinke for putting forward a responsible and strategic budget to leverage the Nation’s natural resources and to responsibly explore 

and develop America’s energy potential. This Committee is dedicated to working 

with you, the Administration and our colleagues in Congress to build a better future 

for the Department and the communities it serves. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Before I yield to Mr. Grijalva I do want to make 

one formal announcement simply that deals with the decorum 

under the Committee Rules, as well as the Rules of the House. 

And I have to ask, since this is a formal Committee hearing, that 

there not be any disruptions regarding the testimony that is going 

to be given here today. It is important to respect the decorum and 

the rules of the Committee and the House, and to allow Members 

and the public to hear those proceedings. 

With that, I am appreciative, and I will yield to the Ranking 

Member, Mr. Grijalva, for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Mr. 

Secretary. Not too long ago you sat up here with us, and I am sure 

you are full of fond memories of that experience and your time with 

us. Being in the Majority is still more fulfilling, I could tell you 

that, but our side has a role, an important role. And we appreciate 

the opportunity to exercise our oversight responsibility today, our 

shared oversight responsibility. So, thank you very much for being 

here. 

Much of what comes from the Trump White House is not true, 

but the President’s 2018 budget tells us the truth. My Republican 

colleagues can run from it or claim this budget is DOA, but this 

is an honest Republican budget. I don’t mean the math is honest, 

because it is not. This budget double counts non-existent savings 

from tax cuts as a gimmick to pretend to balance. The math in this 

budget is disingenuous, at best, and needs to be treated as such. 

But the budget is an honest reflection of Republican long-held 

priorities. If Speaker Ryan brought an Interior appropriations bill 

to the Floor that included a 10 percent cut, as this proposal does, 

House Republicans would pass it. 

It seems that every time we have a Republican in the White 

House, we suddenly hear that the richest nation on earth is flat 

broke, cannot afford these programs any more, and all of a sudden 

the talk is about doing more with less, tightening our belts, and 

making sacrifices. We don’t see in this budget oil, gas, mining making sacrifices, nor polluters funding cleanups in the mess that they 

create and leave behind. 

The budget reflects the bottomless desire for irresponsible drilling and mining on every inch of public land. They even insist on 

5 

doing permanent damage to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 

even when we know it will not help average Americans at all. 

The budget reflects Republican’s constant attacks on science and 

repeated claims that climate change is fake. OMB Director 

Mulvaney, who was a House Republican until recently, told the 

truth when he said Republicans think spending on climate change 

is a waste of money. 

The budget reflects their endless campaign to sell off public lands 

that the American people love. Years of Republican bills and 

speeches demonizing Federal lands, and Federal employees, prove 

that House Republicans support a budget that would close national 

parks and force layoffs of Federal land managers, as well. 

Some of my Republican colleagues claim they support the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund, but for years they have allowed 

false claims about the program to go unchallenged. They have 

voted to undermine the fund, and they even allowed it to expire on 

their watch. Of course, they support a budget that slashes LWCF 

funding by 85 percent. 

This budget reflects the Republican belief that this generation of 

politicians gets to decide which species go extinct, and their conviction that extinction is better than reasonable limits on drilling or 

mining. 

The budget guts the Fish and Wildlife Service and makes a 

functioning Endangered Species Act impossible, and that is the 

goal. 

There is no confusion about where Democrats stand. We support 

full funding of the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We support 

the funding levels needed to operate a world-class system of 

national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands. We believe our 

climate is changing and that money spent on research, stopping 

pollution, and mitigation are the most important investments we 

can make. We support Federal spending to improve the health of 

our oceans and fisheries. We support funding for programs that 

pull endangered species back from the brink. And, we support investments to make permanent improvements in the quality of life 

in Indian Country. 

The President’s misguided and irresponsible budget does none of 

these things. The Trump budget is just standard Republican talking points in budget form. The Trump budget is the Republican vision for this country, spelled out in dollars and cents. 

Democrats have resisted these destructive proposals before, and 

we will do so again. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, RANKING MEMBER, 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES

Much of what comes from the Trump White House is not true, but the President’s 

2018 budget tells the truth. My Republican colleagues can run from it, or claim this 

budget is ‘‘DOA,’’ but this is an honest Republican budget. 

I don’t mean the math is honest, because it’s not. This budget double-counts nonexistent savings from tax cuts as a gimmick to pretend to balance. The math in this 

budget is a lie. 

But this budget is an honest reflection of House Republicans’ long-held priorities. 

If Speaker Ryan brought an Interior appropriations bill to the Floor that included 

a 10 percent cut, as this proposal does, House Republicans would vote for it. 

6 

This budget reflects their bottomless desire for irresponsible drilling and mining 

on every inch of public land. They even insist on doing permanent damage to the 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, even when we know it won’t help average 

Americans at all. 

This budget reflects Republican’s constant attacks on science and repeated claims 

that climate change is fake. OMB Director Mulvaney—who was a House Republican 

until recently—told the truth when he said Republicans think spending on climate 

change is a waste of money. 

This budget reflects their endless campaign to sell off public lands that the 

American people love. Years of Republican bills and speeches demonizing Federal 

lands—and Federal employees—prove that House Republicans support a budget 

that would close national parks and force layoffs of Federal land managers. 

Some of my Republican colleagues claim they support the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund, but for years they have allowed false claims about the program 

to go unchallenged, they have voted to undermine the Fund, and they even allowed 

it to expire on their watch. Of course, they support a budget that slashes LWCF 

funding by 85 percent. 

This budget reflects the Republican belief that this generation of politicians gets 

to decide which species go extinct, and their conviction that extinction is better than 

reasonable limits on drilling or mining. A budget that guts the Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and makes a functioning Endangered Species Act impossible, is what they 

want. 

There is no confusion about where Democrats stand. We support full funding for 

the Land and Water Conservation Fund. We support the funding levels needed to 

operate a world-class system of national parks, forests, refuges, and public lands. 

We believe our climate is changing and that money spent on research, stopping pollution, and mitigation are the most important investments we can make. We support Federal spending to improve the health of our oceans and fisheries. We support 

funding for programs that pull endangered species back from the brink. And we 

support investments to make permanent improvements in the quality of life in 

Indian Country. 

The President’s misguided and irresponsible budget does none of these things. The 

Trump budget is just standard Republican talking points in budget form. The 

Trump budget is the Republican vision for this country, spelled out in dollars and 

cents. 

Democrats have resisted these destructive proposals before, and we will do so 

again. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. With that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Otherwise, everything is OK, right? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, good. The Vice Chairman has waived 

his right to give an opening statement, so we will go directly to Mr. 

Zinke, if you would. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you for being here. It is the Honorable 

Ryan Zinke, Secretary of the Department of the Interior, and you 

are accompanied by Olivia Barton Ferriter—did I say that correctly—who is also the Deputy Assistant for Budget and Finance 

within Interior, as well as Denise Flanagan from the Director of 

the Office of Budget in the Interior Department. 

We welcome all three of you here. I remind our witnesses, obviously, you all know how the 5-minute rule works. Also, the microphones are not self-activated, so make sure you turn it on before 

you speak there. 

With that, welcome back, Secretary. It is all yours. 

7 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RYAN ZINKE, SECRETARY, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WASHINGTON, DC 

Secretary ZINKE. Thank you. I am glad to see the tenor has not 

changed between the Ranking Member and the Chairman. But 

thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today, and it is 

indeed a deep honor to be on this side of the podium. 

I do request permission to submit my entire statement for the 

record. 

So, the budget. This is what a balanced budget looks like. It is 

a starting point. And it is good to have discussions on what a balanced budget would look like. Many Members identify areas of concern in it, and I completely understand that. But you cannot ignore 

every year Congress goes through and looks at raising the debt, 

and you cannot ignore a budget that is in arrears. 

So, while this budget focuses on savings for many of you, I will 

also address the revenue picture. But this is what a budget, a balanced budget, would look like. And there are tough decisions, and 

it is good to have honest dialogue about them. 

Second, I fully understand the Department of the Interior touches the lives of more Americans than any other department. In fact, 

nearly every American lives within an hour drive of our public 

lands, enjoys our parks, our wildlife refuges, and our public lands. 

Interior is not a partisan issue. Our public lands are an American 

issue. 

The President’s budget itself proposes $11.7 billion, and saves 

the taxpayers about $1.6 billion. We make strategic investments to 

ensure that our Nation’s energy and national security are met, and 

we address core issues, and public access. 

The President’s budget prioritizes an all-of-the-above energy 

strategy that includes oil, gas, coal, and renewable energies. The 

President does not favor one energy source over another. It is an 

all-of-the-above energy strategy. We also have a prudent focus on 

boosting revenue through legislative proposals to raise $5.8 billion. 

Let me talk about revenues. In 2008, the Department of the 

Interior, on offshore alone, made about $18 billion a year. Last 

year, we made $2.6 billion. We had a drop of $15.5 billion a year 

on revenue. Some of it was the gas and oil prices, but not all of 

it. When you add timber, when you add onshore, the picture gets 

worse. 

So, when we talk about $11.5 billion behind on infrastructure in 

our parks, which represents 73 percent of infrastructure in the 

Department, on scale, we would have made up our entire backlog 

plus $3 billion of additional investment to fund programs, schools, 

and honor our Indian trust in 1 year. That is the scale of what 

occurred. 

There are two sides of every balance sheet: there are the revenues and the expenses. As a Secretary, I immediately signed a 

Secretarial Order to look at revenues across the board. I reestablished the Committee on Revenues. And revenues, we are 

looking at every enterprise that operates on public land, whether 

it is wind, gas, oil, coal, across the board, because I want to make 

sure that the American public’s interest is met. If you are going to 

operate on public land, then the stakeholder is us, the public. I 

8 

want to make sure that our rules and regulations are not arbitrary, 

trust but verify, and the American public interest is served. 

When it comes to infrastructure, we plan to take care of what we 

have first. So, yes, the LWCF program, which I have always supported, what has dropped is additional land acquisition. It does not 

prevent such things as conservation easement programs, but more 

land has dropped from the budget as it sits today. It is a starting 

point. 

And I have always supported LWCF, but over the course of time 

LWCF is funded through offshore assets. So, when offshore assets, 

oil and gas, go to the bottom, so does the fund. But having said 

that, over the course of time there is $20 billion of unappropriated 

funds in LWCF. Was that the intent? 

Even though every year money comes in, whether this gets appropriated or not is a congressional issue. Same as, and it is worse, 

over in Reclamation. There is about $20 billion in Reclamation that 

has not been tasked either. Those funds were for one thing, to 

build our water, our rural, and projects, so there is an appropriation issue, as well, that we will address. 

The budget calls for a $35 million increase, for a total of $766 

million for national parks infrastructure. And if you want to look 

at our infrastructure of the national parks, I invite you to look at 

Arlington. It is a national disgrace. And it just didn’t happen in the 

last 8 years. But our Park Service, our assets, deferred maintenance has been a problem. But if you want to look, go to Arlington. 

The shutters are falling off, the garden grounds are unacceptable. 

The building itself is in ruin. And that is hallowed ground, and it 

is not very far from here. 

We fully fund fire suppression. This Committee has talked about 

it year after year after year of why we have to spend billions of dollars every year fighting forest fires. The Forest Service, which is 

not part of the Department of the Interior, has 71 million acres of 

dead and dying timber. It will not happen on BLM land. So, we 

have purposely funded fire suppression to get the dead and dying 

timber off our public lands so we don’t have to fight the forest fires. 

We found savings in Federal land acquisitions. I talked about 

eliminating some programs and allowing states and local communities in private partnership to take a bigger play. At the end of 

the day, we made tough decisions. 

Payment in Lieu of Taxes, for the first time in a long time, we 

put $397 million in Payment in Lieu of Taxes. Last year, there was 

zero. So, we put it in the discretionary side as a marker. I don’t 

know what is going to happen on the SRS side, but on PILT, that 

is $397 million plus-up from last budget. Although it doesn’t fully 

fund it, it is a plus-up from last budget. 

So, yes, this is a starting point. But I want everyone to realize 

this is a starting point of a balanced budget. And there are fundamental differences on what programs should get funded, and this 

is why we are here. I look forward to working with you, I look forward to working on both sides. I know you, personally. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Zinke follows:] 

9 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RYAN ZINKE, SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

Chairman Bishop, Ranking Member Grijalva, and members of the Committee, I 

am pleased to appear before you today to discuss the 2018 President’s Budget for 

the Department of the Interior, which provides $11.7 billion for Interior’s programs, 

with an additional $123.9 million of discretionary Department of Defense appropriations requested to be transferred to the Department of the Interior to support enactment of the 2010 Compact Review Agreement with Palau. 

Because of the timing between enactment of the Fiscal Year 2017 Omnibus 

Appropriations Act and submission of the Fiscal Year 2018 President’s Budget, my 

statement compares requested funding to the Fiscal Year 2017 Annualized 

Continuing Resolution unless otherwise noted. 

2018 BUDGET PRIORITIES

The 2018 budget for the Department of the Interior features targeted investments 

to further the Administration’s America First national energy goals. At the same 

time, this budget reflects the President’s commitment to fiscal responsibility— 

proposing sensible and rational reductions and making hard choices to reach a balanced budget by 2027. 

Across Interior’s diverse mission, this budget emphasizes the Department’s crucial 

role in promoting economic growth. America’s lands hold tremendous job-creating 

assets. Visitors to our parks spend more than $18.4 billion in local gateway communities, supporting approximately 318,000 jobs and contributing $34.9 billion into the 

national economy according to the 2016 National Park Service Visitor Spending 

Effects Report. 

In 2016, the Department’s energy, mineral, grazing, and forestry activities resulted in $8.8 billion in revenue to the American people, including direct revenue 

payments to states, tribes, and local communities. These same activities supported 

$136 billion in economic output. The Budget for the Bureau of Reclamation invests 

over $1 billion in safe, reliable, and efficient management of water resources 

throughout the western United States. In addition, direct grants and payments to 

states, tribes, and local communities provided an estimated $10 billion in economic 

output. 

The Department’s 2018 budget reflects the Administration’s commitment to 

strengthen America’s economic and energy security, focus on the Nation’s infrastructure, be responsible stewards of magnificent lands, encourage public access for outdoor recreation, and strengthen tribal sovereignty and support self-determination. 

AMERICA’S ENERGY

The Department is the steward and manager of America’s natural resources, including oil, gas, coal, hydropower, minerals, and renewable energy sources. The 

Department has a critical role to play in the future energy security of our Nation 

as well as our overall economic well-being. American energy resources create jobs 

and generate significant revenue both to the U.S. Treasury and states. This budget 

proposes $791.2 million in current and permanent funding for energy related programs across the Department, an increase of $16.3 million from 2017. The 2018 

budget supports an ‘‘all-of-the-above’’ energy development strategy, increasing funding for onshore and offshore oil and gas, strengthening coal management activities, 

and sustaining the current pace of renewable energy development. 

The budget reflects the importance of offshore energy production to America’s economic and energy security. The 2018 budget shores up offshore oil and gas programs 

with appropriated funding to continue a strong offshore program. The request for 

the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management features a $10.2 million increase to update the Five-Year Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program, consistent with the President’s Executive Order Implementing an America-First 

Offshore Energy Strategy to expand offshore oil and gas exploration and production. 

The 2018 budget for the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement includes 

a $1.2 million increase to focus on workforce training, permitting, and information 

technologies to better permit exploration, development, and production operations. 

Onshore, the budget requests a $16.0 million increase for the Bureau of Land 

Management’s oil and gas management program, providing a total of $75.9 million 

in appropriated funds focused on improving oil and gas permit application processing, streamlining leasing, and modernizing practices. The budget also includes 

$19.0 million for the BLM coal management program, an $8.0 million increase to 

reduce administrative processing times, simplify the lease application process, and 

improve the timeliness to complete lease sale fair market value determinations. 

10 

The 2018 budget includes $78.1 million for Renewable Energy programs both on 

and offshore. Although a reduction from prior years, this funding level will sustain 

the current pace of development at a level consistent with anticipated project 

interest. 

To ensure the public continues to receive the full value of natural resources production on Federal lands, in April, I signed a charter establishing a Royalty Policy 

Committee of 28 local, tribal, state, and other stakeholders to advise me on the fair 

market value of and revenue collection from Federal and Indian mineral and energy 

leases, including renewable energy sources. 

THE NATION’S INFRASTRUCTURE

Interior plays an important role in maintaining and improving the Nation’s infrastructure. Interior’s national role includes managing significant real property assets 

as well as conducting reviews and processing permits to support national infrastructure development as part of a balanced multiple land use strategy. Interior’s 2018 budget maintains the 2017 level of $98.8 million for Fish and 

Wildlife Service planning and consultation activities. This level maintains the FWS 

capability to meet its legal consultation requirements and avoid logjams that could 

delay infrastructure projects and associated economic benefits. The BLM budget also 

directs base funding to address siting for energy transmission projects, and proposes 

an increase in the oil and gas management program to facilitate rights-of-way 

associated with energy development projects. 

Interior manages an infrastructure asset portfolio with a replacement value exceeding $300 billion, ranging from elementary and secondary schools serving Indian 

children, to highways and bridges serving the daily commuting needs of the 

Washington, DC, metropolitan area. Interior owns approximately 43,000 buildings, 

100,000 miles of road, and 80,000 structures—including iconic landmarks, as well 

as dams, bridges, laboratories, employee housing, and irrigation and power infrastructure. Taking care of this significant asset portfolio is a persistent challenge. 

Interior’s deferred maintenance backlog has grown to over $15 billion in 2016. 

Construction and maintenance funding across the Department totals $1.4 billion in 

2018, not including the Bureau of Reclamation. 

From my first day on the job, one of my top priorities has been to prioritize efforts 

to address the National Park Service maintenance backlog. Our National Parks 

have 73 percent of Interior’s deferred maintenance backlog while hosting 324 million 

visitors last year. The 2018 budget for NPS includes $236.3 million for construction 

and deferred maintenance projects, an increase of $21.0 million from 2017. Total 

estimated funding for NPS maintenance and construction needs including estimated 

recreation fee revenue is $765.7 million, an increase of $34.7 million from Fiscal 

Year 2017. This increase will support targeted and measurable upgrades to a number of the NPS’ highest priority assets, including the first phase of repairs to the 

Arlington Memorial Bridge project. 

AMERICA’S LANDS

In my first days in office, I issued two Secretarial Orders to expand access to public lands and increase hunting, fishing, and recreation opportunities nationwide. The 

2018 budget includes $4.4 billion for the Department’s land management operations 

in the NPS, FWS, and the BLM. While a reduction of $354.3 million from 2017, this 

figure includes funding for operational programs as well as management and maintenance of the national parks, national wildlife refuges, and BLM’s network of 

national conservation lands. Within land management operations, the budget 

prioritizes funding to protect and conserve America’s public lands and natural resources, provide access to public lands for the next generation of outdoor enthusiasts, and ensure visitor safety. 

To support land management priorities, funding for lower priority activities, such 

as Federal land acquisition projects, is reduced. The 2018 budget emphasizes taking 

care of our current assets, rather than adding more by purchasing new land. Accordingly, the budget for land acquisition programs is $54.0 million, $129.1 million 

below 2017. A small amount of funding is maintained in each bureau for emergencies or acquisition of inholdings needed to improve management of established 

areas or to increase public access. 

To better manage and balance these responsibilities, the Department relies on its 

front-line land managers, field scientists, and partners to monitor, assess, and collect information about the status of resource conditions. Interior’s U.S. Geological 

Survey is the Nation’s leading source of expertise in earth and natural sciences and 

works closely with other Departmental bureaus and state, local, tribal and other 

Federal partners to help resource managers adapt to changing conditions on the 

11 

ground. The 2018 budget includes $922.2 million for USGS programs, to focus on 

core science activities including land and water resources, energy and minerals, 

mapping, ecosystems, invasive species, natural hazards, and environmental health. 

The 2018 request budgets responsibly for the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program. The budget includes $397 million for these payments as part of the discretionary 

request, to ensure continued support to the communities neighboring the Department’s and other Federal lands without assuming enactment of separate legislation. 

The 2018 level for PILT is reduced 12 percent below the 2017 CR level, consistent 

with the total reduction in the Interior budget. 

A key component of the Department’s land stewardship is management of wildland fire. The 2018 budget provides $389.4 million for wildfire suppression—the 

full 10-year average of suppression expenditures. This level of funding is projected 

to be sufficient to meet fire suppression needs in an average fire season without the 

risk of needing emergency transfers from other departmental accounts. 

AMERICA’S WATERS

The 2018 budget also continues efforts to address the challenges of water 

availability and drought conditions. 

The Department, primarily through the Bureau of Reclamation, works with 

states, tribes, local governments, and non-governmental organizations to pursue a 

sustainable water supply for the West by providing Federal leadership and assistance on the efficient use of water. The 2018 budget continues these efforts to address the challenges of water availability. Interior’s $1.1 billion budget request for Reclamation invests in our water and 

power infrastructure, facilitating the delivery of water to 31 million people across 

the West. It is the Nation’s largest renewable energy resource, and the Bureau of 

Reclamation plays an important role as the second largest producer of hydropower 

in the United States. 

This budget also continues to strengthen our Tribal Nations by implementing 

Indian water rights settlements, and focuses on the protection and restoration of 

aquatic and riparian environments to ensure we can continue to provide a reliable 

water supply and power to the West. 

AMERICA’S TRUST RESPONSIBILITIES

Interior maintains strong and important relationships with Native and insular 

communities, helping to promote efficient and effective governance and to support 

nation-building and self-determination. The Department provides services directly, 

or through contracts, grants or compacts, to 567 federally recognized tribes with a 

service population of nearly 2 million American Indians and Alaska Natives. The 

budget prioritizes support for programs serving the broadest service population and 

proposes reductions in initiatives that are more narrowly focused. The President’s 

budget maintains the Administration’s strong support for the principle of tribal selfdetermination, and efforts to strengthen tribal communities across Indian Country. 

The budget includes full funding for Contract Support Costs and Tribal Grant 

Support Costs that tribes incur from managing Federal Indian programs. The 2018 budget request includes $786.4 million to continue support for core 

Indian education programs, including formula funding and operation and maintenance funding for elementary and secondary schools, and support for post-secondary 

programs. The 2018 budget continues to meet Federal responsibilities outlined in 

enacted land and water rights claim settlements with Indian tribes, and includes 

$160.8 million for authorized settlements and technical and legal support involving 

tribal water rights, to maintain the Department’s ability to complete these settlement requirements within the statutory time frames. 

In recognition of the importance of the Nation’s relationship with Palau and the 

Pacific national security strategy, the budget requests $123.9 million of discretionary Department of Defense appropriations to be transferred to the Department 

of the Interior to support enactment of the 2010 Compact Review Agreement with 

Palau. 

MANAGEMENT AND REFORM

As part of the President’s March 2017, Executive Order on a Comprehensive Plan 

for Reorganizing the executive branch, the Administration launched a governmentwide effort to create a leaner, more efficient, and more responsive government. The 

Order directs agencies to begin planning to operate at the funding levels in the 2018 

budget and develop a broader Agency Reform Plan to address long-term workforce 

reductions. Interior is moving prudently with implementation and has put in place 

hiring controls to enable limited hiring, prioritizing filling field positions rather than 

12 

office positions, and limiting hires in the Washington, DC, and Denver, Colorado, 

areas. This process enables the Department to continue to fill important positions 

as work is underway to develop a comprehensive and thoughtful agency plan. The 2018 budget reduces lower priority programs $1.6 billion below 2017 and supports 59,968 full time equivalents. This represents an estimated reduction of roughly 4,000 full time equivalent staff from 2017. To accomplish this, the Department 

will rely on a combination of attrition, reassignments, and separation incentives. 

Actual attrition rates and acceptance of separation incentives will determine the 

need for further action to reduce staffing. 

Reducing the Department’s physical footprint and seeking ways to consolidate 

space and resources will continue to be management objectives going forward. 

Efforts will build on several multi-year actions to reduce Interior’s nationwide facilities footprint and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its information 

technology infrastructure and financial reporting capabilities. Ensuring the Department’s cybersecurity strength continues to be a priority. The 2018 budget maintains 

$10.0 million in the appropriated working capital fund to continue the Department’s 

remediation of its cybersecurity systems and processes. 

BUREAU HIGHLIGHTS

Bureau of Land Management—The 2018 request for the BLM is $1.1 billion, a decrease of $162.7 million below the 2017 CR level and $180.5 million below the 

2017 enacted level. The budget proposes $963.2 million for Management of Lands 

and Resources and $89.8 million for Oregon and California Grant Lands, BLM’s two 

primary operational appropriation accounts. 

The BLM request features increases in oil, gas and coal management programs reflecting national energy security priorities. The budget proposes $75.9 million for 

Oil and Gas Management to support permitting and rights-of-way processing, 

streamline leasing, and modernize practices. The budget also includes $19.0 million 

to strengthen BLM’s Coal Management program, an increase of $8.0 million from 

2017. 

To maintain the BLM’s land stewardship responsibilities, the budget includes $67.8 million for Rangeland Management and $70.7 million for the Wild Horse and 

Burro Management program. As part of a broader effort to consider all necessary 

options to manage the unsustainable growth of this program, the budget proposes 

to eliminate current appropriations language restricting the BLM’s ability to use the 

tools provided in the Wild and Free-Roaming Horse and Burro Act and enable BLM 

to manage on-range herds more effectively and humanely. The budget also proposes 

$47.2 million for Recreation Resources Management and $27.7 million to continue 

support for the National Conservation Land areas. 

The budget includes $89.8 million for the Oregon and California Grant Lands programs. At this level, the budget prioritizes offering the allowable sale quantity in 

new resource management plans. 

Mineral development on Federal lands is important to the national economy. 

However, a long-standing challenge is to provide a fair return to taxpayers for the 

use of these natural resources without discouraging development. To meet this challenge, the Department will conduct a study starting in 2017 to evaluate the production and development of hardrock minerals from Federal lands. The review will 

include an analysis of revenue recovered by other entities, including other countries, 

which permit mining on their land. The Department will also consult with other appropriate agencies, such as the Department of Agriculture. The findings will be considered as part of ongoing efforts to improve agency management and streamline 

permitting related to natural resources produced from Federal lands. 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management—The 2018 President’s budget for 

BOEM is $171.0 million, slightly above the 2017 CR level, including $114.2 million 

in current appropriations and $56.8 million in offsetting collections from rental 

receipts and cost recoveries. The budget maintains a level program by increasing appropriated funding by $35.5 million to address a commensurate shortfall in estimated offsetting rental receipts and cost recoveries. The 2018 budget features a 

$10.2 million increase to support the development of a new Five-Year Plan for the 

OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program. 

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement—The 2018 President’s 

budget request for BSEE is $204.9 million, slightly above the 2017 CR level, including $112.0 million in current appropriations and $92.9 million in offsetting collections from rental receipts, cost recoveries, and inspection fees. The budget maintains 

a strong offshore safety and environmental enforcement program by increasing appropriations and estimated inspection fee revenue to address anticipated shortfalls 

in offsetting rental receipts and other cost recoveries. The 2018 budget includes a 

13 

$1.2 million increase for technical training to expand staff development efforts for 

BSEE’s inspector, engineer, and geoscientist workforce, and $12.7 million for oil 

spill research, a reduction of $2.2 million from 2017. 

Bureau of Reclamation—The 2018 budget request for the Bureau of Reclama- tion is $1.1 billion in discretionary appropriations. This figure reflects a decrease of 

13.1 percent from the 2017 CR level. Of the total, $960 million is for the Water and 

Related Resources account, Reclamation’s largest account; $59 million is for the 

Policy and Administration account; $37 million is for the California Bay Delta 

Restoration account; and $41.4 million is for the Central Valley Project Restoration 

Fund. 

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement—The 2018 budget request for OSMRE is $129.4 million in current appropriations, $110.7 million below 

the 2017 CR level. The majority of this reduction reflects the elimination of $89.9 

million for Abandoned Mine Lands Economic Development Grants. Although beneficial, funding for this pilot program overlaps with existing mandatory Abandoned 

Mine Lands grants which continue without any proposed changes. The budget includes $60.2 million for state and tribal regulatory grants, a level consistent with 

anticipated state and tribal program obligations. 

U.S. Geological Survey—The 2018 budget request for the USGS is $922.2 million, $137.8 million below the 2017 CR level. The budget includes $70.9 million 

for satellite operations, which supports continued development of the Landsat 9 

ground systems, supporting a launch date in early Fiscal Year 2021 to replace the 

Landsat 7 satellite, which is reaching the end of its usable life. 

The request emphasizes energy and mineral development, supporting essential 

hazards monitoring, and providing scientific information to support decision making 

by resource managers and policy makers. The budget maintains support for nationwide networks of more than 8,000 streamgages and nearly 3,000 earthquake sensors. The request provides $17.3 million for nationwide efforts to counter invasive 

species and wildlife diseases such as white-nose syndrome and highly pathogenic 

avian influenza, and the budget maintains $17.3 million for 40 cooperative research 

units that support state-specific needs, particularly related to fish and game species. 

It continues acquisition of modern elevation data for Alaska and the 3-year cycle 

of topographic map updates for the contiguous United States. 

The 2018 request proposes to realign the 2018 budget structure to create a new 

Land Resources activity to reflect focused science related to on-the-ground land 

management and adaptive management challenges. As part of this request, the 

budget proposes $17.4 million for the National and Regional Climate Adaptation 

Science Centers, reflecting the proposed consolidation of eight regional centers to 

four. 

Fish and Wildlife Service—The 2018 President’s budget requests $1.3 billion for FWS programs, a decrease of $202.9 million from the 2017 CR level. The budget 

includes $1.2 billion for FWS operations, a decrease of $85.3 million below 2017. 

Within Resource Management, the budget prioritizes funding to maintain operations 

and maintenance for the National Wildlife Refuge System ($470.1 million) and the 

National Fish Hatchery System ($51.9 million). Funding will continue operations for 

all refuge areas and hatchery sites. The budget includes $225.2 million for Ecological Services programs with an emphasis on species recovery and planning consultation activities. Consistent with 

efforts to focus adaptive management related science within the USGS, the request 

proposes to eliminate funding for Science Support at $17.0 million and Landscape 

Conservation Cooperatives at $13.0 million. The budget is $118.6 million for FWS conservation grants including $52.8 million for State and Tribal Wildlife Grants, $33.6 million for the North American Wetlands 

Conservation Fund, $19.3 million for the Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund, $9.0 million for the Multinational Species Conservation Fund, and $3.9 

million for Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation. Consistent with decreases in 

other land acquisition programs across the Department, the request proposes to 

eliminate funding for Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund land 

acquisition grants. 

National Park Service—The 2018 President’s budget request for NPS is $2.6 billion, $296.6 million below the 2017 CR level. 

The budget proposes $2.2 billion for NPS operations. Within this account, funding 

is prioritized for the care and maintenance of existing resources. The budget includes $99.3 million for repair and rehabilitation projects, which addresses the deferred maintenance backlog, as well as $112.7 million for cyclic maintenance 

projects, which ensures maintenance is conducted in a timely fashion to avoid increasing the deferred maintenance backlog. 

14 

The budget proposes $226.5 million for Construction projects, an increase of $34.0 

million to help address deferred maintenance and allow for targeted and measurable 

upgrades to a number of the NPS’s highest priority assets. Within this request is 

$18.2 million for phase one construction requirements for the Arlington Memorial 

Bridge. Also included in the request is $15.0 million in appropriated funds for the 

Centennial Challenge program to provide the Federal match to leverage partner donations for signature projects and programs. An additional $15.0 million from fee 

revenue is also anticipated for 2018 to support Centennial projects. The request provides $37.0 million for National Recreation and Preservation programs to support local community efforts to preserve natural and cultural resources. 

The budget assumes savings of $18.8 million from the proposed elimination of payments to National Heritage Areas. The 2018 budget includes $51.1 million for the 

Historic Preservation Fund core grants-in-aid programs. The budget proposes to 

shift support for Land and Water Conservation Fund State Grants from appropriated to mandatory funding comparable to an estimated $90 million the program 

will receive from oil and gas activities from certain Gulf of Mexico offshore leases. 

Indian Affairs—The 2018 President’s budget request for Indian Affairs is $2.5 billion, $303.3 million below the 2017 CR level. Funding for Operation of Indian 

Programs totals $2.1 billion, a decrease of $181.1 million below 2017. In 2018, priority is given to programs serving the broadest audience rather than initiatives or 

pilots. Within this total is $786.4 million for Bureau of Indian Education programs 

where funding focuses on direct school operations and full funding for Tribal Grant 

Support Costs. The main operating account also includes $349.3 million for Public 

Safety and Justice programs and $277.5 million for Trust Services programs, which 

includes the elimination of the Tribal Climate Resilience program. The budget fully funds Contract Support Costs at $241.6 million, $35.4 million 

below 2017, which will cover all anticipated requirements at the requested program 

funding level. The budget requests $143.3 million for Construction programs. The 

2018 budget prioritizes dams, irrigation projects, and irrigation systems which deliver water to aid economic development as well as protect lives, resources, and 

property. The budget prioritizes funding within education construction for operations and maintenance of existing facilities. The budget also includes $14.0 million 

to provide payments to ongoing Indian Land and Water settlements and $6.7 million 

for the Indian Guaranteed Loan Program. 

Departmental Offices 

Office of the Secretary—The 2018 budget request for Departmental Operations is $123.9 million, $596.5 million below the 2017 CR. The majority of this reduction is 

$451.1 million associated with the shift of the Payments in Lieu of Taxes program 

which was appropriated within Departmental Operations in 2017. In 2018, the 

budget proposes to fund PILT as discretionary funding within Department-wide 

Programs. The budget also reflects the proposed transfer of $140.3 million associated with the Office of Natural Resources Revenue to a new appropriation within 

Department-wide Programs. The proposed transfer of ONRR funding will increase 

transparency in the budget for the Department’s energy revenue programs. The 

2018 request for remaining Office of Secretary programs reflects a reduction of $4.0 

million from central program management activities across the Office of the 

Secretary organization. Of this, $2.6 million is associated with reductions to the 

Office of Valuation Services consistent with the proposed Department-wide decrease 

for new land acquisition. 

Office of Insular Affairs—The 2018 OIA budget request is $84.3 million, $19.0 

million below the 2017 CR. In addition, the majority of OIA’s budget proposal reflects a request to fully fund the renegotiated Compact with Palau by transferring 

$123.9 million from the Department of Defense, rather than $13.1 million in extended incremental annual payments. The Compact is an important element of the 

Pacific national security strategy. 

Office of the Solicitor—The 2018 budget proposes $65.7 million for the Office of 

the Solicitor, the same as the 2017 CR level, to provide legal counsel, administer 

the Department’s ethics program, and help resolve legal issues among bureaus and 

offices as they fulfill their duties. 

Office of Inspector General—The 2018 budget proposes $50.0 million for the Office 

of Inspector General, the same as the 2017 CR level, to continue support for audit 

and investigations across the Department. 

Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians—The 2018 budget requests 

$119.4 million for OST, $19.4 million below the 2017 CR level. The budget proposes 

a $3.7 million reduction below 2017 in Field Operations reflecting prioritization of 

services to continue operations at the beneficiary call center. A reduction of $3.1 

15 

million is proposed within Historical Trust Accounting in expectation of reduced 

requirements. Smaller additional reductions are taken across the organization. 

Department-wide Programs 

Payments in Lieu of Taxes—The 2018 budget proposes $396.9 million in discre- tionary funding for PILT, a decrease of $54.3 million from the comparable 2017 CR 

level of $451.1 million appropriated in Departmental Operations in 2016. This is a 

reduction of 12 percent, commensurate with the Department of the Interior’s overall 

reduction from 2017 CR budget levels. 

Office of Natural Resources Revenue—The 2018 budget request includes $137.8 million for ONRR’s receipts management programs, a decrease of $2.5 million below 

the comparable 2017 CR level of $140.3 million. The 2018 budget request proposes 

to transfer ONRR’s receipts management program from the Office of the Secretary’s 

Departmental Operations account to a separate appropriation within Departmentwide Programs to increase transparency of the program. The request includes $3.5 

million for anticipated contract cost increases for the Minerals Revenue Management Support System. 

Central Hazardous Materials Fund—The 2018 budget requests $2.0 million for the Central Hazardous Materials Fund, $8.0 million below the 2017 CR. The budget 

request funds program management and legal staff. The program will fund the 

highest priority remediation projects based on the availability of recoveries and 

focus resources on remediation projects with potentially responsible parties. 

Wildland Fire Management—The 2018 budget request for the Wildland Fire Management Program is $873.5 million. The total request represents a decrease of 

$118.3 million from the 2017 CR level for the Wildland Fire Management and 

FLAME accounts. At this level the request provides $389.4 million for Suppression 

Operations to fully fund the 10-year average. To streamline financial management 

processes and improve the efficiency in allocating suppression funding, the Department proposes to fund all suppression activities in the Wildland Fire Management 

account and eliminate the separate FLAME Wildfire Suppression Reserve Fund 

account once all current balances in the FLAME account are drawn down. The request also includes $322.2 million for Preparedness activities, essentially level with 

2017, and $149.5 million for Fuels Management, $20.2 million below 2017. 

Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration—The 2018 request for 

NRDAR is $4.6 million, a decrease of $3.2 million below the 2017 CR level. The 

budget includes funding needed for ongoing damage assessments and restoration 

activities. 

Working Capital Fund—The 2018 budget proposes $59.5 million for the appropriated portion of the Department’s Working Capital Fund, a decrease of 

$7.5 million from the 2017 CR level. The reduction is from funds requested for the 

Financial and Business Management System which is proposed at $46.3 million. 

The request maintains $10.0 million for Department-wide Cybersecurity needs. 

LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS

Bureau of Reclamation Title Transfer—The Administration is developing a proposal to better facilitate title transfer of Reclamation facilities to non-Federal entities when such transfers are beneficial to all parties. This proposal will allow local 

water managers to make their own decisions to improve water management at the 

local level, while allowing Reclamation to focus management efforts on projects with 

a greater Federal nexus. 

Cancel Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act Account Balances—The 

budget proposes legislation to cancel $230.0 million in unobligated balances from 

the Southern Nevada Public Land Management Act program over a 3-year period. 

This would redirect a portion of the program balances to the Treasury for broader 

taxpayer use. The SNPLMA program is not proposed for elimination and viable conservation efforts will continue to be supported. 

Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act Payments—The Administration proposes to repeal revenue sharing payments to four coastal states—Alabama, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Texas—and their local governments, which are currently set to expand substantially starting in 2018. This proposal will ensure the sale of public resources from Federal waters owned by all Americans, benefits all Americans. 

Mandatory funding for LWCF State Grants would continue, but this legislative proposal would replace GOMESA’s complicated allocation formula with a fixed annual 

appropriation of a comparable dollar amount, starting at $90.0 million in 2018 and 

increasing to $125.0 million in 2022 and remaining at $125.0 million each year 

thereafter. 

16 

Land and Water Conservation Fund—The LWCF receipts authorization expires at 

the end of Fiscal Year 2018 and the Administration will review options for reauthorization, including consideration of a range of conservation-related investments 

that could be funded through the LWCF. 

Oil and Gas Leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—The Administration 

will propose legislation to allow oil and gas leasing in the coastal plain of the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge also known as the ‘‘1002 area.’’ The budget assumes lease 

sales would begin in 2022 or 2023, allowing adequate time for the completion of appropriate environmental reviews and an updated assessment of the state of the oil 

and gas market and lease bidding potential prior to scheduling specific lease sales. 

An additional lease sale or sales would be held in 2026 or 2027. Lease sales in the 

ANWR are estimated to generate $3.5 billion in bonus bids to be split between the 

U.S. Treasury and the state of Alaska. The proposal is estimated to generate a net 

of $1.8 billion in new revenue to the Treasury over 10 years. 

Reauthorize the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act—The budget assumes 

permanent reauthorization of FLTFA’s land sale authority, allowing Interior to dispose of lands with low conservation value and use the proceeds to acquire lands 

with higher conservation values, consistent with the original FLTFA mandate. 

Recreation Fee Program—The budget proposes to permanently reauthorize the 

Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, which currently expires in September 

2018. As a precaution, appropriations language is also submitted with the budget 

proposing a 1-year extension through September 2019. The revenues collected by 

Interior from these recreation fees—nearly $290 million annually—are an important 

source of funding for land management operations, maintenance, and improvements 

to recreation facilities on public lands. 

Termination of EPAct Geothermal Payments to Counties—The budget proposes to 

restore Federal geothermal leasing revenue allocations to the historical formula of 

50 percent to the states and 50 percent to the U.S. Treasury by repealing Section 

224(b) of the Energy Policy Act of 2005. 

OFFSETTING COLLECTIONS AND FEES

Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement Offshore Inspection Fees—The 

budget includes appropriations language to amend the current fee structure for 

BSEE inspection fees to better align with BSEE’s inspection practices and program 

costs. The language structures fees charged for the inspection of offshore facilities 

to distinguish between those ‘‘without processing equipment’’ or ‘‘with processing 

equipment’’ and incorporate consideration of the number of wells and water depth. 

These changes to the fee structure are estimated to generate $65.0 million in 2018. 

National Wildlife Refuge Damage Cost Recovery—The budget includes appropriations language to authorize the FWS to retain recoveries from responsible parties 

to restore or replace damages they cause. This is similar to authorities provided to 

the NPS for damages to national parks and monuments. 

CONCLUSION

Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the President’s 2018 budget request 

for the Department of the Interior. 

In closing, this is a responsible budget to help balance the Federal budget by 

2027. It maintains core functions important to the American people, including providing the public the unique American experience that comes from visiting our 

parks, refuges, and public lands. It reflects tough choices to prioritize and focus limited resources where investments have the most impact, but continues to deliver 

access and services which are critical to Americans. I thank you again for your continued support of the Department’s mission. I look forward to answering questions 

about this budget. This concludes my written statement. 

17 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO THE HON. RYAN ZINKE, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Questions Submitted by Rep. McClintock 

Question 1. There are some 150 conservation corps across the Nation. These corps 

have a long tradition of stewardship of our public lands and waters. By partnering 

with corps, land managers leverage their budgets with cost-effective projects that reduce the multi-billion-dollar maintenance backlog, remediate wildfires, curb the 

spread of invasive species, improve access to public lands, build and maintain trails, 

and ensure good fish and wildlife habitat for enthusiasts, hunters, and anglers. 

—Are you aware of any impediments that have limited growth of this program? 

Answer. Interior bureaus have a long history of collaborating with a wide variety 

of volunteer groups, education partners and youth organizations including conservation corps. These partnerships assist land managers in maintaining resources in a 

cost effective manner while providing participants with developmental jobs skills 

training and education. Not all of the work done by land management agencies can 

be done by conservation corps, but we are not aware of any impediments to using 

these partnerships, to the extent that our resources permit, where it is appropriate 

to do so. 

Question 2. After years of talking and concerted efforts by telecommunications companies and concessioners, too many front country areas of our national parks and 

too many key road corridors in our parks still offer no cellular or WiFi connectivity. 

There are safety issues and lost opportunities to boost park experiences with helpful 

visitor information. 

—Does the FY 2018 budget envision additional WiFi connectivity requests for 

proposals? 

—Will this be one of your priorities as Secretary? 

Answer. Yes, one of my top priorities is to expand recreational access to public 

lands and waters, and connectivity is one way to achieve this goal. As I have previously remarked, in parks, we’re the old generation; the young generation appreciates connectivity and we should embrace that to make sure the park experience 

going down a trail is available on your phone. We will look to build public-private 

partnerships to make our outdoor recreation experience even better. 

Question 3. Across the National Park System stays are down. RV overnights in 

national park campgrounds are down more than 2 million, or almost 50 percent, at 

a time when the RV market is booming. Recently while speaking to the Recreational 

Vehicle Industry Association you stated, ‘‘As the secretary, I don’t want to be in the 

business of running campgrounds.’’ 

—Does the FY 2018 budget include a major push to improve and transfer 

campground operations? 

Answer. This budget is focused on leveraging public-private partnerships in order 

to improve visitor experiences on public lands and waters, while also helping to reduce the Department’s maintenance backlog. The Park Service has a long history 

of working with our partners and concessioners to create positive experiences for 

visitors. We look to improve and build upon that cooperation. 

Question 4. Mr. Secretary, you have previously stated that one of your top priorities 

as Secretary was to increase employee morale and ensure that employees on the front 

lines have the right tools, resources, and flexibility to make the decisions to get their 

jobs done. According to the 2016 Best Places to Work in the Federal Government 

rankings compiled by the Partnership for Public Service and based on OPM’s annual 

Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, employee engagement at DOI has been improving since 2015. However, several of the agency’s components continue to rank low in 

their employee engagement, including the Bureaus of Land Management, Indian 

Affairs and the Park Service. 

—What are you doing to hold leadership across the Department accountable for 

engaging employees? How can this Committee help? 

Answer. As I said at the hearing, we are looking at how to better leverage and 

align bureau resources in the field, cut duplication, and push assets and personnel 

where they should be. Accountability from managers, for employee actions and program performance, will be an important component as we move forward. We are reviewing a number of comments on reform that we have received from the public and 

we expect to include some proposals with the FY 2019 budget request. 

18 

Question 5. Within the Department of the Interior, agencies like the National Park 

Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs and Fish and Wildlife Service frequently interact 

with citizens in their day-to-day operations. As part of their 2015 cross-agency 

priority (CAP) goals, agencies should be working to ensure the delivery of smarter, 

better and faster service to their citizens. 

—What steps are Department and agency leaders taking to meet their customer 

service CAP goals? 

—What is the agency doing to collect feedback from customers to improve its 

service to citizens? 

—How is the Department incorporating citizens’ experience into its reform plan 

due to OMB on June 30? 

Answer. I have said before that it is my belief that more meaningful involvement 

and cooperation with communities closest to our public lands will result in innovative ideas and practices as well as better stewardship of the land and its resources. 

We are in the process of updating the Department’s strategic plan and, as part of 

this process, are reviewing goals, objectives, and key performance indicators to best 

reflect our team’s priorities and main activities as we look forward to the next 5 

years. The Department’s Annual Performance Plan and Report for FY 2017– 

FY 2018 was released on May 26, 2017, www.doi.gov/bpp, and describes in some detail the agency’s priority goals. 

Question 6. The government reorganization Executive Order and subsequent OMB 

guidance attempt to align government reform efforts with the Federal budget and 

performance planning processes. In response, agencies are developing high-level 

reform and workforce reduction plans outlining proposals to reduce duplication, 

increase efficiency and maximize employee performance. 

—What are you doing as Secretary to lead reform and reshaping efforts within the 

Department? 

—What actions will the Department take to reduce duplication in its operations, 

increase the effectiveness and efficiency of its services and maximize the performance of its staff? 

Answer. As I said at the hearing, we are looking at how to better leverage and 

align bureau resources in the field, cut duplication, and push assets and personnel 

where they should be. We are reviewing a number of comments on reform that we 

have received from the public and we expect to include some proposals with the 

FY 2019 budget request. 

Question 7. Just 14 percent of the DOI workforce falls under age 34, but 48 percent 

of the workforce is over 50. Filling positions in remote locations and retaining 

employees are difficult issues for the Department and, in particular, for organizations 

like the National Park Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and Bureau of Land 

Management. 

—What barriers does the Department face in reaching and utilizing entry-level 

talent to fill these key positions? 

—What steps is the Department taking to better attract, recruit, and retain the 

next generation of public servants to solve the Department’s complex challenges? 

Answer. Recent Government Accountability Office studies have reported on the 

challenges that the Department and its bureaus have faced in recruiting and retaining staff. It is important that we have an effective workforce, particularly in those 

positions doing the work on the ground. As part of my review of the Department’s 

organization, we are looking at how to better leverage and align bureau resources 

in the field, cut duplication, and allocate assets and personnel more effectively. 

Question 8. Increasing Public Private Partnerships is one of the many ways to help 

reduce the National Park Service maintenance backlog. 

—Which types of P3s do you believe will be most effective in addressing the 

backlog while also upholding the guiding principles of the NPS? 

Answer. In July, I hosted a roundtable meeting focused on expanding publicprivate partnerships on America’s public lands in order to make the outdoor 

recreation experience even better. Public-private partnerships can help address the 

backlog by upgrading visitor accommodations, including RV hookups and campgrounds, expanding visitor services, including boat ramps and cafeterias, to name 

a few. 

Question 9. Historic leasing is an example of a public-private partnership that 

could help alleviate the deferred maintenance backlog. 

19 

—What are your recommendations for how to expand this innovative approach? 

Answer. The Department is currently reviewing opportunities to lease underutilized Federal properties, both historic and non-historic, as one approach to addressing the maintenance backlog. Public-private partnerships will help reduce the 

Department’s maintenance backlog, while improving the visitor experience on public 

lands and waters. 

Question 10. What are the goals that the National Park Service hoped to achieve 

with the Capital investment strategy? 

—Does the focus on the high-priority projects come at the expense of lower-priority 

projects? 

Answer. The President’s budget proposes to balance the Federal Government’s 

budget by 2027, in order to do this priorities must be identified. The 2018 budget 

prioritizes taking care of the assets we currently own. The majority of ongoing operational requirements cannot be deferred and maintenance needs have been 

postponed for too long. 

Questions Submitted by Rep. Thompson 

Question 1. Last year, EPA finalized a rule on Privately Owned Treatment Works 

(POTWs). Since then, I’ve weighed in with the agency to express great concern over 

its impact on treatment facilities in Pennsylvania that appear to be inadvertently 

caught up in the regulation. Although the rule was intended for unconventional production, I’ve heard a lot of concern that water derived from conventional production 

will also be subject to the regulation due to a lack of definitions and the individual 

basins cited in the rule. 

What is EPA doing to correct this problem and ensure that conventionally derived 

wastewater is not subject to the POTW rule? 

Answer. Because this matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Environmental 

Protection Agency and not the Department of the Interior, we would defer to the 

EPA for a response to this question. 

Question 2. I would like to request an update on the status of the remedial action 

at the Folcroft Landfill, a property which was purchased by the U.S. Department of 

the Interior in 1980 and incorporated into the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge 

under legislative authority provided by Congress. In 2001, the property was added 

to the National Priorities List (NPL). Congress initially appropriated $11 million for 

the development of the Refuge, and then increased funding to $19.5 million for expansion, including acquisition of the Folcroft Landfill (P.L. 96–315). The legislative 

history of the Refuge indicates that Congress intended a portion of the funds to be 

directed toward investigation and on-going maintenance of the Folcroft Landfill (P.L. 

99–191). Guidance from the EPA requires the Agency to consider future land use in 

the selection of a remedy. What communication has the Department of the Interior 

had with the EPA regarding the selection of a remedy for the Folcroft Landfill? What 

remedies are under consideration? Are the remedies under consideration by EPA consistent with the future use of the property outlined in the John Heinz National 

Wildlife Refuge’s 2012 Comprehensive Conservation Plan? 

Question 3. What is the timeline for implementation of a remedy? What role will 

the Department of the Interior play in the remediation effort? Can you provide an 

estimate of the cost of the remediation? What will be the contribution from the 

Department of the Interior and other Federal agencies that have been identified as 

potentially responsible parties? Are any of the $19.5 million appropriated by 

Congress still available to fund this effort, or will additional appropriations be 

necessary? 

Question 4. What measures must be put in place by the Department of the Interior 

to maintain the property once remediation efforts have been completed? 

Answer to Questions 2–4. During the 1980s and 1990s, the EPA and FWS undertook several investigations of contamination within the Folcroft Landfill and issued 

several reports of their findings. 

EPA entered into an Administrative Settlement with a subset of private potentially responsible parties, known as the Folcroft Landfill Steering Committee (PRP 

Group), to perform a Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS), pursuant to 

the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA). The RI/FS work is being conducted by the PRP Group with EPA oversight and in coordination with the FWS. The Draft RI report, dated May 2017, was 

20 

submitted to EPA and FWS for review. Comments are currently being compiled and 

will be forwarded to the PRP Group for inclusion in the final document. Once the 

RI is completed, the FS, which discusses and evaluates potential remedies for the 

Folcroft Landfill, will be performed and a FS Report will be produced for the agencies’ review and comment. It is anticipated the draft FS Report will be submitted 

for review in 2019 or 2020. Once alternatives have been evaluated, EPA will select 

a preferred remedy for the site in a Proposed Plan, which will be made available 

for public review and comment. Upon receipt of public input, EPA will publish a 

selected remedy in a Record of Decision. The FS Report and Proposed Plan should 

have information regarding estimated costs for the various remedy alternatives. 

An integral part of the CERCLA process is the identification of ‘‘legally applicable 

or relevant and appropriate standard(s), requirement(s), criteria, or limitation(s)’’ 

(ARARs) pursuant to the Section 121(d). In May 2017, FWS provided EPA and the 

PRP Group with ARARs for the Folcroft Landfill that include the Refuge’s 2012 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) and other relevant documents to be considered with respect to future use of the Refuge. FWS has emphasized that any response action selected for the site must comply with these requirements in order 

to be compatible with the intended purpose and future use of the Refuge. In addition, the Department issued an Environmental Compliance Memorandum applicable 

to CERCLA response actions on Department-managed lands; it states that the 

Department must concur with a remedy that another agency selects for Department-managed land, in order to grant access for implementation of that remedy. 

This should ensure that FWS and the Refuge have an adequate voice in determining 

the remedy for the Folcroft Landfill, including ensuring that future land uses are 

appropriately considered. 

Once a remedy has been selected for the Folcroft Landfill, EPA, FWS, the PRP 

Group, and any other appropriate parties, will negotiate the terms of funding and 

implementing the remedy. FWS does not immediately have a response for the inquiry regarding the funds appropriated from Congress in 1972 (P.L. 92–327), 1976 

(P.L. 94–548), and 1980 (P.L. 96–315), ‘‘for acquisition of the Tinicum National 

Environmental Center, for construction of environmental educational center facilities, and for other development projects on the Center,’’ (P.L. 96–315 July 25, 1980) 

but a search has commenced for records from that time period to confirm the expenditures for these expressed purposes. 

Once a remedy has been implemented, FWS will amend its CCP to include any 

necessary restrictions on activities (such as actions that could disturb the integrity 

of the remedy), so that the proper institutional or engineering controls are 

memorialized. 

Questions Submitted by Rep. LaMalfa 

Question 1. As we all know, the Endangered Species Act is in need of significant 

reforms, with the success rate of species’ moving from endangered to fully recovered 

around 1–3 percent. In my district, the Service’s own scientists recommended delisting the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle, yet it remains listed today and imposes major costs to flood protection and other projects. 

Listing of other species, like the Sierra Nevada Yellow-legged Frog, has resulted 

in such low-impact events as a trail run being canceled. Federal agencies actually 

believed humans running on existing trails could negatively impact listed frogs. 

What is the Fish and Wildlife Service doing to review the listing status for threatened 

or endangered species which have been recommended for de-listing, like the Valley 

Elderberry Longhorn Beetle? 

Answer. I agree that ESA is in need of reforms and modernization so it can operate in a more effective manner, which is why the Department has testified before 

this Committee in support of certain bills proposed by your colleagues. The FWS delists and down-lists species when their status changes and resources are available. 

Getting species off the list due to recovery is a priority, and allows us to focus our 

attention and resources on species that need attention. The pace at which de-listings 

and down-listings occur is dependent on resources devoted to on-the-ground recovery 

implementation and the progress toward recovery of individual species, as well as 

on the complexity of status reviews and rulemakings. A total of $225.2 million is 

proposed in the President’s FY 2018 budget request to implement the ESA and related programs under FWS’s Ecological Services program, of which $79.6 million is 

for recovery of species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. At these 

funding levels, the FWS will continue to address approximately 50 species that have 

been identified for potential de-listing or down-listing under the ESA based upon 

21 

recent 5-year status reviews. FWS plans on making final determinations for six 

species currently proposed for de-listing in FY 2018. 

Question 2. Last year, we saw the Fish & Wildlife Service and National Marine 

Fisheries Service issue conflicting requirements for the operation of Shasta Dam, one 

demanding higher water releases, the other demanding lower releases. These proposals would have dramatically reduced water supplies for homes and farms. 

Could centralizing responsibility for ESA-listed species with the Fish & Wildlife 

Service prevent conflicting directives like these? For example, having the Fish & 

Wildlife Service subsume the responsibilities of the National Marine Fisheries 

Service? 

Answer. This Administration is examining all options to better align agency resources in the field both within Interior and across the Federal Government in order 

to reduce administrative duplication and better leverage taxpayer dollars. This review includes consolidating Interior bureaus with other Federal agencies. The 

Administration is pursuing near- and long-term strategies to achieve a leaner, and 

more accountable and efficient government. 

Questions Submitted by Rep. Hice 

Question 1. As you are aware, President Trump has asked for an all-hands-on-deck 

approach to offshore research and development, and you yourself signed an order on 

May 1, 2017 directing Interior to look at the entire Gulf of Mexico region for potential 

drilling sites. However, A.M. Kurta, acting Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel 

and Readiness, sent a letter to Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), on April 26, 2017, stating 

his belief that military training and related exercises in the eastern Gulf necessitate 

a continuation of Congress’ ban on drilling in the area (see Letter on page 104). 

• Eastern Gulf Of Mexico—Shared Use with DoD 

—As a Navy SEAL Commander, you have a strong understanding of the need 

for military preparedness. How do you reconcile the mission of your Department to promote responsible Federal offshore development with the DoD’s 

mission of military preparedness? Can the two co-exist if the moratorium is 

lifted? 

Answer. Yes, oil and natural gas exploration and development can co-exist safely 

on the OCS, including in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico. This is made evident by the 

fact that in the Central Gulf of Mexico Planning Area (CPA) there are 822 active 

leases, 36 percent of all leases in the CPA reside within DoD operations or warning 

areas. The CPA contains the highest amount of oil and gas production on the OCS. 

Another example is that out of the 23 total platforms on the Pacific OCS, 11 reside 

within a DoD equity area. The Department and the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management work closely with the DoD to identify those areas that industry may 

gain access to via the offshore oil and gas leasing process and to develop lease terms 

and conditions that protect DoD interests. 

—In the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, military preparedness operations coincide with 

potential oil and gas development. This requires constant, open communication and an understanding and respect for the mission of both Departments 

occupying the land. How will you coordinate with the DoD to ensure mutual, 

responsible management of the Eastern Gulf of Mexico? 

Answer. As with all offshore leasing programs and initiatives, BOEM works 

closely with DoD under a Memorandum of Agreement that facilitates the coordination of mutual concerns on the Outer Continental Shelf. DoD is consulted early in 

the leasing program development process and collaboration is maintained all the 

way through the individual lease sale execution. 

•The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s (BOEM) ‘‘National Oil and Gas 

Leasing Program’’ (previously known as the 5-Year Plan) 

—You’ve called a new 5-year plan, now known as a ‘‘National Oil and Gas 

Leasing Program.’’ How will the new plan differ from the previously approved 

plan? 

Answer. The new plan is being developed under the same process prescribed by 

the OCS Lands Act as all other recent 5-year programs. As we are early in the new 

program development it is not possible to say if, or how, the new program may differ 

from the current approved program. 

22 

• Atlantic 

—In order to responsibly manage our Nation’s natural resources, we must first 

account for what we have. Please explain the importance of conducting geological and geophysical research in our offshore areas, and how we can use 

this information to make informed decisions regarding resource management. 

Answer. The main objective of the acquisition and analysis of geological and geophysical data is the development of maps and other information that can guide and 

inform our work on the OCS. This is done by incorporating the data acquired 

through G&G surveys and analyzing technical information, which develops a basic 

knowledge of the geologic history of an area and its effects on hydrocarbon or 

strategic/critical minerals generation, distribution, and accumulation within the 

planning area. G&G surveys are not used exclusively for oil and gas exploration. 

Seismic surveys, which include geologic coring, are also helpful in identifying sand 

used for restoration of our Nation’s beaches and barrier islands following severe 

weather events and for protecting coasts and wetlands from erosion. Recent examples of BOEM’s sand restoration projects include New Jersey, where Long Beach 

Island has been restored in response to erosion caused by Hurricane Sandy and 

Louisiana, where 1,100 acres of marsh, dune, and beach habitat at Whiskey Island 

have been reconstructed. Seismic and geologic coring surveys also provide information that is vital to the siting and development of offshore renewable energy facilities. G&G surveys also help to advance fundamental scientific knowledge and are 

currently conducted in the Gulf of Mexico and in countries around the world. 

Questions Submitted by Rep. Grijalva 

Sacred Sites: 

Question 1. Mr. Secretary, without thoughtful review, land management decisions 

relating to mining and energy development have the potential to degrade and 

desecrate sacred sites, areas, and landscapes. How will your approach to energy development on public lands comply with the Federal Government’s legal and moral 

obligation to protect and preserve sacred places and Native Peoples’ religious cultural 

rights and practices? 

Answer. I strongly believe the Department can responsibly develop energy resources while working in coordination with tribes on a government-to-government 

basis. I am committed to working with tribes to ensure meaningful consultation on 

land management decisions occurs, not only with the Bureau of Land Management, 

but also with other cooperating bureaus that would have an impact on tribes. 

Tribal Climate Resilience: 

Question 2. Are American Indian and Native Alaskan communities facing profound challenges to their culture, economies, and livelihoods because of climate 

change? 

Answer. The Department is working to support tribal governments and trust land 

managers through the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Tribal Resilience Program (TRP) 

with training, data, tools and access to technical experts in order to understand the 

vulnerabilities of these communities and identify risk management strategies. 

Coastal tribes in particular face risk management challenges ranging from harmful 

algal blooms, to ocean acidification, degrading ecosystems, changes in food availability, and storm surge and disaster recovery. 

Question 3. Would you agree that the Federal Government has an essential and 

unique role in helping tribal nations prepare for and adapt to the impacts of climate 

change on their land and natural resources? 

Answer. As indicated in the response to the previous question, the Department 

fills an important role through the TRP, which coordinates with other Federal, 

tribal, and state partners to invest in information and tools needed to support managers, thus enabling tribal and trust managers to implement strategies for resilient 

communities and to encourage cooperative solutions. 

Question 4. Why does this budget eliminate the Tribal Climate Resilience program? 

Answer. The budget request made difficult choices this year. The Department’s 

budget prioritizes self-governance and self-determination, and focuses funding in 

Indian Country on core service activities, fully funding the costs for tribes to adminVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:58 Dec 14, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\115TH CONGRESS\FULL COMMITTEE\06-22-17\25970.TXT DARLEN
23 

ister programs for themselves, and maintains essential management functions for 

tribal resources, among other things. 

Question 5. The Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Tribal Climate Resilience Program was 

one of the few programs at BIA with the word ‘climate’ in its name. As of last week, 

the word ‘climate’ has been removed from the title of the BIA program. Did you direct 

your staff to not use ‘‘climate change,’’ in written memos, briefings or other written 

communication? 

Answer. No, Department staff have not been directed in this manner. As an example, climate change continues to be listed as a priority on the Department’s official 

website. 

Question 6. Did the President direct your staff to not use ‘‘climate change,’’ in 

written memos, briefings or other written communication? 

Answer. No. 

Regional Biosecurity Plan for Micronesia and Hawaii: 

Question 7. The National Invasive Species Council is located within the Department of the Interior and is responsible for coordinating the Regional Biosecurity Plan 

for Micronesia and Hawaii. Will you commit the Department of the Interior to full 

participation in implementing the Regional Biosecurity Plan? 

Answer. The Department understands the importance of biosecurity in the Pacific 

region, and we continue to support the intent and scope of the Regional Biosecurity 

Plan, which supplements ongoing activities at the Department to deal with invasive 

species. The Department is coordinating with NISC and other relevant Federal 

agencies to implement the Regional Biosecurity Plan. 

Policy and Managerial Decisions: 

Question 8. Can you point to a single significant policy or managerial decision you 

have made as Secretary that has been to the detriment of the coal, oil, and natural 

gas industries? 

Answer. As I said at my confirmation hearing, as Secretary I am committed to 

managing our Federal lands in a way that best serves those who use it, including 

for recreation, conservation, and responsible energy development. 

Coal Industry Jobs: 

Question 9. How many Americans were employed in the U.S. coal industry in 

1985? 

Question 10. How many Americans were employed in the U.S. coal industry in 

2008? 

Question 11. What factors do you believe led to the decline in U.S. coal jobs 

between 1985 and 2008? 

Question 12. According to both you and President Trump, the ‘‘war on coal’’ is now 

over. You have enacted policies and made decisions with the intent of reviving the 

U.S. coal industry. How many jobs do you expect to return to the U.S. coal industry 

by November 2020? 

Question 13. Are you confident that there will be more jobs in the U.S. coal 

industry in November 2020 than there were in November 2016? 

Answer to Questions 9–13. One of my key priorities at the Department of the 

Interior is to support the Administration’s America First Energy Plan and maintain 

our Nation’s energy dominance by advancing domestic energy production, generating revenue, and creating and sustaining jobs throughout our country. The free 

market development of our abundant coal resources is an important component of 

our overall energy mix. An all-of-the-above energy approach that includes coal has 

positive impacts on our economy and rural communities that depend on coal jobs. 

Department of the Interior Employees: 

Question 14. As a Member of the House of Representatives and now as the 

Secretary you have said that the Interior Department needs more scientists in the 

field and fewer lawyers. However your FY 2018 budget request decreases full-time 

staff for the Bureau of Land Management by 11.3 percent, the National Park Service 

by 6.4 percent, and the U.S. Geological Survey by 13.7 percent. Employees of these 

bureaus include biologists, geologists, chemists, forestry technicians, and other 

24 

scientists. Conversely, the Office of the Solicitor—an office comprised almost entirely 

of lawyers—would add three full-time positions under your proposed budget. How 

does your budget proposal comport with your statements that the Department needs 

more scientists and fewer lawyers? 

Answer. The goal is to create a more efficient government that effectively delivers 

programs of the highest importance to the public. I have tasked my team to review 

all programs across the Department to determine if there is duplication, and if so, 

how best to consolidate. This review process remains ongoing. 

Science-Based Decision Making: 

Question 15. Mr. Secretary, when you were still on this Committee, you stated in 

a 2015 hearing that with respect to the Interior Department’s decision-making 

process, ‘‘I think we need to be more science-based and less politics, and that would 

be helpful.’’ However your budget includes significant cuts to numerous scientific programs that conduct vital scientific work. Do you have any science-based evidence that 

the threats facing our Nation’s land, water, and wildlife from climate change have 

decreased to the point that these cuts are appropriate? 

15a. Do you believe that the cuts within your budget will allow decisions made by 

the Department of the Interior to be more science-based? 

Answer. As I said at the hearing, in order to reach a balanced budget the Department had to make difficult decisions. I believe it will encourage the Department and 

its bureaus to be innovative when identifying ways to better manage programs and 

increase revenues. It is also a focused budget that will allow the Department to 

maintain its assets, offer a world-class experience on public lands, promote economic 

growth, and continue to provide unbiased, multi-discipline science for use in understanding, mapping, and managing natural resources. 

Poaching and Trafficking: 

Question 16. Your proposed budget includes significant funding cuts for programs 

that fight poaching and trafficking. It reduces the Fish and Wildlife Service law enforcement and international affairs accounts, and slashes the Multinational Species 

Conservation Funds by nearly 20 percent. Do you have a plan for how to continue 

making progress in the fight against wildlife crime under these circumstances? 

Answer. The budget proposal maintains sufficient capacity to enforce wildlife 

laws; curb the poaching of some of the world’s most iconic species, such as elephants 

and rhinos, by curtailing illicit trade; ensure sustainable legal trade; and reduce demand for illegal products. 

Damage to National Wildlife Refuge Property: 

Question 17. Your budget includes a request for authority for the Fish and Wildlife 

Service to seek compensation from people who damage National Wildlife Refuge 

property. Both the Park Service and NOAA have similar authority. Why is it important for the Fish & Wildlife Service to have this authority? 

Answer. This authority is important because when Refuge System resources are 

injured or destroyed, the costs of repair and restoration falls upon the appropriated 

budget for the affected refuge, often at the expense of other refuge programs. 

Competing priorities can leave the Service’s work undone until the refuge obtains 

appropriations from Congress to address the injury. This delay may result in more 

intensive injuries, higher costs, and long-term degradation of publicly-owned Service 

resources. The public expects that refuge resources, and the broad range of activities 

they support, will be available for future generations. 

National Wildlife Refuge System: 

Question 18. Do you believe the proposed funding levels for Refuges are consistent 

with your vision of increasing access to America’s public lands, while also managing 

and expanding the Refuge System to protect and enhance America’s wildlife 

resources? 

Answer. Yes. Through the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Service continues 

the American tradition, started by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903, to protect 

fish and wildlife and their habitats and to provide recreation opportunities for 

hunting, fishing and other outdoor recreation. The proposed budget maintains a 

commitment to provide outdoor recreational opportunities in both rural and urban 

or suburban settings, as well as to support the vital role of volunteers on our 

Refuges. 

25 

Assistant Secretary for Insular Affairs: 

Question 19. When you do anticipate we will see the nomination of an Assistant 

Secretary for Insular Affairs? This is a priority for the people of the territories because it represents the equal treatment of their concerns with the Department’s other 

programs and priorities. 

Answer. The President nominated Doug Domenech to be Assistant Secretary for 

Insular Areas on June 29, 2017, and Mr. Domenech’s nomination was confirmed by 

the Senate on September 13, 2017. 

Senior Executive Service (SES): 

Question 20. According to news reports, around three dozen Senior Executive 

Service (SES) staff within the Interior Department have received notices that they 

have been reassigned and transferred into new positions within the Agency. At the 

earliest possible time that you can disclose information while respecting privacy concerns, please provide answers to the following questions: 

20a. How many SES employees have been sent letters informing them that they 

were being transferred into new positions? 

20b. How many of these employees requested those transfers, and with how many 

employees were the transfers discussed, before the letters were sent? 

20c. What are the names and current positions of the employees who have received 

these letters? What positions are they being transferred into? 

20d. Please provide copies of these letters. 

20e. Of the individuals who have already received letters, identify those that work 

in the Washington, DC metropolitan area and are being moved to positions outside 

the Washington, DC metropolitan area. 

20f. Of the individuals who have already received letters, identify those that work 

outside the Washington, DC metropolitan area and are being moved to positions inside the Washington, DC metropolitan area. 

20g. Of the individuals who have already received letters, identify those that work 

in the Washington, DC metropolitan area and are being reassigned to positions within the Washington, DC metropolitan area. 

20h. Once the complete relocation costs for each employee being relocated is known, 

including any assistance for selling an employee’s home, please provide the complete 

permanent change of station (PSC) move figures for each employee, their spouse, and 

dependents to the Committee. 

20i. Will you be sending similar letters to more SES employees in the coming 

months? 

20j. In total, how many SES employees do you expect to reassign and transfer? 

20k. As is recommended by the Office of Personnel Management, are these 

reassignments linked to individual Executive Development Plans for each employee? 

For any employee where the transfer is consistent with information contained in their 

Executive Development Plan, please provide information on how the transfer is consistent with the Plan to the Committee. 

20l. For any employee where the transfer is not consistent with information contained in their Executive Development Plan, please provide the analysis that was 

conducted or information that was reviewed in order to make the determination to 

transfer that employee. 

20m. Do you subscribe to the belief that there is a ‘‘deep state’’ operating within 

the Federal Government? 

20n. Are Interior Department SES employees a part of the ‘‘deep state’’? 

Answer. The Senior Executive Service is intended to be a corps of versatile, senior 

Departmental staff. When Congress created the SES corps, the intent was to construct a mobile cadre of Executives. Talent management and succession planning 

are crucial to the development of an effective SES corps. Managing talent within 

the SES ranks ensures the agency has qualified pool of executives who have the 

leadership and managerial expertise to occupy any number of different executive positions based on the needs of the organization. Developing the best leadership talent 

is essential, not just to support agency strategic planning, but to contribute to a 

thriving, sustained performance culture in the Federal workforce. The rotation of 

the SES corps through a variety of leadership positions has been recognized as an 

effective method of strengthening leadership and executive skills. Indeed, the 

Obama administration issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13714 on December 25, 2015 

on ‘‘Strengthening the Senior Executive Service.’’ That E.O. required agencies to 

26 

develop plans to increase the number of SES who are rotated to different assignments ‘‘to improve talent development, mission delivery, and collaboration.’’ The 

E.O. established an annual Government-wide goal, beginning in FY 2017, of rotating at least 15 percent of SES to different departments, agencies, sub-components, 

functional areas, sectors and non-Federal partners. In its 2016 guidance to implementing the SES rotations requirement, OPM identified executive reassignment and 

transfers as two options for implementing SES rotations. The SES rotations at 

Interior were consistent with the Civil Service Reform Act (which created the SES), 

E.O. 13714, and OPM guidance on managing the SES. 

Border Wall: 

Question 21. Secretary Zinke: You have indicated support for President Trump’s 

proposal to construct a wall along the southern border. Construction of such a border 

wall would split the Tohono O’odham Nation and threaten the tribe’s connection to 

its ancestral lands. How will President Trump’s border wall respect tribal 

sovereignty and self-determination? 

Answer. I defer to the Department of Homeland Security for decisions on the 

details of the wall, but I expect the Department of Homeland Security will work 

closely in consultation with the Tohono O’odham Nation as it moves forward to 

secure our borders in accordance with the President’s directives. 

Question 22. Federal agencies are required to initiate formal consultation with 

Fish and Wildlife Service if their actions ‘‘may affect’’ a listed species or designated 

critical habitat. President Trump’s border wall would affect listed species or designated critical habitat. Federal agencies are required to prepare an environmental 

impact statement on major Federal actions ‘‘significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment.’’ President Trump’s border wall constitutes a major action significantly affecting the environment. Have the Departments of Homeland Security 

and U.S. Customs and Border Protection conducted a new analysis of the proposed 

wall? 

22a. Do they intend to do so before any construction takes place? 

Answer. I cannot speak to the actions undertaken or contemplated by another 

Department outside my purview and I defer to the Department of Homeland 

Security on this question. More generally, under my leadership, Interior bureaus 

will fully comply with the President’s directives and existing law as they pertain to 

securing our borders and protecting the environment. 

Question 23. As you have noted, building a wall along the southern border is complex. Where then, would the wall go? On the Texan side of the Rio Grande? Down 

the middle of the river? Through Big Bend National Park? Through Tribal lands? 

Answer. As noted above, I defer to the Department of Homeland Security for 

decisions on the details of the wall. 

Question 24. How exactly will President Trump extract payment from Mexico to 

pay for the border wall? 

Answer. Decisions related to payments necessary to secure our border will be 

made by the President, in accordance with applicable laws. 

Question 25. Should money come from the Interior Department budget if Mexico 

refuses to pay? 

Answer. The Department of Homeland Security is the agency with responsibility 

for securing our borders. 

National Heritage Areas: 

Question 26. Last year Senator John McCain requested that the National Park 

Service undertake a ‘‘Reconnaissance Study’’ of the Yuma Quartermaster Depot to determine its suitability to tell the nationally significant story of the past, present, and 

future of the Colorado River. I support his efforts. We know that the work in the field 

has been done by the NPS Intermountain Region. Can your office provide me a status 

report on the ‘‘Reconnaissance Study’’? 

Answer. I understand that the NPS continues to make progress on the reconnaissance survey of the Yuma Quartermaster Depot, but has not yet completed it. 

Question 27. Secretary Zinke, I understand that your community of Great Falls is 

considering asking for designation as a National Heritage Area. My community in 

Arizona has had pretty good results in Yuma with the program. What are your general thoughts about the National Heritage Area program, which seeks to conserve 

27 

national and historic resources through a community-based approach, as opposed to 

a top-down approach? 

Answer. National Heritage Areas provide cultural benefits, and are an example 

of the benefits of partnerships. However, the President’s budget proposes to balance 

the Federal Government’s budget by 2027, in order to do this priorities must be 

identified. The 2018 budget prioritizes taking care of the assets we currently own. 

The majority of ongoing operational requirements cannot be deferred and maintenance needs have been postponed for too long. The National Heritage Area Program 

can be supported through partnerships and community engagement. 

Department Staffing: 

Question 28. I’m concerned about the March Executive Order to reorganize the 

executive branch and subsequent Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memo on 

reducing the Federal workforce (M–17–22) and what that could mean for Interior 

Department agencies. In the case of the National Park Service, I understand that 

staff levels have been in decline, there are now more than 1,500 vacant positions, and 

that Interior has frozen hiring for certain positions as a result of this effort. Secretary 

Zinke, for your confirmation hearing both your verbal and written testimony indicated one of your priorities is to ensure that park rangers have the resources they 

need, but this exercise threatens that priority. 

28a. What has the Department’s position been on this government reform effort in 

conversations with OMB? 

28b. Can you commit to following through on your commitment to support staff 

by ensuring that the Park Service and other Interior agencies aren’t further understaffed as a result of this exercise? 

Answer. This review process remains ongoing within the Department. I have 

tasked my team to review all programs to determine if there is duplication, and if 

so, how best to consolidate. The goal is to create a more efficient government that 

effectively delivers programs of the highest importance to the public. We anticipate 

a larger effort may be folded into the FY 2019 budget process. 

Question 29. The March Executive Order on reorganizing the Executive branch and 

subsequent OMB and DOI guidance concern me a great deal. It appears the exercise 

could be used as an excuse to further understaff the park service and other land 

agencies and cut funding for certain programs the administration may not find to 

be critical. The OMB guidance on reducing the Federal workforce (M–17–22) directs 

agencies to use the FY 2018 and FY 2019 budget processes to drive workforce reductions. However, while there may well be carefully considered opportunities for reform 

within Interior agencies, I’d like to remind you that funding levels for staff and 

specific agency programs are ultimately up to the appropriations committees. To prematurely attempt some of these reorganization efforts that would be subject to the decision of appropriators without our consultation and consent would be a poor use of 

agency resources. Can you commit to soon updating us in writing on the status of 

this exercise and commit to be in regular contact with us in regard to it? 

Answer. As I indicated in response to the previous question, this review process 

remains ongoing within the Department, and we anticipate the larger effort may be 

folded into the FY 2019 budget. 

Question 30. What is the current status of the workforce reduction exercise 

subsequent to the March Executive Order to reorganize the Executive branch and 

subsequent OMB memo on reducing the Federal workforce (M–17–22)? 

30a. Please list by agency the programs you will seek to eliminate or merge for each 

Interior agency. 

30b. Please list the staff positions you intend to eliminate for each Interior agency. 

Answer. This review process remains ongoing within the Department, and we 

hope to have outcomes to the larger effort folded into the FY 2019 budget. 

Ethics Waivers: 

Question 31. On January 28 of this year, President Trump issued Executive Order 

13770 entitled: Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Employees. Among other 

provisions, E.O. 13770 states that appointees in the Trump administration will not 

work on matters they used to lobby on, or on matters involving their former employers or clients, for a period of 2 years after they are appointed. 

31a. Are you familiar with E.O. 13770, and is it your intent for the Interior 

Department to comply with it? 

28 

31b. Assuming that Mr. Bernhardt is confirmed to be your Deputy Secretary, will 

you require him to comply with E.O. 13770—meaning he will not be permitted to 

work on any matters he was involved in as a lobbyist for 2 years? 

31c. Have you been involved in any discussions regarding the possibility that Mr. 

Bernhardt might receive a waiver from complying with the E.O.? 

31d. Would you recommend to the President that Mr. Bernhardt receive such a 

waiver? 

31e. Would you make such a waiver public? 

31f. How would such a waiver serve the public interest? 

31g. Have any such waivers been granted to anyone in the Department and if so, 

will you make those waivers public? 

31h. How is nominating Mr. Bernhardt to serve as your Deputy consistent with 

‘‘draining the swamp’’ here in Washington? 

31i. Can you assure this Committee that none of the nominees for the remaining 

Senate-confirmable jobs will turn out to be lobbyists for clients with interests before 

the Department? 

31j. Will you commit to making any waivers of E.O. 13770 granted to any employee 

of the Department of the Interior available to the public? 

Answer. Under my leadership, all Department staff have complied and will 

comply with all applicable ethics requirements and will seek the guidance of the 

Department’s Designated Agency Ethics Official when clarification is necessary. 

Interior Department Hiring Strategy: 

Question 32. Mr. Secretary, you’ve ordered a hiring freeze for any position in 

Washington, DC and Denver. Interior agencies are also subject to a freeze for any 

GS–12 and higher position, no matter the location. Your office must approve waivers 

to fill these positions and has placed a priority on positions involved in oil and gas 

development. You have repeatedly said that Interior’s energy strategy will be ‘‘all of 

the above,’’ yet you have singled out positions focused on oil and gas development 

for priority hiring. While some agencies within Interior are centered on energy development, the NPS and FWS are not, and it goes against their mission. It is concerning that you are putting a priority on oil and gas development to fill jobs within 

these agencies. Are you trying to change the mission of these two agencies with this 

new hiring strategy? 

Answer. No. With regard to the waiver process, it has been structured so that it 

should not significantly impact the Department’s ability to address necessary staffing requirements. 

Protecting Public Lands: 

Question 33. Mr. Secretary, you’ve said repeatedly that the review of national 

monuments is not about selling public land. Can you guarantee that not 1 acre of 

Federal land will be given to state or county control during your tenure as Secretary? 

33a. If you do give that land away, can you guarantee none of it will be sold to 

private interests? 

Answer. As I have previously stated on multiple occasions, I am firmly against 

the large-scale sale or transfer of Federal lands. I also support taking care of the 

land we own. In all instances, we will comply with the laws established by Congress 

for the management of our Federal lands. 

National Monuments Review: 

Question 34. Mr. Secretary, you’ve said the governor and state congressional delegation have to be consulted before you make recommendations on national monuments. So far you’ve only met with the Republican governors of Utah and Maine. 

How many governors do you plan to meet with as part of this review? 

34a. Just to look at the states affected by this monument review, have you reached 

out yet to the Democratic governors of Washington, California, Oregon, Hawaii, 

Colorado, Connecticut, Rhode Island or Montana? 

Answer. To comply with the President’s Executive Order, and provide a recommendation to the President, we have sought input from stakeholders on all levels, from governors, tribal leaders, and Members of Congress, to locals on the 

ground and county commissioners and I thank you for the time you took to provide 

29 

your written comments as well. We took all this information into consideration 

before making recommendations to the President. 

Question 35. Mr. Secretary, during your hearing before the Senate Energy and 

Natural Resources Committee you informed Senator Gardner that Canyons of the 

Ancients wasn’t ‘‘currently on our priority list.’’ 

35a. Will you share with this Committee what is on your priority review list? 

35b. If the public comment period is still underway what determines whether a 

monument is a priority for review? 

35c. What does it take for a monument to be left alone or removed from the review 

list? 

35d. How can the public trust this review process if we have just now discovered 

that there is a second list of monuments that are especially threatened by this review? 

35e. Shouldn’t the public, elected officials and other stakeholders have been aware 

of this when the comment period started? 

Answer. On May 11, 2017, the Notice of the Opportunity for Public Comment was 

published in the Federal Register, which included a list of national monuments 

under review by the Secretary in accordance with the President’s Executive Order. 

The public comment period related to the Bears Ears National Monument closed on 

May 26, 2017, and the comment period for all other National Monuments closed on 

July 10, 2017. The Secretary evaluated comments and, in certain instances, visited 

monuments as he prepared his recommendations for the President. As monuments 

were reviewed and found to require no modification, the Department removed them 

from the review and letting press and local stakeholders know the Department’s decision to keep all interested parties informed. A draft report was submitted to the 

President on August 24, 2017, and the final report was released to the public on 

December 5, 2017 and may be found at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/ 

uploads/revised_final_report.pdf. Final action and authority rests with the 

President. 

Access to Public Lands: 

Question 36. Mr. Secretary, according to the BLM, the American public does not 

have adequate access to 23 million acres of BLM-managed land, primarily because 

of land ownership. The previous administration dedicated $8 million in 2017 to improving access to these public lands by purchasing adjacent property or securing 

rights-of-way, but your budget includes no funds for this purpose. Wouldn’t you agree 

that this limits access to BLM land for American hunters, anglers, and outdoor 

enthusiasts? 

Answer. This budget supports efforts to expand access to recreational opportunities through targeted investments. Infrastructure related investments at our land 

management bureaus will address areas like trail maintenance and signage, which 

are critical to ensuring access to public lands and safety. 

The Antiquities Act: 

Question 37. Mr. Secretary, I have heard you say on numerous occasions that your 

top priority as Secretary of Interior is to ensure that the Federal Government is a 

good neighbor and steward of public resources. Recommending executive action to decrease protections for national monuments would go directly against this fundamental principle. Does the President have the legal authority to shrink or abolish 

national monuments? 

Answer. Being a good neighbor remains one of the Department’s top priorities. 

Our goal throughout this review process has been to listen to our state, local, tribal 

and Federal partners and make recommendations that reflect the wishes of the 

neighbors who are most affected by these monuments. Ultimately, however, our role 

in the review of monuments is to provide a recommendation to the President. Final 

action and authority rests with him. 

National Park Service Services: 

Question 38. Since 2011, National Park Service commercial services staff has declined by 10 percent. Meanwhile, the number of commercial leases has increased by 

25 percent, and the number of Commercial Use Agreements has nearly tripled. Moreover, the program’s workload keeps growing, particularly as the agency begins to 

award new contracts under the Visitor Experience Improvements Authority established by last year’s National Park Service Centennial Act. Your budget proposal 

30 

includes an over half a million dollar cut to commercial services. How do you plan 

to increase P3 partnerships and ensure adequate oversight of public resources while 

reducing the amount of staff devoted to commercial services? 

Answer. The President’s budget proposes to balance the Federal Government’s 

budget by 2027, in order to do this priorities must be identified. The 2018 budget 

prioritizes taking care of the assets we currently own. It also focuses on leveraging 

public-private partnerships in order to improve visitor experiences on public lands 

and waters. In addition, as we move forward, I believe that we have to realign our 

employees to make sure that the focus is at the field level, rather than in layers 

of bureaucracy. I am committed to providing our front lines in the parks with the 

appropriate resources to get the job done. 

Endangered Species Act: 

Question 39. Mr. Secretary, you have said recently that you think the states should 

play a larger role in species conservation but this budget proposal absolutely savages 

the funding streams that make this cooperative work possible, including cutting 

Cooperative Endangered Species Fund grants by $34 million to one-third of the current level. You can prevent listing species by doing proactive conservation work or 

you can recover species once they require listing; however, this budget cuts funding 

for both. Do you believe that these funding levels are adequate to help states be full 

partners in conserving fish and wildlife? 

Answer. The budget requests $19.3 million for the Cooperative Endangered 

Species Conservation Fund. The budget requests $10.5 million for conservation 

grants to states, $6.5 million for Habitat Conservation Planning assistance grants, 

and $2.3 million for administrative costs. The budget does not provide funding for 

land acquisition grants in order to focus resources on our current land management 

priorities. The Department encourages states’ participation in developing recovery 

plans and proactive conservation work. For example, when the yellowcheek darter, 

a small fish native to forks of the Little Red River in Arkansas, was listed as endangered, the Service formed a recovery team comprised of yellowcheek darter experts 

from organizations including the Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission, Arkansas 

Game and Fish Commission, and others. These members are integral to development of the recovery plan and increasing participation in recovery efforts among private landowners. States, through the State Wildlife Grants have focused on 

proactive conservation projects; at least 19 domestic Candidate fish and wildlife 

species were conserved by state fish and wildlife agencies using State Wildlife Grant 

funds. 

Question 40. Along these same lines, you have long opposed the historic conservation agreement reached between states and the Obama administration to protect the 

greater sage-grouse and avoid an ESA listing. Your recent Secretarial Order requiring a review of the plans threatens to turn this conservation success story into a failure, and this budget is not helping. The budget cuts $11.5M—22 percent—from 

BLM’s sage-grouse conservation efforts. 

40a. Do you think these cuts will have a negative impact on greater sage-grouse 

populations and sagebrush habitat? 

40b. Do you think these cuts make it more likely that the bird will require the 

protections of the ESA? 

40c. Do you oppose the inclusion of a rider on your Department’s appropriations 

bill that would prevent you from listing the species even if it is shown that such an 

action is necessary to prevent extinction? 

40d. FY 2017 funding for sage-grouse conservation efforts is already out the door 

but your recent order has created uncertainty about if and how it will be used. Are 

BLM field offices authorized to use that funding for sage-grouse conservation efforts 

under the current conservation plan, or has your office ordered them to stop? 

Answer. The Department’s 2018 Budget reflects the President’s commitment to 

fiscal responsibility—proposing sensible and rational reductions and making hard 

choices to reach a balanced budget by 2027. This required the Department to take 

a thorough look at all of our mission areas to determine where we could potentially 

increase efficiencies yet continue the implementation of our multiple-use mission. 

The budget includes over $75 million in the Bureau’s Wildlife Management Program 

to continue work on the sage landscape and maintain our commitment to sage habitat. BLM will continue restoration and conservation efforts in priority areas, which 

will benefit more than 350 species. This budget continues conservation work with 

partners and supports science at FY 2017 levels. Legislative prohibition on listing 

31 

the greater sage grouse would provide time to implement plans and work more 

closely with states to craft solutions. 

Question 41. As a Member of Congress, you voted against the protection of threatened and endangered species 100 percent of the time. You are now in charge of implementing the Endangered Species Act, not undermining it, but this budget shows that 

you may not have fully made that transition yet. 

Even though it is widely known that current funding levels are insufficient to make 

significant progress toward protecting and restoring imperiled fish and wildlife populations, this proposal slashes funding for species listing, recovery, habitat protection, consultation, and work with states and tribes to prevent listings. 

Given that we are in the middle of a global extinction crisis driven by irresponsible 

land use and climate change do you believe that this budget will allow you to meet 

your statutory obligations under the ESA to prevent extinction and recover threatened 

and endangered species? 

Answer. Yes, a total of $225.2 million is proposed to implement the Endangered 

Species Act and related programs under the Service’s Ecological Services Program, 

of which $79.6 million is for recovery of species listed as threatened or endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act. A focus on recovery has recently resulted in the 

de-listing and down-listing of several high-profile species, including the West Indian 

manatee. Included in the Ecological Services request is $98.8 million to facilitate 

planning and consultation that will support economic recovery and job creation in 

the United States. Timely evaluations of proposed infrastructure, energy, and other 

development projects contribute to job creation and economic growth, while ensuring 

that impacts to native wildlife and habitat are avoided and minimized to the greatest degree possible. Funding will allow the Service to expedite project reviews and 

work with project proponents on appropriate mitigation and avoidance measures. 

Question 42. Republican Members of this Committee, including you in the past, 

have argued that the ESA is a failure because more species are not being de-listed. 

This is in spite of the fact that the ESA has been 99 percent effective in preventing 

species from going extinct. 

In order to be de-listed, though, species must be shown by the best available science 

to have recovered. Before the process of recovery can even begin, species must first 

be listed so that they can receive the protections of the Act just to ‘‘stop the bleeding.’’ 

This is the simple, stepwise fashion in which the ESA works. 

Unfortunately, this budget proposes to cut the listing program by more than 17 percent. It also proposes to cut the recovery program by more than $3.5 million. 

42a. Do you believe these cuts will allow you to meet your obligations to give 

species ESA protections when it is show that it is scientifically necessary? 

42b. Do you believe this budget will achieve your goal of de-listing more species 

without running afoul of the requirement to base decisions on the best available 

science? 

42c. Do you believe that at these funding levels FWS will be able to avoid losing 

lawsuits over failing to take required actions to protect species in a timely manner? 

Answer. I still believe that ESA is in need of reforms and modernization so it can 

operate in a more effective manner. The FWS de-lists and down-lists species when 

their status changes and resources are available. Getting species off the list due to 

recovery is a priority, and allows us to focus our attention and resources on species 

that need attention. The pace at which de-listings and down-listings occur is dependent on resources devoted to on-the-ground recovery implementation and the 

progress toward recovery of individual species, as well as on the complexity of status 

reviews and rulemakings. A total of $225.2 million is proposed in the President’s 

FY 2018 budget request to implement the ESA and related programs under FWS’s 

Ecological Services program, of which $17.1 million is for listing species and $79.6 

million is for recovery of species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. 

At these funding levels, the FWS will continue to address the backlog of listing determinations and develop rulemakings for approximately 50 species that have been 

identified for potential de-listing or down-listing under the ESA based upon recent 

5-year status reviews. FWS plans on making final determinations for six species 

currently proposed for de-listing in FY 2018. 

Resource Advisory Committees: 

Question 43. Time and time again, you have said you’re a champion of public 

access and transparency. On your first day as Secretary, you signed Order No. 3347 

which encourages access, conservation stewardship, and hunting and fishing 

32 

activities. This order gave department agencies 30 days to report on Executive Order 

13443, and then calls on the expertise of two Resource Advisory Committees to refine 

recommendations. You have since suspended ‘‘all 225 different councils and boards 

. . . so [you] could ask what do you do, who is on your board, what have you done 

in the last year’’—this includes the two which are involved in Secretarial Order 3347. 

How is this suspension improving access, transparency and efficiency at the Interior 

Department? 

Answer. As you note, Secretarial Order 3347 is designed to engage stakeholders 

on a variety of issues concerning management of public lands, including actions to 

improve habitat, cooperation with state wildlife managers, and access to the outdoors. We intend to work with stakeholder groups, including but not limited to the 

two referenced groups. The Department’s review of advisory groups is ongoing. The 

review is intended to ensure the Department receives maximum feedback from 

these boards and that they are compliant with the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(FACA). 

Coastal Barrier Resources System: 

Question 44. The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) administers the Coastal Barrier 

Resources System (CBRS), established by Congress in 1982 to prevent governmentsubsidized development from occurring in hazard-prone, undeveloped coastal areas. 

This simple yet ingenious program does not prevent private citizens from using their 

own money to develop land that is included in the System but it does prohibit the 

use of Federal funds including flood insurance, transportation and housing grants, 

and energy infrastructure assistance. 

44a. Do you agree that sea level rise, increased coastal flooding, and other hazards 

due to climate change are a threat to coastal communities? 

44b. Do you believe that taxpayers should be on the hook for bailing out individuals, companies, and localities that make risky development decisions? 

44c. Will you commit to funding the CBRS program at levels that reflect the urgent 

need to address the impacts of sea level rise on coastal communities? 

Answer. Coastal communities face weather-related challenges not experienced in 

other parts of the country. The Department will be a good partner in working with 

these communities to address changing climate conditions using adaptive management. Through the CBRA program, the FWS provides mapping products and data 

bases that are essential tools for conservation and restoration activities by other 

Federal and state agencies and the public and this budget provides sufficient resources to support those efforts. 

Stream Protection Rule Job Figures: 

A February 21, 2017, a blog post on the Department of the Interior’s (DOI) website 

claimed that the Stream Protection Rule (SPR), which was repealed by President 

Trump’s signature of a Congressional Review Act resolution of disapproval, ‘‘was 

estimated to put 7,000 clean coal jobs in 22 states at risk.’’ This figure appears to 

come from a widely discredited and outdated draft environmental study, generated 

by Polu Kai Services (PKS) under contract from OSMRE, and contradicts the job impacts published by the Department and OSMRE. An investigation by the DOI Office 

of Inspector General found that there was widespread dissatisfaction with PKS’ performance. Furthermore, the OIG investigation found no evidence of any inappropriate 

behavior by anyone in the Obama administration in relation to the dispute over the 

job-loss numbers or the decision to allow the PKS contract to expire. This conclusion 

was also backed up by a multi-year investigation conducted by the House Natural 

Resources Committee, which was also unable to find evidence of any wrongdoing. 

Given this, I request answers to the following questions: 

Question 45. Please provide a source for the February 21 claim that the Stream 

Protection Rule put 7,000 clean coal jobs at risk. 

Question 46. Does OSMRE agree with the blog post claiming that the SPR would 

put 7,000 jobs at risk? If so, what is the evidence that the regulatory impact analysis 

performed for the final rule is less accurate than the February 21 blog post? 

Question 47. If the February 21 blog post was based on the DEIS completed by 

PKS, are the methods and standards used by PKS to develop the DEIS the same 

methods and standards Congress and the public should expect for work performed 

by OSMRE or DOI throughout the Trump administration? 

Question 48. Does OSMRE or DOI believe that the PKS DEIS from 2011 

adequately reflects the provisions of the final SPR published in 2016? 

33 

Question 49. Does OSMRE or DOI disagree with the characterization of PKS’ 

performance included in the OIG study? If so, what did the OIG miss? 

Question 50. How does the Department define ‘‘clean coal’’? 

Answer to Questions 45–50. President Trump signed H.J. Res. 38 into law on 

February 16, 2017, nullifying the SPR. Since then, the Department has renewed its 

focus to put America on track to achieve the President’s vision for energy independence and bring important jobs back to communities across the country. Our Nation’s 

abundant coal supplies are an important and stable component of the energy mix. 

The President’s energy program will have positive impacts on employment in the 

communities that depend on coal industry jobs. 

Office of Natural Resources Revenue Rule: 

As part of responding to the dozens of valuation and royalty-collection 

recommendations from the past decade, on July 1, 2016, the Office of Natural 

Resources Revenue (ONRR) published a final rule entitled Consolidated Federal Oil 

& Gas and Federal & Indian Coal Valuation Reform, with an effective date of 

January 1, 2017. Despite the fact that the rule became effective on January 1, 2017, 

ONRR published a Federal Register notice on February 27, 2017, announcing that 

the effective date of the valuation rule would be postponed indefinitely due to legal 

challenges pending against the rule, using the authority under 5 U.S.C. 705 of the 

Administrative Procedures Act (APA). The legality of this action is highly questionable. It appears that ONRR has used this provision to repeal an active and in-effect 

regulation in contravention of the notice-and-comment procedures required by the 

APA. 

With the rule in full effect as of January 1, 2017, it became the role of the courts, 

and not ONRR, to adjudicate the challenges to the valuation rule. The rule cannot 

be unilaterally subverted by ONRR. In the light of this, I would like answers to the 

following questions: 

Question 51. Did DOI’s Office of the Solicitor provide a written opinion or memo 

regarding the legality of postponing the effective date of a rule after the effective date 

has already passed? If so, please provide a copy of that opinion or memo. 

Question 52. Please provide any examples that the Department has of other rules 

where 5 U.S.C. 705 has been successfully invoked to delay the implementation date 

of a rule after the effective date has passed. 

Question 53. Did DOI’s Office of the Solicitor review the February 22, 2017, memo 

from ONRR? 

Question 54. Please provide the surnaming page of the Federal Register notice that 

was published on February 27, 2017, showing the identity of those officials within 

DOI who reviewed and approved the notice. 

Answer to Questions 51–54. As ONRR Director Greg Gould noted in his July 12, 

2017 response to your previous letters, ONRR’s stay of the rule is currently the subject of litigation and cannot be commented on at this time. 

Backlog of Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs): 

The recent publication of internal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) strategy 

and communications documents has provided some disappointing insight into the intended focus of the BLM during the current administration. One of the more surprising items in the document is the instruction to, ‘‘[a]ddress backlog of Applications 

for Permit to Drill (APDs).’’ It is not clear that there is a significant backlog of unprocessed APDs; in fact, the BLM’s own data indicate that there is a glut of drilling 

permits that the oil and gas industry cannot act on fast enough. According to the 

BLM’s FY 2017 Budget Justification, there were 3,785 APDs pending at the end of 

FY 2015, but also 7,532 approved permits in industry’s hands just waiting to be 

used. 

Question 55. Therefore, in order to understand the true nature of the ‘‘backlog’’ of 

APDs, please provide the number of ADPs that are pending and the number of approved ADPs waiting to be drilled as of the end of the FY 2016. 

Answer. The BLM estimates that, as of the end of FY 2016, there were 2,552 

pending APDs and 7,950 approved APDs that had not been drilled. 

U.S. Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative: 

In 2011, as part of the Open Government Partnership, the United States 

announced its intention to become an Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative 

34 

(EITI) compliant country. The EITI Advisory Committee was scheduled to meet on 

June 7 and 8 to continue the work required of the United States to become EITI compliant. However, on May 25, 2017, the Department of the Interior published a notice 

postponing the scheduled meeting, saying merely that it would be ‘‘rescheduled at a 

later date.’’ When combined with reports from earlier this year, this postponement appears to reflect a lack of commitment to EITI by this Administration. The Secretary 

of the Interior serves as the Administration’s senior official representative for EITI 

implementation. 

Question 56. What is Trump administration’s stance on the Extractive Industries 

Transparency Initiative? 

Question 57. Can you commit to holding the postponed U.S. EITI Advisory 

Committee meeting no later than the end of August, 2017? 

Answer to Questions 56–57. The Department of the Interior is committed to institutionalizing the principles of open government and accountability. The U.S. Department of State will continue to lead the United States’ commitment to the EITI as 

a Supporting Country, a role that the United States has played since the beginning 

of the initiative. 

Review of 5-Year Offshore Leasing Program, as Instructed by April 28 E.O.: 

The Department of the Interior has begun a review of the 5-year offshore leasing 

program, as instructed by President Trump’s April 28, 2017, offshore energy 

Executive Order. Given the likely adverse impacts of this action on the environment, 

fishing, and tourism industries, I am deeply concerned with President Trump’s decision to lift the leasing ban in regions currently closed to development. Secretary 

Zinke, please address the following: 

Question 58. The Executive Order directs a review of areas currently closed off 

from drilling, including the Mid- and South Atlantic, the Chukchi Sea, and the 

Beaufort Sea. Please provide all risk assessments and analysis undertaken to determine how lifting the ban on drilling in these areas would not adversely affect fragile 

ecosystems or damage fishing, restaurant, or tourism interests. 

Answer. On May 1, 2017, I issued Secretarial Order 3350 to further implement 

the President’s Executive Order entitled: ‘‘Implementing an America-First Offshore 

Energy Strategy’’ (April 28, 2017), in which I directed the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management to initiate development of a new 5-year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing 

Program. Section 18 of the OCS Lands Act prescribes the major steps involved in 

developing a 5-year program, including the ability of the Secretary to review and 

approve the leasing program. During the initial stage of program development, the 

Secretary examines all 26 OCS planning areas to consider and balance the potentials for environmental damage, discovery of oil and gas, and adverse impact on the 

coastal zone in making a decision on the Draft Proposed Program—the first of three 

proposals required in the Program development process. This process includes conducting risk assessment and analysis on the impacts of oil and gas development and 

production. Recently, BOEM began seeking a wide array of input during development of this new OCS leasing program, including information on the economic, social, and environmental values of all OCS resources. BOEM will also seek input on 

the potential impact of oil and gas exploration and development on other resource 

values of the OCS and the marine, coastal, and human environments. All of these 

analyses will be made public as they are completed. At this stage of development 

of a leasing program, no decisions have been made regarding what planning areas 

may be included in the new leasing program. 

Question 59. What additional actions or plans does the Department intend to take 

to protect coastal communities from the possibility of another catastrophic oil spill, 

particularly in light of the unique challenges of responding to an oil spill in these 

environments? 

59a. For example, has the Department conducted any analysis with or otherwise 

coordinated with the Coast Guard to ensure that Area Contingency plans are sufficiently robust to address an oil spill the magnitude of the Deepwater Horizon? 

Answer. The Department, through its Bureaus and the Office of Environmental 

Policy and Compliance (OEPC), serves on national and regional interagency oil spill 

response teams to develop and maintain detailed spill response policies, plans, and 

procedures, as well as up-to-date Regional Contingency Plans, Area Contingency 

Plans, and site-specific geographic response plans. 

The Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) oversees oil spill 

planning and preparedness activities for offshore oil and gas exploration, developVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:58 Dec 14, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\115TH CONGRESS\FULL COMMITTEE\06-22-17\25970.TXT DARLEN
35 

ment and production facilities in both Federal and state waters. BSEE reviews industry Oil Spill Response Plans to verify that owners and operators of offshore 

facilities are prepared to respond to a worst case discharge of oil; the U.S. Coast 

Guard participates in these reviews in certain situations. BSEE, in cooperation with 

the U.S. Coast Guard, validates the soundness of these plans by conducting exercises with operators. 

The Department and BSEE’s (as well as other bureaus) oil spill preparedness program is a keystone component of the National Response System. As such, the 

Department regularly participates in meetings and supports activities by Regional 

Response Teams and Area Committees where offshore oil and gas operations are 

conducted. These groups are focal points for contingency planning with local, state 

and Federal partners including the Coast Guard. In addition, the Department formally engages the U.S. Coast Guard on a regular basis at both the regional and 

headquarters levels to support joint planning initiatives and information sharing. 

Question 60. The March 16, 2017 budget blueprint calls for a $1.5 billion, or 12 

percent, reduction to the Department’s FY 2018 budget. How would these proposed 

cuts affect the ability of the Department to draft a new 5-year plan, which presumably would also include oil spill response and mitigation plans, while administering 

an even greater number of oil and gas leases? 

Answer. The Administration’s budget makes difficult choices in focusing on and 

funding our top priorities and sets the course to a balanced budget by 2027, saving 

taxpayers $1.6 billion. Among the Department’s top priorities is to boost domestic 

energy production to stimulate the Nation’s economy and ensure our security while 

providing for responsible stewardship of the environment, which includes the development of a new 5-year plan. The budget reflects a careful analysis of the resources 

needed to advance this priority and to development our bureaus’ capacity to carry 

out its functions carefully, responsibly and efficiently. 

Question 61. American fishing, tourism, and recreation industries rely on a healthy 

ocean ecosystem to generate billions of dollars each year in economic activity. If this 

review goes forward, please indicate what additional analysis the Department intends to conduct to determine what safeguards will be required to protect these 

industries. 

Answer. At this point, the Department is only establishing a schedule of potential 

lease sales and framing the geographic scope for which OCS development can occur. 

The process is guided by the OCS Lands Act which specifies eight factors that are 

considered in determining the timing and location of leasing, including location with 

respect to other uses and environmental sensitivity and marine productivity. As required by the law, I will consider each of these factors in deciding which areas will 

be contained in the next National OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program. Public input 

is critical to this process. There are at least three points during the program preparation process when comments are solicited, analyzed summarized and used to develop the final program. 

Question 62. Given the significant growth of U.S. oil production on both private 

and public lands over the past 7 years, the United States is now one of the largest 

producers of crude oil in the world, and the world leader in total liquid hydrocarbon 

production. In fact, oversupply in oil production has led the United States to begin 

exporting crude oil for the first time in generations. Further, gas prices in 2016 were 

the lowest they have been in more than a decade. Given these market conditions, why 

is a new planning process required now, as opposed to waiting only 3 years to continue on the normal planning schedule? 

Answer. Developing a new National Offshore Oil and Gas Leasing Program that 

respects environmental and economic sensitivities but still allows us to responsibly 

develop our resources is critical to reaching President Trump’s goal of American 

energy dominance. Offering more areas for energy exploration and responsible development was a cornerstone of the President’s campaign and this action is the first 

step in making good on that promise for offshore oil and gas. Under the last administration, 94 percent of OCS acreage was off-limits to responsible development, despite interest from many state and local governments and industry leaders. This 

Administration is dedicated to energy dominance, growing the economy and giving 

the public a say in how our natural resources are used, and that is exactly what 

we are doing by opening up the Request for Information and a new OCS leasing 

program. 

36 

Question 63. Under the current leasing program, approximately 70 percent of the 

economically recoverable offshore resources in the OCS are available to the oil and 

gas industry for leasing. In the Gulf of Mexico, companies hold leases on approximately 16 million acres, but have developed only approximately 26 percent of that 

acreage. Please provide all the assessments and analysis the Department has undertaken to determine the need for additional leasing acreage at this time. 

Answer. As described in the previous response BOEM has initiated development 

of a new 5-year OCS Oil and Gas Leasing Program in which all 26 planning areas 

are considered. At this stage of development of a leasing program, no decisions have 

been made regarding the need to make available additional acreage for leasing. 

Regarding the statement that industry has only developed 26 percent of the acreage leased in the Gulf of Mexico, this percentage applies only to the number of 

leases currently producing, substantially understating the percentage of leases on 

which there is exploration or development activity. As of August 1, 2017, there are 

2,912 active leases in the GOM of which 1,318 (45 percent) have had wells drilled 

or plans approved. Since oil and gas is not uniformly distributed across the OCS, 

there is always a risk of not finding oil and gas on leased acreage. New leasing in 

the Gulf of Mexico allows industry to better manage their prospect portfolios and 

mitigate these risks through access to additional acreage where there is potential 

for discovering new oil and gas fields on the OCS. It is important to note that prior 

to acquiring a lease through a BOEM lease sale, the oil and gas industry uses geophysical and other types of data extensively in order to identify promising prospects 

and bid on the acreage considered to have the best potential. 

During lease primary terms, operators have time to gather, process, and interpret 

additional data. Of course, not all leases contain drillable oil and gas resources and 

wells can be extremely risky and expensive to drill. Further, the finite number of 

drilling rigs available for contract limits the number of leases that can be drilled. 

Therefore, lessees are constantly evaluating and prioritizing the acreage in their 

lease inventory in order to drill the most promising leases first. This prioritization 

changes as the exploration process plays out (e.g., geological data comes in from new 

wells and/or new or reprocessed geophysical data is acquired, etc.). During the 

period after the lease is acquired, OCS projects compete for the operator’s available 

capital with other prospects held by the operator in onshore and offshore oil and 

gas basins worldwide. This dynamic process of evaluating, ranking, and funding all 

worldwide projects of interest to a lessee is an important reason why lessees desire 

to maintain an inventory of leases so they can allocate and re-allocate capital expenditures as new information becomes available. 

Secretarial Order 3349 and Executive Order 13783: 

On March 29, 2017, you signed Secretarial Order No. 3349, which was designed 

to implement the directive in the Executive Order of March 28, 2017 (Executive Order 

13783), to ‘‘review all existing regulations, orders, guidance documents, policies, and 

any other similar agency actions . . . that potentially burden the development or use 

of domestically produced energy resources.’’ The Executive Order and Secretarial 

Order also rescinded or ordered the rescission of a number of important Obama administration climate and mitigation policies, lifted the moratorium on new coal 

leases, and ordered the review of four common-sense regulations affecting oil and gas 

operations on National Park Service lands, fish and wildlife refuges, and other public lands. In order to understand the potentially massive changes in public lands policy and management that will arise from the Executive Order and Secretarial Order, 

please provide the following documents described in Secretarial Order 3349: 

Question 64. The list of all Department Actions related to mitigation policies provided to the Deputy Secretary by each bureau and office, as required to be completed 

by April 12, 2017, as per Section 5(a)(i) of Secretarial Order 3349; 

Question 65. The list of all Department Actions related to climate change policies 

provided to the Deputy Secretary by each bureau and office, as required to be completed by April 12, 2017, as per Section 5(b)(i) of Secretarial Order 3349; 

Question 66. The report from the Director, Bureau of Land Management, on the 

rule entitled, ‘‘Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource 

Conservation,’’ as required to be provided to the Assistant Secretary—Land and 

Minerals Management by April 19, 2017, per Section 5(c)(ii) of Secretarial Order 

3349; 

Question 67. The report from the Director, National Park Service, on the rule 

entitled, ‘‘General Provisions and Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights,’’ as required to 

37 

be provided to the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks by April 19, 

2017, per Section 5(c)(iii) of Secretarial Order 3349; 

Question 68. The report from the Director, Fish and Wildlife Service, on the rule 

entitled, ‘‘Management of Non-Federal Oil and Gas Rights,’’ as required to be provided to the Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks by April 19, 2017, 

per Section 5(c)(iv) of Secretarial Order 3349; and 

Question 69. The reports from each bureau and office head provided to the Deputy 

Secretary that identify all existing Department Actions that ‘‘potentially burden . . . 

the development or utilization of domestically produced energy resources,’’ as 

required by April 19, 2017, per Section 5(c)(v) of Secretarial Order 3349. 

Answer to Questions 64–69. On November 1, 2017, the Department announced 

the availability of the Final Report: Review of the Department of the Interior Actions 

that Potentially Burden Domestic Energy, prepared pursuant to Executive Order 

13783. The Department published the report in its entirety in the Federal Register, 

and it is available at 82 FR 50532. 

DOI Memo Directing Bureau and Acting Directors to Report to the Acting 

Deputy Secretary: 

On April 12, 2017, you sent a memo to the Assistant Secretaries of the Department 

of the Interior directing them to ensure that all bureau heads and office directors report to the Acting/Deputy Secretary on all ‘‘proposed decisions’’ that have 

‘‘nationwide, regional, or statewide impacts,’’ and that decisions may not be made 

until the Acting Deputy Secretary has ‘‘reviewed the report and provided clearance.’’ 

The memo also directs bureau heads and office directors to report to the Acting 

Deputy Secretary all FY 2017 grants and cooperative agreements of $100,000 or 

greater before the final award is issued, in order to ‘‘assess how we are aligning our 

grants and cooperative agreements to Department priorities.’’ 

In order for us to better understand how this memo will affect Departmental policy 

and operations, please provide answers to the following questions: 

Question 70. Has any guidance been provided to bureau heads or office directors 

regarding what constitutes a decision with ‘‘nationwide, regional, or statewide 

impacts’’? If so, please provide that guidance. 

Question 71. Is the Acting Deputy Secretary maintaining approval or modification 

authority over the grants, cooperative agreements, and decisions that are provided to 

him as a result of the April 12 memo? 

Question 72. Has the Acting Deputy Secretary denied any grants or cooperative 

agreements, or required or requested changes to the terms of those grants or cooperative agreements, as a result of information provided to him as a result of the April 

12 memo? If so, please identify those grants or cooperative agreements, and information regarding why the Acting Deputy Secretary denied or required or requested 

changes to those, as appropriate. 

Question 73. Who in the Secretary’s office or Deputy Secretary’s office, other than 

the Acting Deputy Secretary, is also reviewing the information provided to the Acting 

Deputy Secretary as a result of the April 12 memo? 

Question 74. For all grants and cooperative agreements awarded between April 12 

and the date of this letter, please provide the information under items #1 through 

#11 as provided to the Acting Deputy Secretary under the ‘‘Template for Data Call 

on Fiscal Year 2017 Grants and Cooperative Agreement Awards.’’ 

Question 75. For all records of decision issued after review by the Acting Deputy 

Secretary between April 12 and the date of this letter, please provide all information 

provided to the Acting Deputy Secretary under the ‘‘Template for Data Call on 

Proposed Records of Decision and Other Significant Decision Documents.’’ 

Answer to Questions 70–75. The process was put in place to help me better under- stand where the approximately $5.5 billion in grant and cooperative agreement 

funding is going and how that benefits the Department’s mission. I believe we must 

have a thorough accounting of how the Department distributes the taxpayer’s dollar. 

The process has moved along quickly and once the review has been completed it will 

be suspended. 

DOI Regulations Task Force: 

On April 24, 2017, an article in E&E News reported that you had appointed a task 

force for abolishing regulations, consisting of five political ‘‘beachhead’’ employees 

and one career staffer, but no Senate-confirmed personnel and no one with clear technical expertise in land management, wildlife management, environmental protection, 

38 

or safety regulation. While the task force is required under Executive Order 13777, 

there is no reference to this task force in your Secretarial Order implementing 

Executive Order 13783 (S.O. 3349), and no information provided about how this task 

force will operate, where it fits in the regulatory review process created by S.O. 3349, 

whether any of its activities or decisions will be transparent and be made known to 

the public, whether it will accept public comments, or any other logistical detail. In 

order to better understand this task force and how it will operate, please provide the 

following information: 

Question 76. The names of each member of the task force and their qualifications 

for analyzing regulations related to land management, wildlife management, 

environmental protection, and safety; 

Question 77. How career staff with technical expertise in land management, 

wildlife management, environmental protection, and safety will be involved in the 

operations of the task force; 

Question 78. How the task force fits into the process laid out in Secretarial Order 

3349; 

Question 79. The timeline for the regulatory task force to make decisions; 

Question 80. The criteria to be used by the task force to make decisions related to 

whether or not to modify or rescind existing regulations; 

Question 81. Whether there will be any public meetings of the task force and 

whether or not the task force will accept comments from the public; and 

Question 82. Whether any documents created by the task force are intended to be 

made public once the task force has completed its work. 

Answer to Questions 76–82. In addition to Associate Deputy Secretary James 

Cason’s response to your May 2017 letter, we offer the following information. The 

Department’s Regulatory Reform Task Force was established on March 15, 2017, 

and meets monthly to evaluate existing regulations and provide recommendations 

to the Secretary regarding their repeal, replacement, or modification. The Task 

Force focuses on regulations that: (1) place unnecessary burdens on the economy or 

the American people; (2) are outdated, ineffective, or unnecessary; or (3) are incompatible with regulatory reform principles or directions established in E.O. 13771 and 

13777. The Department has invited public input to identify important areas of focus. 

Since publishing a Federal Register notice on June 22, 2017 (82 FR 28429), asking 

the public for ideas to lessen regulatory burdens, we have received approximately 

215 public comments related to this effort. The public also has the opportunity to 

comment on the inclusion or exclusion of any individual regulatory action from the 

unified regulatory agenda, which is issued on a semi-annual basis in accordance 

with E.O. 12866. We have also established a website (https://www.doi.gov/ 

regulatory-reform) to periodically provide information to the public on regulatory reform and encourage the public to share ideas on specific regulations that should be 

repealed, updated, or otherwise improved. Regulation development will continue to 

be informed by public input and by agency expertise in the relevant subject matter, 

whether related to land management, wildlife management, environmental protection, or safety. 

U.S.G.S. Climate Change Report: 

In May of this year, the Washington Post reported that officials within the Interior 

Department ordered employees at the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to remove a reference to climate change from a press release announcing the publication 

of a new study on sea level rise and coastal flooding. Scrubbing this press release 

over the objections of some of the scientists involved in the study deprived media outlets and the general public of the context of the study. In order to prevent future 

abuses of this kind, I request responses to the following questions: 

Question 83. Did Acting Deputy Secretary of the Interior James Cason, or anyone 

in his office, or at the Office of Management and Budget, review the USGS press release before it was issued? 

Question 84. If so, who made the decision to remove the line reported by the 

authors of the study to read: ‘‘Global climate change drives sea-level rise, increasing 

the frequency of coastal flooding.’’? 

Question 85. If not, what was the highest level Departmental office that reviewed 

and edited the press release? 

Answer to Questions 83–85. The U.S. Geological Survey announced the findings 

of the study entitled, Doubling of Coastal Flooding Frequency Within Decades Due 

to Sea-Level Rise in a May 18, 2017, press release consistent with existing practices 

39 

for all Departmental press releases. The press release aimed to summarize the overall findings of the report, and did not undermine the study findings, as evidence by 

the opening line of the study’s abstract, which stated, ‘‘[g]lobal climate change drives 

sea-level rise, increasing the frequency of coastal flooding.’’ 

Political Appointees Granted Ethics Waivers: 

On January 28, 2017, President Trump repealed President Obama’s Executive 

Order No. 13770 and replaced it with his own Executive Order requiring all political 

appointees to sign an ethics pledge. As with his predecessor, President Trump 

reserved the right to issue waivers to exempt certain individuals from this ban. 

Unlike President Obama, however, President Trump is refusing to comply with the 

Office of Government Ethics’ request for a list of those political appointees granted 

such waivers. The current Administration’s refusal to comply with this completely 

reasonable and standard request for information flies in the face of the President’s 

repeated claims to support an open and transparent government of which the 

American people can be proud. 

Question 86. In the interests of clarity and openness, please disclose all ethics 

waivers granted since the beginning of the current Administration for political 

appointees working for the Department of the Interior. 

Answer. We are not aware of any ethics waivers granted since the beginning of 

this Administration for political appointees at the Department. 

Review of National Monuments: 

On April 26, 2017, President Trump ordered a sweeping review of a wide range 

of national monuments established under the Antiquities Act in the last 20 years. 

The Executive Order directed the Department of the Interior with 45 days to issue 

a report on the Bears Ears National Monument in Utah and any other monument 

determined appropriate for inclusion in the interim report. The justification for this 

review was the allegation that certain monument designations were made without 

sufficient public input and a review was needed to allow the American people to comment on their national monuments. The justification for this review was the allegation that certain monument designations were made without sufficient public input 

and a review was needed to allow the American people to comment on their national 

monuments. 

Question 87. In the spirit of transparency and open government, please provide a 

detailed itinerary and list of your meetings while in Utah and any other location 

associated with the review of national monuments. 

Question 88. Additionally, please provide an account of all comments received 

during the public comment period that includes a tally of positive and negative 

submissions. 

Answer to Questions 87–88. A draft report, which includes the Department’s findings and recommendations on national monuments was submitted to the President 

on August 24, 2017 in accordance with the President’s Executive Order. The final 

report was released to the public on December 5, 2017 and may be found at https:// 

www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/revised_final_report.pdf. Final action and 

authority rests with the President. 

Methane Waste Rule Pullback: 

On June 15, 2017, in apparent contravention of the Administrative Procedures Act 

(APA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) published in the Federal Register a 

postponement of the effective date of portions of the BLM’s rule on methane waste, 

titled Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation 

(Methane Waste Rule). As with the Department’s postponement of the Consolidated 

Federal Oil & Gas and Federal & Indian Coal Valuation Reform (Valuation Rule) 

regulation on February 27, 2017, the authority claimed for postponement of the effective date is Section 705 of the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 705), a questionable interpretation of that section that, to my knowledge, the Department has 

made no effort to defend as of this date. Postponing the compliance dates contained 

in the Methane Waste Rule unlawfully deprives the American people of valuable revenue, wastes a non-renewable resource, and threatens people’s health by increasing 

the amount of harmful pollution in our air. Please provide answers to the following: 

40 

Question 89. Did DOI’s Office of the Solicitor provide a written opinion or memo 

regarding the legality of postponing the compliance dates in a rule after the effective 

date of that rule has already passed? If so, please provide a copy of that opinion or 

memo. 

Question 90. Did DOI or BLM perform a legal analysis of the Methane Waste Rule 

under the four-part test for preliminary injunctions? If so, please provide a copy of 

that analysis. 

Answer to Questions 89–90. The BLM’s Waste Prevention Rule is currently the 

subject of ongoing litigation. I note that in the June 15, 2017 Federal Register publication postponing certain compliance dates for the rule, the BLM concluded that, 

in light of the pending litigation related to the rule and the ongoing administrative 

review of rules, postponement of the January 2018 compliance dates would be in 

the interest of justice, consistent with section 705 of the Administrative Procedure 

Act. 

Questions Submitted by Rep. Huffman 

Question 1. Reliable broadband access can frequently be hard to come by in rural 

communities that border our public lands. As you may know, I recently introduced 

the Public Lands Telecommunications Act, which provides public land management 

agencies with fee retention authority to increase funding for telecommunications deployment, and cooperative agreement authority to improve partnerships with local 

communities and the private sector to expand broadband access. I have long believed 

that our public land management agencies could do more to improve broadband 

access in remote and rural communicates. 

How do you believe the Department of the Interior could achieve this aim with new, 

sustained funding for telecommunications deployment, as well as cooperative agreement authority to improve partnerships with our constituents and the private sector? 

Answer. The Administration has not been requested to provide its position on 

your bill, H.R. 2425, the Public Lands Telecommunications Act, which was reported 

out of the House Natural Resources Committee on June 27, 2017. However, the 

Department supports innovative public-private partnerships, and believes that they 

are important for management of all Federal lands. I have consistently advocated 

for increased Internet access on our Federal lands to help enhance the outdoor experience for visitors, particularly millennials. 

Question 2. Ranching is important to my district. Last year, I rallied with local 

cattle and dairy operators to fight a lawsuit that would have limited their grazing 

rights in the Point Reyes National Seashore area. This is because I believe that carefully management of land resources can allow ranching and conservation to co-exist. 

In my district, the Marin Carbon Project has demonstrated that rangeland soils 

can achieve significant carbon sequestration through use of ‘carbon farming’ techniques, such as the application of compost as a soil amendment. Barriers to such 

carbon farming techniques from being more widely among California’s ranching 

community include lack of state and Federal funding, and lack of understanding 

among conservation and land management agencies, and ranchers, regarding how 

carbon gets stored and lost in soils. 

What steps could the Department of the Interior take to help local ranching 

communities integrate carbon farming techniques into traditional ranching practices? 

Answer. Being a good neighbor through better collaboration with local ranchers 

and ranching communities is a critical step to ensure the success of any government 

action. It is my belief that more meaningful involvement and cooperation with communities closest to our public lands will result in innovative ideas and practices as 

well as better stewardship of the land and its resources. 

Question 3. California salmon runs have collapsed during the recent drought, in 

both the Klamath and Bay-Delta watersheds. This year marked the lowest they have 

been on record, prompting a complete fisheries closure on the Klamath. 

3a. How will your agency prioritize salmon restoration in the coming fiscal year? 

How is this need reflected in the Department of the Interior’s budget, as proposed in 

the President’s Budget Request? 

3b. Does the Department of the Interior plan to participate in financing the proposed Delta tunnels (California WaterFix) that are currently under evaluation by 

Federal regulators and the Bureau of Reclamation? 

3c. Is there a finance plan for those tunnels? If so, can you provide it to us? 

41 

3d. Are any Bureau of Reclamation contractors ready to pay their proportional 

share of the cost of the tunnels? 

3e. How confident are you that this project will not result in the large cost overruns that are commonly characterize large infrastructure projects? 

3f. Is the Bureau of Reclamation considering asking Federal taxpayers to subsidize 

the construction of a Shasta Dam raise? 

Answer. The President’s Budget Request includes funding for salmon restoration 

activities in the Klamath and Bay-Delta watersheds. While the National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS) is the primary agency charged with implementing salmon 

protections; Bureau of Reclamation project operations support many NMFS activities. Pursuant to the Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), the Department developed the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program’s 2001 Final Restoration 

Plan, which identified 289 actions and evaluations that were determined to be 

reasonable given numerous technical, legal and implementation considerations. The 

annual appropriation bill from Congress provides budget authority based on estimated CVPIA collections, and the obligation of these funds can only occur after the 

collections are made. 

The President’s budget request includes $9.2 million for the Klamath Project for 

ESA activities for the 2013 Biological Opinion that will be implemented over 10 

years, including effects analysis of ongoing Reclamation project operations and the 

Klamath River Coho monitoring program. 

On June 26, 2017, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS released biological opinions on the proposed construction and operation of California WaterFix. The 

Department has made no funding-related commitments and has not been engaged 

regarding the creation of a finance plan. No decisions been made on raising Shasta 

Dam, as alternative means of financing (primarily non-Federal) for the construction 

costs would have to be identified and approved by Congress. 

Question 4. Renewable energy development has broad bipartisan support, and 

plays a large and growing role in our economy. A 2017 Department of Energy report 

found that solar supports 373,807 jobs. This is more than the number of jobs in 

natural gas (362,118), and over twice the number of jobs in coal (160,119). Wind also 

supports 101,738 jobs. Smartly sited, large-scale renewable energy projects on public 

lands have drawn support from rural counties and other important stakeholders. 

If the new Administration is committed to an ‘‘all-of-the-above’’ energy strategy, 

then why is renewable energy the only energy program that is proposed to be cut? 

Answer. The America First Energy Plan is an ‘‘all-of-the-above’’ approach that includes oil and gas, coal, and renewable resources. The FY 2018 budget request 

funds onshore and offshore renewable energy development at a level that is expected to address current industry demand. The Department is also taking steps to 

improve its leasing processes, including implementation of BLM’s competitive 

leasing rule. This will support a competitive leasing process for solar and wind 

energy development. The rulemaking updates and codifies acreage rent and megawatt capacity fees for wind and solar energy projects, establishes a new rate adjustment method that provides greater certainty and fair return for use of the public 

lands, provides incentives for leases within designated leasing areas, updates project 

bonding requirements, and incorporates sensible solar and wind energy policies into 

the right-of-way regulations. 

Question 5. On June 20, 2017, when Senator Cory Gardner asked you whether 

Canyons of the Ancients National Monument would be impacted by the broader 

Federal review of NMs, you mentioned that it wasn’t on your ‘‘priority review list.’’ 

This was despite the Canyons of the Ancients NM being specifically named on your 

list of National Monuments under review. Again, the following day (June 21, 2017), 

during a Senate subcommittee hearing, you indicated to Senator Tom Udall that you 

were unlikely to recommend changes to any New Mexico monuments. 

Stating that some National Monuments will be left alone, even though they were 

listed on the DOI ‘‘priority review list’’ and before the public comment period is finished, seems arbitrary. Which national monuments are actually on your ‘‘priority 

review list?’’ 

Answer. All of the national monuments listed in May 11, 2017, Federal Register 

have been reviewed in accordance with the President’s Executive Order. The 

Secretary evaluated comments and, in certain instances, visited monuments as he 

prepared his recommendations for the President. As monuments were reviewed and 

found to require no modification, the Department removed them from the review 

and let press and local stakeholders know the Department’s decision to keep all 

42 

interested parties informed. A draft report was submitted to the President on 

August 24, 2017 and the final report was released to the public on December 5, 2017 

and may be found at https://www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/ 

revised_final_report.pdf. Final action and authority rests with the President. 

PART II 

On May 24, 2016, Mr. John Bezdek, Senior Advisor to the Deputy Secretary, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, testified before the Water, Power and Oceans 

Subcommittee regarding the bills H.R. 4366, ‘‘To affirm an agreement between the 

United States and Westlands Water District dated September 15, 2015, and for 

other purposes;’’ and H.R. 5217, ‘‘To affirm ‘‘The Agreement Between the United 

States and Westlands Water District’’ dated September 15, 2015, ‘‘The Agreement 

Between the United States, San Luis Water District, Panoche Water District and 

Pacheco Water District,’’ and for other purposes.’’ At the time, the Department of 

the Interior was supporting a legal settlement between the United States and 

Westlands Water District, and you have given no indication that this support no 

longer holds true in this new Administration. The Department of the Interior never 

responded to questions regarding this, that I repeatedly submitted, and as such it 

is my sincere hope that you will address the following questions now that they fall 

under your tenure. 

Question 1. Please provide an estimate of the total financial benefit that would be 

provided to San Luis Unit contractors if H.R. 4366 and H.R. 5217 are enacted. 

Please include financial benefits associated with waiving Central Valley Project 

(CVP) repayment obligations, Reclamation Reform Act waivers, title transfers of 

property owned by the Federal Government and other direct and indirect financial 

benefits contained in both bills. 

Answer. The Department continues to support the enactment of legislation to resolve Reclamation’s statutory obligation to provide drainage to the entire San Luis 

Unit, provided that an appropriate offset is identified. The settlement agreement 

authorized by H.R. 1769 would relieve the United States’ obligation to provide 

drainage service to Westlands Water District (Westlands) in exchange for relieving 

Westlands from the obligation to repay certain debts, primarily consisting of its 

share of capitalized construction costs for the Central Valley Project (CVP). While 

H.R. 1769 would reduce the need for appropriations related to this construction, it 

would have an upfront mandatory cost. If an appropriate offset were identified, the 

Administration would support H.R. 1769. The present value of the debts that would 

be relieved is estimated to be $331.1 million. Reclamation’s assessment of the benefits to the San Luis Water District pursuant to the April 2017 Agreement between 

the United States and San Luis Water District is estimated at $69.1 million. These 

benefits primarily consist of the relief of current, unpaid capitalized construction 

costs for the CVP, relief of the current operations and maintenance obligations for 

the Grasslands Bypass Project and relief of the current, unpaid capitalized construction costs of the Demonstration Treatment Plant. 

Question 2. Under the settlement agreements, does the waiver of CVP repayment 

obligations include the capital obligation for the Trinity River Division facilities including the Trinity River hatchery? 

Answer. The relief of current, unpaid CVP capital obligations includes the Trinity 

River Diversion facilities, but does not include the Trinity River hatchery because 

the hatchery is considered non-reimbursable. 

Question 3. If the settlement agreements are enacted, how much Trinity River 

Division water will be allocated under the new 9(d) contracts provided for in the 

settlements? 

Answer. The CVP is an integrated system and is operated as such. Reclamation 

does not allocate or quantify water deliveries uniquely from individual units/ 

divisions of the CVP. Under the settlement, new 9(d) contracts, if authorized by 

Congress, would continue to allocate CVP water as an integrated system, in compliance with Federal law, including then-existing biological opinions, and subject to 

shortage provisions. 

Question 4. As Trustee for the Hoopa Valley Tribe, how can the Administration 

agree to a settlement based on a CVP water supply to which the trust beneficiary 

tribe has first priority under Reclamation law, without ensuring that any pending 

dispute the San Luis Unit contractors have about that priority is fully and finally 

resolved in the beneficiary’s favor? 

43 

Answer. If the settlement agreements were approved by Congress, the Department would continue to fulfill its trust responsibilities to the Hoopa Valley Tribe, 

while managing the CVP as an integrated unit, subject to reclamation and other 

laws. 

Question 5. Section 3404(c)(2) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act 

(CVPIA) requires the Secretary of Interior to incorporate in any contract for CVP 

water the provisions of the CVPIA and other law. Will you agree to fulfill that requirement in the agreements that would be authorized by the settlement, including: 

(1) the CVPIA requirement for contractors to pay for the costs of the Trinity River 

Restoration program for as long as water is diverted by the Trinity River Division; 

(2) acceptance of the separate priorities provided for in section 2 of the 1955 Act 

authorizing the Trinity Division and senior to diversions to the Central Valley? If 

not, why not? 

Answer. It is Reclamation’s standard practice to include compliance with all applicable laws in any contract. In terms of funding, the Trinity River Restoration 

Program is funded by both the CVP Restoration Fund and appropriations. 

Westlands will continue to pay the CVP Restoration Fund charges based on its full 

contract amount, including on water above the 75 percent cap that Reclamation may 

use for other CVP purposes. Therefore, the Settlement will not impact CVP 

Restoration Fund collections. 

Question 6. Why does the Administration believe that this this drainage settlement 

should proceed when fundamental issues regarding entitlement to water for delivery 

to the San Luis Unit remain unresolved? If San Luis Unit contractors are not entitled to the water being sought in this settlement, wouldn’t a consequent reduction in 

water deliveries to the San Luis Unit potentially resolve a portion of the drainage 

problem by reductions in CVP water deliveries to the San Luis Unit? 

Answer. Reclamation is unaware of any fundamental issues regarding its obligations to fulfill the San Luis Act of 1960 and deliver water, subject to certain conditions, to the CVP contractors in the San Luis Unit. Under the drainage settlement, 

the United States will have the exclusive right to use all CVP water made available 

to Westlands in excess of 75 percent of Westlands’ contract quantity, or 895,000 

acre-feet. The United States’ exclusive right to use the CVP water made available 

to Westlands in excess of 895,000 acre feet will also be an enforceable term in 

Westlands 9(d) repayment contract. 

Question 7. On December 23, 2014, the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior 

issued Opinion M–37030 regarding Trinity River Division Authorization’s 50,000 

Acre-Foot Proviso and the 1959 Contract between the Bureau of Reclamation and 

Humboldt County. In the 18 months since then, have the Department’s water 

managers accounted for that opinion’s conclusion in CVP operations models and estimates of water supply? If yes, what has the Department done? If not, why not? 

Answer. Reclamation has begun implementing the opinion through its Long Term 

Plan to Protect Adult Salmon in the Lower Klamath River, including through the 

development of an environmental impact statement supporting the Plan, and its 

flow augmentation in prior years. Each of these actions is supported by modeling 

of CVP water supplies that includes consideration of proviso 2 of the opinion. 

Question 8. In an April 21, 2016 letter to Representative David Valadao, Deputy 

Interior Secretary Michael Connor states that ‘‘it is widely recognized that the drainage issue may have lessened over the last few years due to drought and irrigation 

efficiencies.’’ Has the Department of the Interior developed any updated calculations 

since the 2007 Record of Decision to estimate the current cost of providing drainage 

to the San Luis Unit? If no updated estimates have been developed, does the Department of the Interior believe—based on increased irrigation efficiencies and other developments since the 2007 Record of Decision—that a current estimate of drainage 

costs would be less than the costs identified in 2007? 

Answer. While Reclamation has not completed a comprehensive analysis of the 

changes in drainage patterns and needs that may result from the changes in cropping patterns and irrigation efficiencies that have occurred in the San Luis unit 

since the a 2008 Feasibility Study, historic hydrologic records indicate that wet 

cycles will return and drainage will again become a substantial challenge in the San 

Luis Unit. A variety of factors influence the cost of providing drainage service. Some 

costs, such as the costs of evaporation ponds, reuse areas, collection systems, and 

selenium biotreatment, could be reduced by changes in cropping patterns or other 

irrigation efficiencies, while other costs such as land retirement could increase over 

time. However, any such future cost estimates are speculative absent additional 

44 

analysis, and any such cost savings are not expected to result in savings of such 

a magnitude that the Department would not continue to support the Westlands 

Settlement and San Luis Agreement. 

Question 9. The Termsheet on the proposed Northerly District Agreement is vague 

about the future status of the San Luis Drain, and the future management and 

cleanup of sediments in the Drain. Under some scenarios, the future management of 

the Drain and its sediments could have an adverse impact on national wildlife 

refuges and other wetlands that Interior Department agencies are supposed to protect 

under numerous laws. For example, Section 3406(d) of the Central Valley Project 

Improvement Act requires the Secretary of Interior to maintain and improve wetland 

habitat areas in California, by providing water supplies and supporting the objectives of the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture. In accordance with the Department 

of the Interior’s wetlands-related responsibilities, what is the Department’s plan for 

the future management of the San Luis Drain in and around the Grasslands complex 

of state, Federal and privately managed wetlands? How will the Department of the 

Interior ensure that all potential impacts from the Drain and its future management 

and cleanup will not adversely impact these wetlands and the numerous species they 

support before the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Reclamation relinquish Federal control of the Drain? 

Answer. Reclamation intends to continue to use the San Luis Interceptor Drain 

for the purposes of conveyance of drain water and storm water for the duration of 

the Grassland Bypass Project, which operates under the terms of the 2009–2019 

Agreement for Continued Use of the San Luis Drain between the San Luis & DeltaMendota Water Authority and Reclamation. The impacts of this use were evaluated 

in Reclamation’s Grassland Bypass Project 2010–2019, Environmental Impact 

Statement and Environmental Impact Report and resulting Record of Decision. 

Reclamation has met several times with Grasslands Water District and other 

stakeholders to discuss the possible future use of the San Luis Drain. However, no 

formal discussions have begun regarding the future use of the San Luis Drain outside of the general discussions with stakeholders. 

If the San Luis Drain remains in Reclamation ownership and a new stormwater 

use agreement is desired by the local stakeholders after the expiration of the 

Grasslands Bypass Project in 2019, or other uses were sought for the drain by the 

local stakeholders, then Reclamation would work to negotiate the appropriate agreements for those uses and comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and 

other applicable Federal law to determine the potential impacts of those uses. If 

title transfer for the San Luis Drain to another entity or entities is authorized by 

the Congress, compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and other applicable Federal law would be required prior to the transfer. As part of the title 

transfer effort, Reclamation would work with the receiving entity or entities to determine anticipated future use of the drain and analyze this anticipated future use, 

as appropriate, in the National Environmental Policy Act documentation and in 

compliance with applicable Federal law, prior to such title transfer. 

Questions Submitted by Rep. Napolitano 

Question 1. President Trump’s Executive Order on the Review of Designations 

Under the Antiquities Act on April 26, 2017 stated, ‘‘Within 120 days of the date of 

this order, the Secretary shall provide a final report to the President.’’ Do you expect 

the report to be finished on time? 

1a. Will your report recommend any action and/or changes through the legislative 

process or through Executive Order? 

1b. After these recommends, how can local residents, business and cities be confident to implement their city and business plans without fear that the President or 

the Interior Department will review their nearby designation again? 

Answer. A draft report, which includes the Department’s findings and recommendations on national monuments in accordance with the President’s Executive 

Order, was submitted to the President on August 24, 2017, and the final report was 

released to the public on December 5, 2017 and may be found at https:// 

www.doi.gov/sites/doi.gov/files/uploads/revised_final_report.pdf. As we move forward 

in managing the Federal lands, we will continue to coordinate with all levels, from 

locals on the ground and county commissioners to governors, tribal leaders, and 

Members of Congress to fulfill our mission to be a good neighbor. 

45 

Question 2. Do you plan to visit the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument 

before the comment period ends on July 10, 2017? 

2a. If not, how do you plan to make a decision on the San Gabriel Mountains 

National Monument without meeting with local residents, businesses and cities? 

2b. What other information besides public comments made online will you take 

into consideration? Where will that information come from and who? How can local 

residents, businesses and cities ensure that that information is in their best interest? 

Answer. Each monument was reviewed in a holistic fashion. Although I was not 

able to visit the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument before the comment 

period ended, we heard from the local communities including state, county and 

federally elected officials, tribes, local businesses, and trade associations and I 

thank you for the input you provided to me. For all of the reviews, each group’s 

input was weighed when we crafted recommendations for the President. 

Question 3. The monument designation has helped San Gabriel communities 

leverage additional Federal dollars for critically needed recreation, trail maintenance, trash collection and fire prevention. Seeing that three major fires—the 2009 

Station Fire, the 2014 Colby Fire, and the 2015 Cabin Fire—have threated our local 

communities. How do you expect our region to continue to fight forest fires without 

this critical designation? 

Answer. Wildfires are not constrained by land ownership or land designation. The 

Department is committed to ensuring that all our firefighting assets are utilized in 

the most efficient way possible, regardless of land designation, and that we work 

with other Federal agencies, along with our state and local partners, to improve our 

operational efficiency and take advantage of the firefighting infrastructure and 

assets that are currently in place. 

Question 4. Thanks to the help of the designation, the monument has raised more than $5 million through the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument fund. One 

example, is Coca-Cola was has donated $900,000 toward clean-up efforts in the 

forest. This was possible because USFS land cannot form private-public partnership 

unless they are designated a national monument. Seeing that the USFS and Interior 

Department budgets continue to shrink, do you believe public-private partnerships 

like the one listed above is important for our parks? 

a. Without a monument designation, how do you plan to allow USFS lands to form 

these partnerships? 

Answer. We support innovative public-private partnerships, and believe that they 

are important for management of all Federal lands, regardless of designation or 

land managing agency. 

Question 5. Many water agencies in the arid West are looking toward recycled 

water projects as the most cost effective solution to drought management; do you believe we should start to refocus our investments toward recycled water? 

5a. What does President Trump’s budget do to support recycled water projects? 

5b. How can an increase in funding impact the amount of water projects that can 

be introduced in the drought-stricken West? 

Answer. I believe it is important to look at a wide range of approaches when it 

comes to helping the west effectively manage drought. The Bureau of Reclamation’s 

Title XVI Water Reclamation and Reuse Program supports water supply sustainability by leveraging Federal and non-Federal funding to conserve tens of thousands 

of acre-feet of water each year. Since 1992, approximately $672 million in Federal 

funding has been leveraged with non-Federal funding to implement more than $3.3 

billion in water reuse improvements. Reclamation announced in July 2017 a new 

funding opportunity for Title XVI projects pursuant to new authority under the 

Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (P.L. 114–322). 

Questions Submitted by Rep. Sablan 

Question 1. In 2005, Interior’s Office of Insular Affairs started a competitive system 

for allocating among the U.S. territories $27.72 million in Covenant Funds that 

originally all went to the Northern Marianas to help build our public infrastructure. 

The Northern Marianas currently receives only about a third of the money. The competition is largely based on financial management criteria. Financial management 

is important but so is infrastructure. According to the EPA, Saipan, the main island 

in the Northern Marianas, is the only U.S. municipality without 24-hour potable 

water. That is a serious health concern. Isn’t it time to look at new criteria for the 

46 

$27.72 million in Marianas Covenant Funds, so that public health and safety needs 

are prioritized? 

Answer. The capital infrastructure project (CIP) program funds a variety of critical infrastructure needs in the U.S. territories, such as ports, hospitals, schools, 

water, public buildings, solid waste, energy and public safety. As you noted, the annual allocation of CIP funds is made on the basis of competitive criteria that measure the demonstrated ability of the governments to exercise prudent financial management practices and to meet Federal grant requirements. These criteria are 

evaluated and revised as necessary every 5 years. 

Question 2. OIA budget justifications for FY 2018 tout the importance of various 

programs including the Technical and Maintenance Assistance Programs, the Brown 

Tree Snake Control and Coral Reef Initiatives, and the Empowering Insular 

Communities program. Yet the request includes steep funding cuts to each of these 

programs. I appreciate the need to control spending, but these across-the-board cuts 

would likely end up costing much more, both at the Federal and local levels, if programs are not properly implemented. The Brown Tree Snake Control Program costs 

a few million, but if these snakes spread, as they have on Guam, the cost in damage 

to electrical systems and the extermination of native endangered birds would cost 

tens of millions or more. Isn’t it a wiser use of taxpayers’ money to prevent problems 

than to try to fix them after the damage is done? 

Answer. Overall, for 2018, the Administration identified areas where the Federal 

Government could reduce spending and also areas for investment, such as addressing the maintenance backlog across the National Park System and increasing 

domestic energy production on Federal lands. The 2018 budget requires restrained 

spending in order to meet the goal of balancing the budget within 10 years. 

Specifically with regard to the brown treesnake, we recently announced approximately $3.5 million through the Office of Insular Affairs to continue supporting efforts to control the brown treesnake on Guam and prevent its spread to Hawaii, the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the larger Micronesian region. This supplements more than $250,000 in brown treesnake investments made 

by the U.S. Geological Survey and the FWS in FY 2017. 

Question 3. Territorial Representatives Bordallo, Radewagen, Plaskett, and I sent 

you a letter dated March 9, 2017, asking that you retain the position of Assistant 

Secretary for Insular Areas. We have not received a response to date. The Office of 

Insular Affairs has administrative responsibility for coordinating Federal policy in 

the U.S. territories of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and 

the U.S. Virgin Islands. Keeping the position of Assistant Secretary for Insular 

Areas, equal to other Assistant Secretaries in the Department, is an important symbol 

of respect for our constituents as it shows their concerns are taken as seriously as 

citizens residing in the states, and insular area issues are viewed equally significant 

as other issues under the Department’s jurisdiction. In your reorganization of the 

Interior Department, will you retain the position of Assistant Secretary for Insular 

Areas? 

Answer. The President nominated Doug Domenech to be Assistant Secretary for 

Insular Areas on June 29, 2017, and Mr. Domenech’s nomination was confirmed by 

the Senate on September 13, 2017. 

Question 4. In my reply to your letter soliciting comments to assist your review of 

the Marianas Trench National Monument under Executive Order 13792, I wrote 

about the promises made to the people of the Northern Mariana Islands that remain 

unfulfilled. For years, we have been urging Interior to produce the management plan, 

required when President Bush created the Monument. The plan is key to fishing and 

other resource use in the Monument, public education and outreach, and the development of a Monument visitors center. Please provide an update on any progress and 

a specific date for issuance of the Monument Management Plan the Fish and Wildlife 

Service has been working on for 8 years now. 

Answer. FWS continues to work with its partners, including the Commonwealth 

of the Northern Mariana Islands, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Coast Guard, and Department of Defense 

toward completion of a management plan for the Marianas Trench Marine National 

Monument. 

A number of steps have been taken to address or resolve important issues. FWS 

issued a patent under the Territorial Submerged Lands Act for the CNMI’s territorial waters in December 2016. This was an important step in ensuring that the 

final monument management plan included all applicable jurisdictions and authorities, including that of the CNMI. NOAA Fisheries has developed and published 

47 

fishing regulations for the Islands Unit of the Monument. Management regulations 

for the Trench and Volcanic Units were implemented under the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended, through Department of the 

Interior Secretarial Order 3284. 

A draft Monument Management Plan and associated Environmental Assessment 

are awaiting completion of the Administration’s national monuments review and 

any associated Presidential decision arising from the Secretary’s recommendations. 

Question 5. The Fish and Wildlife Service requests $470 million—a decrease of 

$13.8 million—for management of National Wildlife Refuges. This includes decreases 

to wildlife and habitat management, visitor services, law enforcement, and elimination of funding for refuge conservation planning. These cuts will surely ensure that 

American hunters, anglers, and other outdoor enthusiasts will have less access to 

sporting opportunities on public lands. Do you believe the proposed funding levels for 

Refuges are consistent with your vision of increasing access to America’s public 

lands, while also managing and expanding the Refuge System to protect and enhance 

America’s wildlife resources? 

Answer. Yes. Through the National Wildlife Refuge System, the Service continues 

the American tradition, started by President Theodore Roosevelt in 1903, to protect 

fish and wildlife and their habitats and to provide recreation opportunities for hunting, fishing and other outdoor recreation. The proposed budget makes tough choices 

that will lead to a balanced budget, but maintains a commitment to provide outdoor 

recreational opportunities in both rural and urban or suburban settings, as well as 

to support the vital role of volunteers on our Refuges. 

Questions Submitted by Rep. Beyer 

Question 1. Please confirm for me that the contract for Dyke Marsh is on track to 

be awarded before the end of the fiscal year. 

Answer. I am advised that the NPS awarded the contract for construction at Dyke 

Marsh this past fall, but work will probably not begin this calendar year since not 

all permits are yet in hand. However, I understand that the construction documents 

are complete and the permit application process is well underway. 

Question 2. I increasingly hear concerns about traffic and traffic safety along the 

GW Parkway. 

2a. Please indicate how the Department tracks usage statistics for the Parkway. 

Answer. I understand that there are traffic counters on the roadway that track 

the number of vehicles on the George Washington Memorial Parkway (Parkway), 

trail counters on the Mount Vernon Trail to track bicycle and pedestrian usage, and 

entrance counters at some park sites that track vehicles and tour buses. 

2b. Please indicate how the Department tracks accidents along the Parkway. 

Answer. The United States Park Police (USPP) utilizes a centralized database, 

the Department’s Incident Management, Analysis and Reporting System (IMARS), 

that allows law enforcement officers to electronically document accidents/incidents. 

2c. What is the Department doing to increase the safety of the parkway? Please 

speak to the Department’s plans for Morningside Lane and how it will budget appropriately to be able to address safety concerns. 

Answer. The safety of park visitors is of the utmost importance. I understand that 

the NPS has implemented several recommendations from a 2016 Federal Highway 

Association safety assessment of Morningside Lane. Also, NPS has scheduled an additional study to begin next year to identify alternate traffic patterns within the 

local community to increase safety at Morningside Lane. 

2d. What is the Department doing to improve the accuracy of its traffic counts? 

Answer. I am told that the NPS is currently assessing equipment along the 

Parkway and working to replace those pieces that are in disrepair. 

2e. What is the Department doing to improve how it tracks accidents? 

Answer. The USPP continue to work on crash reporting in IMARS. Specifically 

dispatchers are being trained to document detailed locations of crashes. This associated with previous improvements should allow for more detailed and accurate 

reporting. 

48 

Questions Submitted by Rep. Torres 

Tribal Concerns: 

Question 1. Mr. Secretary, there has been some disturbing rhetoric coming from 

some members of this Committee, as well as some in the Administration, attacking 

the sovereignty of tribes and questioning the recognition process and the land into 

trust process. Will you reaffirm your and the Department’s commitment to its trust 

responsibility to all tribes that are currently federally recognized, including the ability to take land into trust? 

Answer. I have said before that the importance of my mission as Secretary to 

partner with American Indians and Alaska Natives is one that I do not take lightly. 

Our duty as Americans is to uphold our trust responsibilities and consult and collaborate with tribes on a government-to-government basis. 

Question 2. To follow up on that, I would like you to address the ongoing issue 

that is the Carcieri decision. That decision has troubled Indian Country since it came 

down 2009, and has left many land decisions in limbo. It’s been almost 10 years 

now—do you agree that Congress needs to resolve the Carcieri issue once and for all? 

Answer. Congress, as the trust settlor for all Indian Affairs matters, has the sole 

authority to amend existing statutes, such as the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. 

Congress alone will determine if land into trust statutes should be constrained or 

expanded. The Department welcomes the opportunity to work with Congress on any 

recommendations to modernize the land into trust process. 

Question 3. The Tiwahe Initiative has proven to be exceptionally successful at assisting tribes in addressing the inter-related problems of poverty, violence, substance 

abuse, and their associated outcomes like youth suicide. Tiwahe is currently in its 

pilot phase and impacting 61 tribes directly, with an additional $24 million in 

Tiwahe Social Services and ICWA funds distributed to tribes across the country. In 

spite of this success, Tiwahe is being targeted for elimination. Can you tell us if the 

Department will be able to support the Tiwahe Initiative’s success through its continued funding? 

Answer. The budget request made difficult choices this year. The Department’s 

budget prioritizes self-governance and self-determination, and focuses funding in 

Indian Country on core service activities, fully funding the costs for tribes to administer programs for themselves, and maintains essential management functions for 

tribal resources, among other things. 

Question 4. I understand that the Native American Graves Protection and 

Repatriation Act Review Committee has been suspended as part of a larger review 

of DOI committees. This is congressionally charted committee and does critical work 

across the country in the rightful return of human remains to Indian tribes. Do you 

have an estimate of when the department’s review will be completed and the 

committee re-activated? 

Answer. In order to make sure all commissions are giving local communities adequate opportunities to comment on park management decisions, the Department is 

reviewing the more than 200 boards, committees, and commissions under its responsibility. Throughout this review process, committees and commissions have been 

given the option to pursue waivers to meet. We recognize the critical work 

performed by these committees. 

Questions Submitted by Rep. Gallego 

Sexual Harassment: 

Question 1. Secretary Zinke, as a follow-up to Mrs. Tsongas’ questions during the 

hearing, please address the following. A workforce survey on sexual harassment is 

an important tool available to those that are serious about rooting out sexual harassment in their organizations. As you alluded to in your testimony, the military has 

a sexual assault and harassment problem of its own. In seeking to address this grave 

and prevalent issue, the military now conducts such a survey every other year. 

Making the surveys recurring is an honest way to track progress in eliminating 

sexual harassment, helps refine departmental efforts, and sends a clear signal to employees that sexual harassment is a priority. 

With this in mind, will the Department commit to ensuring the National Park 

Service (NPS) performs its survey on a recurring basis? 

49 

Answer. We are mindful of the opportunity to perform this survey on a recurring 

basis and understand the value of doing so. A decision has not been made yet on 

whether to repeat the survey. 

Question 2. In his recent testimony before the Senate, acting NPS Director Michael 

Reynolds said this about the results of the sexual harassment workforce survey they 

are currently conducting: ‘‘I assure you that we are committed to transparency and 

once we receive the final data, we will share it widely with this subcommittee as well 

as all employees and interested stakeholders.’’ It’s a step in the right direction but 

accountability requires true transparency. And true transparency means anyone—not 

just the employees or stakeholders—can see the results. Again, the military published 

the results of its survey for all to see. 

In your testimony before the Committee, you indicated your openness to sharing the 

results of both the January 2017 survey and the seasonal survey scheduled for July 

2017. Please confirm that the Department will make both survey results available on 

the public-facing website. 

Answer. The Department has worked with the NPS to ensure that the survey is 

appropriately shared with stakeholders. The January 2017 survey results were 

posted on October 13, 2017, to https://www.nps.gov/aboutus/transparencyaccountability.htm. 

Question 3. You indicated during the hearing that the sexual harassment issues 

known to exist in the National Park Service ‘‘may be department-wide.’’ Accordingly, 

and given your stated zero-tolerance policy, please explain what efforts you will undertake to expand information gathering and response efforts so to include the 

totality of Interior Department personnel. 

Answer. As Secretary of the Interior, I am committed to combating all forms of 

harassment. On April 12, 2017, I issued a memorandum to all employees setting 

forth the Department’s policy on harassment. I directed the Chief Human Capital 

Officer and the Solicitor to establish additional harassment reporting procedures for 

managers and supervisors. I also ensured that all managers and supervisors 

throughout the Department will now be required to complete training on preventing 

harassment and improving the workplace environment. In addition, I have directed 

the Department to update its policy, procedures, and guidance to address the impact 

of harassment as it relates to performance and conduct. This is an important and 

ongoing process here at the Department and I look forward to working with you and 

your colleagues to craft real solutions that protect employees and hold wrongdoers 

accountable. 

Questions Submitted by Rep. Hanabusa 

Hazards Programs: 

Question 1. The U.S. Geological Survey’s natural hazards programs are critical for 

communities across our Nation to understand the science behind natural disasters 

and how we can best prepare for them. The Earthquake Hazards Program and the 

Volcano Hazards Program as examples today, since they are of particular importance 

to Hawaii. These programs use science and technology to monitor signs of activity 

to help ensure the public is given ample warning of an earthquake, tsunami, or 

volcanic activity, so that proper precautions can be taken to reduce the amount of 

damage and loss of lives. 

Your budget seems to reflect the opposite. On cuts to the Earthquake Hazards 

Program, it says ‘‘This reduction would diminish the EHP’s ability to execute its core 

activities . . .’’ On cuts in the Volcano Hazards Programs, it says ‘‘This reduction 

would diminish the VHP’s ability to execute its core activities to provide forecasts and 

warnings of hazardous volcanic activity at volcanoes in the United States with the 

current monitoring networks,’’ among other things. 

These proposed cuts are deeply concerning. Although they are not large, they could 

have serious consequences, especially if these cuts hinder these programs’ abilities to 

‘‘execute its core activities.’’ 

1a. Please explain the rationale behind these proposed cuts. 

Answer. For 2018, the Administration identified areas where the Federal Government could reduce spending and also areas for investment, such as addressing the 

maintenance backlog across the National Park System and increasing domestic 

energy production on Federal lands. The 2018 budget requires restrained spending 

in order to meet the goal of balancing the budget within 10 years. The 2018 budget 

50 

request focuses on core capabilities to provide forecasts and warnings of hazardous 

volcanic activity with current monitoring networks, including Hawaii; produce updated hazard assessments for high-threat volcanoes; and to revise the national 

volcano threat level assessment. The budget maintains support for robust national 

and regional earthquake monitoring and reporting, including Hawaii. 

Invasive Species: 

Question 2. Invasive species is a global problem that will continue to invade our 

lands and waters with devastating economic and ecological impacts unless we actively protect our resources. It has been shown time and again that prevention of 

invasive species saves far more money than trying to eradicate the pest after it has 

been introduced. It is problematic to cut invasive species funding, seeing as invasive 

species continue to cost the United States more than $120 billion in damages 

annually (Pimental et al. 2005). 

Invasive species management requires a holistic effort due to the impacts to both 

aquatic and terrestrial resources. Especially troubling in the budget are reductions 

for the Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Insular Affairs, and National Parks 

Service for invasive species management, while funding is increased by more than 

$4.5 million for the Bureau of Reclamation, which focuses on dams. While there are 

invasive species in dams, the issues plague areas on both land and in the sea. The 

funding shift away from offices within the Department of the Interior that have jurisdiction over areas with invasive species and to an agency with little expertise in this 

area would be an inefficient waste of taxpayer money. 

My home state of Hawaii, for example, has very unique ecosystems that are particularly vulnerable to invasive species. We require robust invasive species funding 

to prevent further damage from such species as the Brown Tree Snake, Little Fire 

Ant, Coconut Rhinoceros Beetle, and the Coqui frog, much of which is best managed 

by the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

2a. Given that the threat from invasive species is not diminished and reducing prevention will cost us much more in eradication, can you explain the rationale behind 

cuts to invasive species management? 

2b. How is the Bureau of Reclamation going to effectively manage invasive species 

in places like Hawaii where the Bureau has no presence? 

Answer. Invasive species are a significant threat to the Nation’s economy, food 

and water security, public health and environment. The Department leads extensive 

work to prevent, eradicate and control invasive species, including efforts to strengthen early detection and rapid response capabilities, enhance biosecurity measures, 

and address high impact invasive species, such as the brown treesnake. The Department is committed to working with the state of Hawaii and all of our partners on 

these important issues. The budget includes $101 million for invasive species work 

across the Department, nearly level with 2017. 

The Department recently announced approximately $3.5 million through the 

Office of Insular Affairs to continue supporting efforts to control the brown 

treesnake on Guam and prevent its spread to Hawaii, the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, and the larger Micronesian region. This supplements 

more than $250,000 in brown treesnake investments made by the U.S. Geological 

Survey and the FWS in FY 2017. The budget requests an increase for the Bureau 

of Reclamation to help address the threat posed by zebra mussels, which is a serious 

concern in the West due to the experience seen in the Great Lakes region. 

Questions Submitted by Rep. McEachin 

Sexual Harassment: 

Question 1. Secretary Zinke, during questioning at the hearing, you agreed that 

your hiring freeze was the reason the DOI attorneys needed to work through the backlog of sexual harassment allegations have not yet been hired. But you seem to blame 

others for that. There are only two people that can approve exceptions to your hiring 

freeze; you and your Deputy Secretary—or acting Deputy Secretary in this case. There 

are really only two people to blame for the failure to do what it takes to work through 

the backlog. When will those attorneys in the ELLU unit be hired? 

Answer. Thank you for bringing this issue to my attention. While positions in 

Washington, DC, and Denver, and positions in the field at the GS-12 level and 

above, are still generally subject to hiring controls, the Solicitor’s Office has authority to hire personnel lawyers and is in the process of doing so. I look forward to 

51 

working toward a solution to this problem. As I have stated before, I have a zero 

tolerance policy for sexual harassment and the Department remains committed to 

addressing this issue head on. 

Question 2. Sexual harassment is a sizable, difficult, complex problem that requires a serious long-term commitment. A problem like that needs a plan with clear 

goals and a viable path to achieving them. I have not found a plan for NPS. I could 

cobble together the promises made in various statements, memos, and briefing notes 

to see what has been said but I have not found a plan. Without a plan, it’s hard 

to address the problem efficiently and have accountability for those in charge of getting rid of sexual harassment. Is there a written plan for how NPS will address its 

sexual harassment problem? 

Answer. The National Park Service is pursuing a number of proactive strategies 

on multiple fronts to address the harassment issues. First, the NPS is examining 

the breadth and depth of the problems with a workplace survey of both permanent 

and seasonal employees. Second, the NPS is encouraging employees to consult with 

a newly established Ombuds Office if they encounter workplace problems. Third, the 

NPS is improving training programs aimed at recognizing and addressing harassment. Fourth, the NPS is seeking input from employee resource groups. Fifth, the 

NPS building stronger procedures for reporting, investigating, tracking, and resolving work environment issues. And sixth, the NPS is acting as quickly as possible 

when new cases are brought to its attention. These issues did not develop overnight 

and they will not be solved overnight, however, NPS is committed to bringing a culture of transparency, respect and accountability back to the organization. 

Inspector General: 

Question 3. Secretary Zinke, would a permanent Inspector General help you and 

your department function more efficiently and transparently? 

Answer. The Department appreciates the work of Interior’s Office of the Inspector 

General, currently led by the Deputy Inspector General Mary L. Kendall, in the detection and investigation of waste, fraud, and abuse. I would note that the appointment of an Inspector General is a decision to be made by the President, with the 

advice and consent of the Senate. 

Questions Submitted by Rep. Brown 

Environmental Justice: 

Question 1. Mr. Secretary, decades of studies have proved that minority, lowincome, rural, tribal and indigenous populations face tremendous environmental and 

health disparities. Do you agree? 

Answer. While I am not familiar with the studies you mention, the Department 

of the Interior, and I, recognize that there remain impediments to economic, environmental, and health prosperity for a significant number of rural and underserved 

communities. The Department supports underserved communities efforts to overcome disparities in much of the work we do. 

Programs at the Department of the Interior address issues in Indian Country that 

range from remediation of legacy wells in Alaska, in some cases to protect the 

health and safety of Alaska Native communities, to assisting tribes in addressing 

important human services matters, like child welfare, health, and other social 

services issues. 

Question 2. In 1994 President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898 requiring that 

the U.S. EPA and other Federal agencies implement environmental justice policies. 

That order required all Federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice considerations in their missions, develop strategies to address disproportionate impacts to 

minority and low-income people from their activities, and coordinate the development 

of data and research on these topics. Do you support the goals of this order? 

Answer. I believe it is necessary that the Department’s management of the 

Nation’s natural and cultural resources is done in a manner that is inclusive of all 

populations. As I have said before, I recognize that the Department has not always 

stood shoulder-to-shoulder with tribal communities. I also recognize that all tribes 

are sovereign and we must respect their right to self-determination and the decisions that they make. We are working to foster stronger and more resilient Native 

communities. 

52 

Question 3. Under your budget, this order faces its gravest assault. The Office of 

Environmental Policy and Compliance (OEPC), part of the Office of the Secretary, 

is the focal point for implementing the Department’s environmental justice policy, including the environmental justice executive order, and ensuring compliance. The proposed budget would cut the Office of the Secretary—your office—by over 80 percent. 

How can a cut this large not undermine the environment and health of minority, 

low-income, rural Americans, tribal and indigenous communities? 

Answer. The request for the Office of the Secretary appears to reflect a large reduction because the FY 2018 budget request would transfer funding for the 

Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) program from the Departmental Operations account, from which both FY 2016 andFY 2017 funding for PILT was appropriated, 

to a separate PILT appropriation. With regard to Indian Affairs programs specifically, while this budget makes tough choices, it prioritizes self-governance and selfdetermination for Indian Country, fully funding the costs for tribes to administer 

programs for themselves, and maintains essential management functions for tribal 

resources, among other things. 

With regard to environmental justice, while OEPC provides support at the 

Departmental level, implementation of environmental justice activities at the 

Department has always occurred at the bureau level. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I appreciate that. We will start with 

a round of questions and try to get as much as we can in. First 

of all, I remind the Committee members that we have a 5-minute 

limit to questions of the Secretary and the staff that is here. I am 

going to do that. I am going to be mean on that, so same thing, 

we will cut you off at 5 minutes. If you are talking when it is 5 

minutes, I will cut you off. Don’t ask a question when there are 

only 20 seconds left. Do it the right way. 

I also want to apologize because in the middle of this I and Mr. 

Grijalva have another meeting we are going to have to go to. We 

are not walking out on you, we will be back. If you are still here, 

we will come back. 

Let me open it up and start with questions, if I could, for you, 

Secretary Zinke. 

There are some people, there are some voices out there that simply try to measure success by the increased dollars and a bigger 

bureaucracy. As you have mentioned before, that simply is a different era. And you have mentioned before how the revenues have 

decreased, how access to public land has been further restricted. 

Overall, a return on services for taxpayers has been diminished, 

even though there was supposedly, on paper, an increase in 

revenues. 

Can you just tell us more clearly how you expect to try to solve 

those three problems of the access, the service, and the revenue 

coming into the country, and how you intend to do that? And if 

there is some way, statutorily, we can assist you in hitting those 

areas? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of 

things. 

One, on the revenue side, it is oil and gas and all of the above, 

but I am a Boy Scout. We are going to do it right. You leave your 

campground in as good or better condition than what you found it. 

But clearly, when you put 94 percent of all offshore holdings off 

limits, it has a consequence. When you decide you are not going to 

cut any timber, it has a consequence. When you decide you are not 

going to do anything onshore, there is a consequence. 

53 

Compensatory mitigation was a problem. Some people would call 

it extortion. But when you have a project, let’s say a pipeline or a 

power line, and you force a company to do $90 million worth of 

compensatory mitigation in a project that is $109 million, that is 

a problem. When the permitting process becomes arbitrary, that is 

an issue. 

In the case of North Shore, when a company buys a $3.1 billion 

lease offshore, and is forced to go further out in an unproductive 

area, and is forced to drill a well that is not proved true because 

of a Fish and Wildlife rule that is maybe pertinent to the Gulf, 

where you cannot have platforms and systems 15 miles apart, that 

forces them to drill a dry hole, that is a $3.1 billion hit, and that 

sends signals throughout the industry that we cannot be trusted. 

So, my biggest job is to be trustworthy, to be a partner, making 

sure we work with people, rather than against people, make sure 

we have a system that we hold industry accountable, because accountability is important. That is why we reintroduced the Royalty 

Committee, to make sure we have a system that we hold people 

accountable, but we are viewed as an advocate, rather than an 

adversary. 

Reorganization is not just about number of people in budget, it 

is how we do things. Let me give you an example. If you have a 

trout and a salmon in the same stream, and that upstream has 

perhaps a dam or a lock, and downstream is irrigation, and if that 

stream happens to pass by tribal lands, you have at least five different bureaucracies. Fish and Wildlife will handle the trout, 

NOAA will handle the salmon, Bureau of Reclamation will handle 

the irrigation, Army Corps of Engineers will handle the locks, and 

BIA will be the subject matter on tribal lands. 

Five bureaus, and it could be more, all will have different views, 

different biological opinions, mind you, and some of the opinions 

might be unreconcilable. So, how do you manage your public lands? 

We are looking at more of a joint model on the region side, because 

if the government cannot align, then how do you expect industry, 

or how do you expect the public to have a view and transparency 

of what is best? 

We are looking at a reorganization based on jointness, based on 

how to get the Forest Service and the Department of the Interior 

together on issues, so we can be more transparent and address 

things like wildlife corridors and watersheds. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Secretary, I am cutting myself off 

here, too, so let me thank you for that. That is a significant issue. 

Can I just say on Antiquities, very quickly, four of the last six 

presidents have actually changed the way Antiquities has been 

used. In Bears Ears, you were very nice to actually challenge 

Congress to come up and solve some of the questions that should 

be presented. I appreciate that. I know Senators Hatch and Lee 

will take that on the Senate side; the membership here will do 

something with that, we will take upon the challenge, and we will 

give you something legislatively that can be used in that particular 

area. 

I have 9 seconds. I said I wouldn’t do a question with that period 

of time, so let me just give it out to you, that if there is something 

that you think we can do to help to assist in providing 

54 

transparency, accountability, dealing with the Antiquities Act, we 

would like to hear from you and are willing to do that. 

I apologize, and I will now recognize Mr. Grijalva for his 

questions. Since I went 8 seconds over, we will take it off of yours. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Secretary, the Office of Legal Counsel within 

the Department of Justice has a written opinion stating fundamentally that only letters or inquiries from committee chairmen should 

receive responses from the Trump administration. All other letters 

from Members of the Congress can and have been ignored. We submitted more than a dozen letters to the Administration seeking information, and we have received no responses. 

I really believe this policy is undemocratic, as well as offensive 

to every Member in Congress. Even Chairman Grassley said that 

it frustrates the constitutional functioning of legislature. 

My question is to that issue of information, the flow of information, and the equal treatment of Members. Mr. Secretary, when you 

were a member of this Committee, if you wrote a letter to the 

Administration, did you feel your letter deserved to be answered? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, first, I can say up front there is no gag 

order. 

And second, I have met with the Minority in person. I also recall 

you were in the meeting that I committed to meet with the 

Minority Members quarterly. And if a Member, which I think is a 

courtesy, it is not a right, but it is a professional courtesy, that if 

you have an issue, then I will give you my phone number and we 

will talk about it personally. I will arrange to come over. 

When I was in Boston recently, I called young Joe Kennedy, who 

I think very highly of. I talked to all Members and said exactly 

where I—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. And I appreciate that, Mr. Secretary, but the 

point here is the free and open flow of information, Members receiving information. 

Our oversight responsibility is more encompassing than your gesture, and we need information, information that becomes part of 

the record. And while I appreciate the gesture, and would take advantage of it, the fact remains that for the record these responses 

need to occur. 

You wrote nine letters to the Obama administration. All nine you 

received responses to when you were a Member of this body. And 

I think that, quite frankly, every Member here, and certainly representing the Minority side, deserves the courtesy that you were 

extended by the previous administration. 

The purpose of these letters was to get the reasoning for the various policy decisions that you would be making. And I really think, 

and let me ask you, as Members of Congress entitled to a full understanding of the reasonings behind your policy decisions, don’t 

you think that is part of the legislative oversight responsibility that 

this Committee has? 

Secretary ZINKE. I would think hearing it from the Secretary of 

the Interior directly probably is the most important access I can 

think of in a democracy. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Let me—— 

55 

Secretary ZINKE. As you know, when you write a letter, it is 

probably your staff that writes it. It probably comes to my staff 

that answers it. But I have said, and I have absolutely committed, 

that I will talk to you in person. I don’t think that there is a better 

system, and I can’t remember, and I was only here for one term, 

but I can’t remember a Secretary that would offer to talk to you 

about an issue in person. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. OK. I appreciate that. Let me be very specific, 

though. 

Let’s talk about Bears Ears. The comment period is over, extended comment period. One of the letters that we sent was wanting an accounting, how many support existing monuments, how 

many support making changes to the existing monuments. Will 

your office provide that accounting of those comments as a response to that letter? I realize those comments are public, but 

there are tens of thousands of them. We would simply like an accounting of the positives and the negatives. 

We are going to be resubmitting letters to you as official questions for the record for this hearing. And, as you know, questions 

for the record are technically coming from the Chairman. Because 

of that being on the record, my second question, will you commit 

to providing answers to those letters for the record, given the submittal today? 

Secretary ZINKE. As you know, the Antiquities Act is singular in 

authority. It is by the President, by the executive. It does not require NEPA, it does not require public access or public comment. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. All I want is—— 

Secretary ZINKE. However, on the review, for the first time it was 

regulations.gov. So, we opened up a website so every comment 

could be heard. And the President asked me to go forward and get 

every comment. And I would certainly—— 

The CHAIRMAN. I have 10 seconds to finish up with you. 

Secretary ZINKE [continuing]. Make that available. 

And if you want to talk about the Bears Ears in the next round, 

I will talk about the Bears Ears—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Well, the question was already asked. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Lamborn, you are up. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, it is great to have you here. I remember when you 

sat on this side of the dais, and you always had great, penetrating 

questions. And I am so happy to see you sitting where you are at 

now. 

Secretary ZINKE. It is easier on that side, but—— 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. The subcommittee that I chair, the Subcommittee 

on Water, Power and Oceans, has an active infrastructure agenda, 

already hearing testimony on a number of bills. And a subcommittee bill is also going to be on the Floor today that Mr. 

McClintock has sponsored, streamlining the permitting process for 

water and infrastructure projects. 

How do these kinds of bills that would remove bureaucratic obstacles and streamline America’s water resource developments, including title transfer bills like with the Bureau of Reclamation, 

56 

when they have hydropower projects, how do these fit into the 

Department’s goals of advancing the production of American energy 

infrastructure improvement? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, how we are approaching it, one is that it 

is just not about funding, it is about process and how we do our 

permits. If there is one small clerical error, it can go back in a loop, 

and we added more money in our budget for permitting. But some 

of it is structural. And that is why we are convinced that, as an 

example, looking at a joint model would be what we call joint management areas, where, rather than the different bureaus are represented, they are grouped together into a NEPA process or a 

permit process, where every bureau has representation. 

It is not a new concept. This is how we fight forest fires out 

West, and this is how the military operates under combatant commands. But looking at it more joint, so you don’t have the problems 

up front with different biological opinions, where we actually can 

work together as a government, and have state input, because a lot 

of the permitting process also involves state and local communities, 

which should have a voice. 

So, helping streamline the process to making sure it is fair, not 

arbitrary, consistent in approach, but also understanding that 

there needs to be some flexibility because the geology is different 

than what the geology is in the Appalachians or Colorado. So, you 

need the right people to understand the nuances in the different 

projects. 

Again, being an advocate, rather than an adversary, is a big 

change. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. And we will work with 

you and your Department on that. 

One specific line item in the budget that I do want to ask you 

about has to do with 3D Elevation Program, or 3DEP. And that 

does concern me, because it is important to have high-quality 3D 

elevation data to help resource management of forests, alternative 

energy, agriculture, other industries, including flood risk management. 

Why are you proposing a reduction in that particular program? 

I am just curious where the Department is coming from on that. 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, this is a balanced budget. Look at it. I 

will work with you on it, but we looked at the USGS, where that 

program, I think, resides. We did reduce USGS, not all programs, 

we consolidated some on there. 

As far as the program goes, we think there is a good opportunity 

for public-private partnerships. In many of the cutting-edge 

technologies, the government is not the lead any more. Now, there 

are a lot of reasons why, and I think the government should be on 

the lead in some areas. But, quite frankly, our processes, our acquisition, the way that we approach technology, we are lagging behind 

some of the private enterprises. 

So, we think there is an opportunity for public-private partnership on some of the 3D modeling, certainly some of the surveys, 

and some of the higher technologies. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. And last, applications for permit to 

drill are supposed to only take 30 days. Under BLM, they take an 

57 

average of 220 days. What can we do to speed up that particular 

process? 

Secretary ZINKE. We added money into it. I have also appointed 

a counselor for energy affairs that is specifically looking at the 

energy sector and the permitting process. 

One is, you have to be fair. Two is, it is not a free-for-all in that 

a public review is necessary on this. So, we make sure the reclamation plan is in place, that it is the right drilling, we have a casing, 

et cetera. We are actively looking at that, and our goal is to reduce 

it, but we have added more money in the budget to look at it. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. You violated my 30-second rule there 

and got away with it. 

Mr. LAMBORN. It was 20 seconds. 

The CHAIRMAN. Twenty-second rule, right. Well, Mr. Huffman 

has usurped the Ranking Member’s chair, and therefore he gets the 

right to ask the next questions. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Welcome back to the Committee, Mr. Secretary. 

It is good to see you. 

Secretary ZINKE. Good to be here. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I notice that you are proposing something in the order of $10 million to come up with a new 5-year offshore oil and 

gas leasing plan. I wanted to ask if you can tell us when you expect 

to publish the request for information on that plan. 

Secretary ZINKE. I know we are going to do the first Federal 

Register asking for that, I want to say, within the next 30 days, 

if not sooner. We think the whole 5-year plan will be done between 

2 and 3 years on it. 

Again, we looked at the process, the way it is set up—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I appreciate that. I was just trying to hone in on 

the timeline, if I could. 

Secretary ZINKE. I think in the next 30 days we should have 

something out on it. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. OK. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I appreciated your 

testimony about your desire for a balanced budget to do more with 

less, and you are undertaking this new $10 million planning process. I know you want to make sure all those dollars are well spent. 

So, let me just save you some trouble when it comes to California 

and the West Coast. We do not want new leasing off our coastline 

in California. We learned way back in 1969 in Santa Barbara, with 

that blowout, what that means. We have been reminded many 

times of the Deepwater Horizon and other events. We have made 

that abundantly clear during the preparation of the current leasing 

plan. 

The people of California are simply not going to allow it to happen. In fact, our state wants to remove the existing oil and gas rigs 

in our waters. We are looking forward to the development of offshore renewable energy, and we are not happy about backwards 

steps. 

So, I know that you want to do more with less. Let me just submit that whether it is the fervent opposition from the people of 

California, from the state of California, from the local governments 

in California, from the court challenges that will ensue, to the state 

lands commission right-of-way and permits that would be 

58 

necessary to make that happen, you will be doing less with less if 

you attempt to drill for oil off the coast of California. 

Secretary ZINKE. I am very familiar with Santa Barbara, and I 

am sure you also appreciate there are 10,000 gallons a year that 

seep naturally out of that harbor. And to some degree the science 

will say, actually, relieving some of the pressure is a good thing. 

But I am very familiar with Santa Barbara. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. And I am familiar with that old industry trope, 

as well. 

Secretary ZINKE. Absolutely. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. That has been debunked many a time. 

I want to ask about, again, on this theme of doing more with 

less, you have talked about reorganization. You want to have an efficient government. You have provided some welcome gestures 

about accessibility, at least at a personal level, which I appreciate 

very much. 

But as you reorganize, and as you try to instill more responsiveness and accessibility, you have also mentioned having a Department that works with local communities, listens to issues at the 

community and state level. 

Three months ago, on an issue near and dear to my constituents, 

the safety of Trinity Dam in Trinity County, I and the Board of 

Supervisors from that county wrote letters to the Bureau of 

Reclamation. We were asking about the safety of this dam. This is 

an earthen dam, similar to the one at Oroville, which, as you know, 

was in real hot water just a few months ago. And we have not had 

a response back. In fact, we have heard nothing but red tape about 

an elaborate process necessary to review and sign off on this letter. 

So, Mr. Secretary, I want to ask you about how this 3-month 

delay on something so vital to the communities I represent, and a 

community impacted by this reclamation facility, involving 25 

people, we are told, signing off on a letter in response to a potential 

disaster, how does that adequately affect an agency that works 

with local communities, is efficient and responsive, and listens to 

issues about their safety? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, I may be good at reorganizing, but I am 

not that good. I have not heard. I will check on the Trinity Dam 

thing. 

For the record, it is interesting, I don’t have a Deputy. I have 

about 70 appointments. To date, there is not one that has gone 

through Senate confirmation yet. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. I appreciate it. In the little time I have left, let 

me just ask this, Mr. Secretary. 

You said this is what a balanced budget looks like. But this is 

not what a balanced budget has to look like. You have chosen to 

balance the budget with some winners and losers. On the losing 

side, we see cuts to renewable energy, climate change, ESA implementation, abandoned mine remediation, environmental health, 

science, national wildlife refuges, LWCF, it goes on. 

On the winning side, we see more exploration, drilling, mining, 

et cetera. Is there any sacrifice for the fossil fuel industry in your 

budget? 

The CHAIRMAN. But you can’t answer, I am sorry. Time has 

expired. 

59 

Secretary ZINKE. May I have 3 seconds? 

The CHAIRMAN. Three, I am counting. 

Secretary ZINKE. As the executive proposes, as the Congress, you 

have a say, and that is why I am here. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have, Secretary, eight other Members from 

California on this Committee. You are going to hear a lot more 

California questions. 

But first we go to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Wittman. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for joining us. As panel members, we appreciate the opportunity. And, Mr. Secretary, as you 

and I worked very hard here on Indian recognition bills, as that 

process continues, and I want to thank the Chairman for his leadership, too, to try to fix the process to make sure that Congress is 

the central decision maker there. 

As the bill that has passed out on the Virginia tribal recognition, 

and hopefully also for Little Shell, goes forward, and hopefully the 

Senate acts, how will your office look upon that bill and your recommendation to the executive branch, hopefully, when that gets to 

the President’s desk? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, as Secretary, I cannot comment on issues 

before the Interior. But certainly, as Secretary, I can say that I 

have always thought that it is the view of Congress to recognize. 

In Bears Ears, for instance, I asked Congress to take a look at 

some things that I thought were outside of the executive. One is 

co-management of monuments. There are a lot of monuments that 

have cultural relevancy to our tribes, and I think that should be 

co-managed, rather than just an advisory group. I asked Congress 

to look at things and take the lead on determining some issues in 

there. 

But I think Congress should take the lead in recognition. I think 

it is the right body, constitutionally. 

Mr. WITTMAN. All right, good. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

I want to talk a little bit now about energy development specifically in the draft plan for the Mid and South Atlantic. As you 

know, the 5-year plan for 2017 through 2022 looks at that particular region. There is also a 2015 Department of Defense plan 

that looked at compatibility within those areas. I wanted to get 

your viewpoint on how the DoD assessment report will play in the 

Department of the Interior’s decision making for potential leasing 

in that area, and does this report, in your mind, show compatibility 

with DoD mission functions and the ability for the oil and gas development to take place off the Atlantic coast? 

Secretary ZINKE. The Atlantic coast is, in some ways, no different 

than other areas. As the Secretary of the Interior, I think seismic 

review and inventories are prudent. I cannot give you a decision 

because I don’t know what is there, but as the steward of our public lands, I think having an inventory on what is our potential is 

important. And that stretches in the 1002 as well as north. It 

stretches on our precious metals. 

I think having an inventory of what is actually there, based on 

science, is important. Then much of the decision rests on Congress 

whether or not, given that inventory and science of actually what 

60 

we have, whether it is prudent to go forth on drilling extraction or 

not. 

But my job, the way I see it, is to have, and we have a wonderful 

USGS, we have a lot of capability there. Let’s do the inventory, and 

let Congress decide whether it is appropriate in the case of 

California or off the coast. And I think that is the way the democracy should run. 

Mr. WITTMAN. In asking specifically about renewable energy, and 

the leasing that takes place offshore, as you know, within the 

Department of the Interior there are a number of different 

processes: the solicited bid process, the unsolicited bid process. 

One of the concerns that I have when we are looking at that is 

the length of the approval process. I put a bill in prior to that to 

make sure that we truncate that approval process to make sure it 

takes place more quickly. But more importantly is to make sure 

that in that process, that we get the perspective of everybody within those particular regions, and that is to make sure that we have 

the views of folks that are users in that particular area, fishermen, 

our maritime industry, and other stakeholders, to make sure that 

their perspective gets reflected in that process, whether it is a solicited or unsolicited bid process. 

Give me your idea about how robust you think that involvement 

process needs to be with all the different stakeholders for the use 

of those particular areas that we would look to for renewable 

energy. 

Secretary ZINKE. I was up in the great state of Massachusetts, 

talking to the lobstermen and the fishermen, and they were a little 

irate about the monument because what they saw was reduced access to fishing. The length of the processes that we have, we looked 

at a sequential model, where you have to do 6 months, and then 

after you complete this do another, but it is in sequence, you know? 

And I think you can do a lot of it simultaneously to reduce the time 

frame, but yet make sure you have the stakeholders’ view. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lowenthal, you are recognized. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for coming and addressing us. You 

began, and I am going to follow up, on the offshore revenues and 

the relationship to what those revenues could be used for. You 

mentioned that revenues are down significantly since 2008. You 

mentioned how we made almost $15.5 billion more in revenues in 

2008 than we did in 2016, and that the revenues could be used for 

the parks, or some of those revenues. 

So, I assume that you are talking about it would be good to get 

back to that revenue. And while you don’t say it directly, there 

must be some policies during the Obama administration that you 

would like to revise, if that is really so. 

So, I would like to understand the steps that you are going to 

take to increase offshore revenues. Would it be more leasing? 

Faster permitting? Less regulations? Exactly what do you see to 

change some of the policies? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, we had yesterday, as a matter of fact, the 

first successful lease in the Cook Inlet, on a $3 million lease. That 

61 

was, I think, an indicator that we are willing to be a partner, 

rather than an advocate. 

But on leases there is, again, if you are going to operate on 

public land, then the responsibility is to make sure it is done right. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Got it. 

Secretary ZINKE. Transparent. What we are doing is we are 

doing our seismic surveys, we are moving ahead on that. That is 

important. But also is an indicator that the rules are not going to 

be arbitrary. 

I could go through some horrific stories of compensatory mitigation, of arbitrariness of rules that the industry looked at us as not 

a good partner, and they would prefer to drill elsewhere. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Are we talking about offshore now? 

Secretary ZINKE. Offshore and onshore. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. OK. 

Secretary ZINKE. Onshore, both. The revenue, though, I can tell 

you offshore, as you know, goes into the LWCF program, which is 

important. So, when the revenue goes down, so does the LWCF 

program, the potential for appropriation, but that is not the whole 

story. Over the course of time, there is about a $20 billion buildup 

in LWCF, which most of us recognize is a wonderful program. So, 

let’s fix the system, so you don’t have to go—— 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Yes, I would like to go back, though, to just 

some of the revenues, and ask some of the questions. 

You are aware that 2008 was an outlier year. That is where gas 

prices were roughly $4 a gallon. In 2008, the price of oil was somewhere about $145 a barrel, in July almost exactly, I guess that 

would be 9 years past. There was an average price of $107 per 

barrel. 

You know that in 2016, the price was about $41 a barrel, less 

than a third of what it was. So, we are talking about a tremendous 

drop. And even in natural gas, it is even more. 

And we also, as I understand, we had more oil production offshore in 2016 than we had in 2008, so the prices were very high. 

We certainly don’t want to go back to that era, where it was over 

$4 a gallon to buy gasoline. 

So, the question is if in fact there are policies that really impacted this besides the price of oil, which I think what we are really talking about is the price of oil, what year was the second most 

productive year, in terms of oil production offshore? 

Secretary ZINKE. I will look at that. But to your point, the oil and 

gas price—— 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. It was 2014, and the third most was 2013. The 

Obama administration has produced the greatest amount of revenues, besides the one outlier year. Is that not so? 

Secretary ZINKE. If your contention is the last administration 

was pro-energy, I think—— 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. I am—— 

Secretary ZINKE [continuing]. Your supposition is—— 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Just the data, just the data. What was the 

second, 2013 and 2014 we had the greatest amount of revenues 

from offshore oil production besides the year 2008. I am just asking. Is that not true? 

62 

Secretary ZINKE. I would have to look. But if your contention is 

that the compensatory mitigation, the arbitrariness of the regulatory framework, of the signals the oil and gas, or any industry, 

to include timber harvest, if your contention was that it was up in 

the last 8 years, I will get you the statistics from the Department 

of the Interior that would show a different mind. 

Mr. GOHMERT [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Lowenthal. We will 

now go to Mr. McClintock. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. And just to follow up 

on that question, can you tell me when were the offshore facilities 

that produced that oil actually approved? Before or after the 

Obama administration? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, to be fair, I have to get the data to you 

on that. I know the trend lines, and I have seen them, and I don’t 

want to misrepresent the issue. 

The overall theme, which was correct, is that revenues have gone 

significantly—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. My point is that the projects were actually approved, for the most part, prior to the Obama administration. And 

I believe we will find, in looking at the data, that the Obama administration was very lackluster in approving new projects that 

will come on-line 10 years from now. 

But what I first wanted to do was to thank you for your trip to 

California, for your visits to the Sacramento regional office, on to 

Yosemite Valley, and on to Kings Canyon from there. That was a 

tremendous morale boost for all of the employees that safeguard 

these national treasures, and really signaled a hands-on Interior 

Secretary. I just want to acknowledge that and tell you how much 

it was appreciated from the rank and file and the general public. 

On that trip, you saw the condition of our forests in the Sierra. 

And the Sierra National Forest is adjacent to Yosemite. We have 

had a 90 percent mortality of pine trees. The tree density in the 

Sierras is now, typically, three or four times what the land can actually sustain, because we had an 80 percent decline in timber harvests in the Sierra, with a concomitant increase in acres destroyed 

by forest fire. What can we do about that? 

Secretary ZINKE. In the budget, we prioritized fire suppression. 

And to your point about the front line, the front line is too thin. 

My opinion, as a former SEAL commander, is that our front line, 

that is people that are out there with our parks and wildlife refuges, we are too short in the front line and we are too heavy in 

middle and upper management. And part of the reorganization is 

to put more assets where they were. 

Almost every cost-cutting measure previous has always regionalized assets up. And there is a lot of frustration on the front line, 

and the frustration is they feel like they have been micromanaged, 

there are not enough resources. And you would think being a park 

ranger is the greatest job ever. Employee surveys rank it at the 

bottom. 

So, whether it is a prevalent sexual harassment, a culture of intimidation, whether or not our employees feel micromanaged, they 

don’t have the resources, there are a lot of reasons why. But I am 

63 

competitive. I want the rangers to be number one, period, the best 

job in the world, as it should be. 

So, I am going to, we are going to, push a lot of resources back 

where they belong, out of the middle and upper management, and 

back on the front line to where our rangers, our wildlife refuge 

managers, or BLM professionals feel like they are supported. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. That would be a big step in the right direction. 

As you know, on the Federal Lands Subcommittee we have three 

over-arching goals: first, to restore public access to the public 

lands; second, to restore good management to the public lands; and 

third, to restore the Federal Government as a good neighbor to 

those communities that are directly impacted by the public lands. 

Could you comment on your plans in those areas? 

Secretary ZINKE. I think public lands are for public use. And 

philosophy-wise, I think Muir was correct in some of our lands, 

where man is a lightest footprint, more of an observer, but much 

of our lands I think should fall under the Pinchot-Roosevelt of 

public access, multiple use. 

You can extract wealth from our public lands, but you have to 

do it with a reclamation plan that makes sense, using best science 

and practices, and understanding the interest of the public is to 

make sure that the public lands in perpetuity are, over time, the 

same experience. 

I am concerned about our parks. I am concerned about Yosemite, 

because the experience, for many Americans, the first time they see 

a park, it is Yosemite. And when the traffic is what it is on the 

405, we have to look at how to manage not only our parks, but the 

public lands around our parks, so the watersheds make sense, the 

trail systems connect, so we utilize our public lands in a better and 

more efficient way to maintain the experience. I don’t think any of 

us want to see our parks atrophy and to experience the same as 

what you would see on our freeways. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I believe Pinchot’s maxim was the greatest 

good for the greatest number of people in the long run. Thank you. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. McClintock. We will now go to 

Mr. McEachin. 

Mr. MCEACHIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you. You made a comment about 

sexual harassment that I want to go into a little bit. As you know, 

Mr. Secretary, deeply troubling cases of sexual harassment at the 

Park Service have come to light in recent years. The Inspector 

General has revealed in detail behaviors that would be reprehensible in any setting, let alone a taxpayer-funded agency tasked with 

celebrating the very best of American culture, history, and values. 

I am surprised, personally, that we have not had a hearing on 

it in this Committee, so I am asking the Chairman for one today, 

and I have sent a letter to the Chairman, as well as the Chairman 

of Oversight. I have the privilege of being the Ranking Member on 

Oversight. 

You have declared a zero tolerance policy and promised an update of policies, new training requirements, and new reporting procedures. But I want to suggest to you that is not enough. The 

previous administration left you a transition briefing book which 

revealed that the high-profile sexual harassment cases at the Park 

64 

Service have spurred about 120 new sexual harassment and related reprisal allegations at the Department that need to be 

resolved. 

The brief went on to say, ‘‘Because the employment and labor 

law units existing resources were inadequate to manage and litigate these cases, as well as to undertake efforts necessary to ensure such cases do not recur in the future, the division of general 

law requests funding to hire six new experienced employment and 

labor law attorneys.’’ As you know, these attorneys do not just litigate cases, they also provide guidance to supervisors who have to 

investigate the allegations themselves. 

My question is this. When I checked last week to see whether the 

attorneys were hired, only some have been. It seems that there 

may be a hiring freeze that prevents the rest of them moving 

forward. Is that still the case? 

Secretary ZINKE. The sexual harassment, let me begin. I have a 

zero tolerance. As a former commander, I have seen it. But some 

of it is structural. Let me give you an example to clarify it. 

I had credible IG reports too, when I assumed office, of a sexual 

harassment case, as well as abuse of power, with our senior law 

enforcement officials. Senior law enforcement officials. What were 

my options? I brought my solicitors together. Fire him. Couldn’t 

fire him. Wasn’t available to me, because he has to go through 

these two committees. They find it, then it goes to appeals process. 

Mr. MCEACHIN. Yes, sir. Mr. Secretary, I am—— 

Secretary ZINKE. So, structurally, I think I need some help from 

Congress. 

Mr. MCEACHIN. I can appreciate that. And hopefully, if we are 

able to have a hearing on this, you will be able to elaborate on 

that. But my question is this. Have you been able to hire the attorneys necessary that the last administration recommended to you be 

hired? Have you been able to hire them? If so, that would be a yes. 

And, if not, please explain to me why not. 

Secretary ZINKE. I have five solicitors that are pending confirmation and appointment. To date, zero. Zero. I don’t have a Deputy. 

I have five solicitors that are appointments. To date, zero. I don’t 

have a Director of Fish and Wildlife. I don’t have a Director of 

Parks. I don’t have a director of anything. So—— 

Mr. MCEACHIN. Are these the solicitors that you are talking 

about, the ones you just—— 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, solicitors on our side, as leadership, and 

I would think that if you are going into a campaign, and you hire 

your chief of staff, your chief of staff should have some say on who 

you hire. And that is the predicament I find myself in, is that—— 

Mr. MCEACHIN. So, are you suggesting that you have not been 

able to hire these attorneys because you don’t have these solicitors 

in place? Is that what you are telling us? 

Secretary ZINKE. What I am saying is that I don’t have any of 

my five solicitors in. And what I am also saying is this, is that as 

far as—— 

Mr. MCEACHIN. My question is not about the solicitors. I thought 

this was going to be relatively simple, but I see that I am not as 

experienced at running out the clock as you are. My question is—— 

65 

Secretary ZINKE. I would find that an inaccurate statement, but 

go ahead, sir. 

Mr. MCEACHIN. I am sure you would, but I am trying to get an 

answer to a question. Have you been able to hire the attorneys or 

not? And we could go into the why, but I just want to know, do 

you have them? 

Secretary ZINKE. I have put a hiring freeze on Washington, DC 

and Denver for a reason, because I think that the hiring is better 

at the field. If that solicitor, and I will check in what grade it is, 

if the solicitor is GS-12 and above, which I assume it is, and that 

solicitor is found in Washington, DC or Denver, then maybe it falls 

into that. Although there is an exception clause. If the Deputy, 

which I don’t have, the Acting Deputy feels that it is necessary, 

then he can do an exception on that. 

But the idea was to put our hiring where it belongs, as in the 

field, and not in the headquarters. But I will give you a detailed, 

line by line, on that position. 

Mr. MCEACHIN. I appreciate it, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. 

Mr. MCEACHIN. I yield back. 

Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman’s time has expired. And the 

gentleman from Alaska, if he is OK with using the term 

‘‘gentleman’’—— 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. From Alaska, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. YOUNG. We are all being gentlemen and ladies today, aren’t 

we? 

Thank you, Mr. Secretary, and thank you for appearing before 

this Committee. I only have a couple of statements, and then one 

question. Our job is to write this budget, and I know the Secretary 

knows it. He has presented a balanced budget to us, and our job 

is to write the budget. We can stand here and beat him up all we 

want, but reality is it is the job of the Congress, not the job of the 

President. It is his philosophy. 

And I know, having served with the Secretary for many years, 

that he has some requirements for the President, that is why he 

is the Secretary, and he will follow through with those. Our job is 

to try to make sure that the money is spent where we want to 

spend it, and still end up with a balanced budget. 

I happen to agree, Mr. Secretary, with your resigning certain 

people out of the agency because it got stagnant. It was a stagnant 

agency, and they were forgetting, very frankly, the people they 

served. I commend you on that. 

One question I want to ask you, or maybe two. The prior administration refused to listen to the people, especially in Alaska. They 

locked up land in Alaska behind Congress’ back under the pretense 

of areas of critical and environmental concern. The land was then 

managed by wilderness, circumventing the No More clause in my 

state. 

And just out of curiosity, what is your direction in those lands 

that were designated as critical habitat and then managed by 

wilderness, circumventing the law? 

66 

Secretary ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, I follow the law. Alaska is 

unique. When it came into the union there were certain provisions 

on Alaska that no other state had on wilderness, on management 

of wildlife, on surveys, to make sure that we finish the surveys, because there is land as you came into the union, there is land that 

is supposed to be surveyed and transferred into the state. That is 

unique. So, I recognize the uniqueness of Alaska, and certainly look 

forward to working with you and Lisa Murkowski on it. 

But part of my job is to go up to Alaska and look at it. You learn 

a lot. As Secretary, I think my position should be out in the field, 

asking the right questions, because it is, and I view my job as nonpartisan, public lands. Of the things that are partisan today, I 

would think public lands would be uniquely an American issue, because we all care about it, we all share the same land experience. 

But on your example with Alaska, I view Alaska as unique, and 

I follow the law. 

Mr. YOUNG. All right, thank you, Mr. Secretary. I have great 

fondness for wildlife refuges and preserves, et cetera, but I do not 

appreciate agencies that set the policy against the law, and do not 

allow access. That is one of my basic complaints. They have this 

idea that the land belongs to the agency. It does not. It belongs to 

the people. And they have insisted on conducting themselves as the 

lord and master, and the lord will not let the peasants come on the 

land without permission. 

That is not the way to operate a park or a refuge or any other 

area that is owned by the public. Doesn’t mean we are going to rip 

and ruin and rape. We are going to take and actually visit. Not inside of a building, but see the beauty and the grandeur of the land, 

experience the stars above us, not inside of a building. And that 

has been in my frustrations the last, actually, under my administration was just about as bad. The last 8 years has been a horror 

dream. 

Again, Mr. Secretary, I thank you for your presence. I feel sorry 

for you in many ways. You have been before the Senate, I believe, 

before two committees. You are going to listen to this Committee 

and probably the Appropriations Committee. I just wish we would 

leave you alone and let you go do your job. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman yields back. At this time the Chair 

recognizes the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Torres, for 

5 minutes. 

Mrs. TORRES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, first of all, I wanted to associate myself with the comments from my colleagues from 

California regarding offshore drilling in the coast of California. 

Secretary Zinke, I agree with you in your comment, your opening 

statement, when you said that we cannot ignore the problem of a 

growing deficit. But we also cannot ignore the problems that we 

are creating by continuing to disproportionately fund programs 

that impact the basic human needs of the Native American people. 

Now, as a local mayor, for the first time in my city’s history we 

actually balanced the budget. Republicans and Democrats came together and went through it, line item by line item. And we actually 

balanced our budget, and everybody voted for it. 

67 

As a member of a State Assembly in the state of California, we went through a $30 billion deficit. When I left in 2014 to come to 

Congress, I left the State Senate with a $2 billion surplus. I am 

not a stranger, and I am not afraid of making cuts. But we have 

to make smart cuts, cuts that are not going to impact, and I am 

not talking about quality of life issues, I am talking about basic 

life, human-right issues that impact Native Americans. 

In this Committee, time after time after time, and I know that 

you have participated in the hearings, but we have heard about the 

unmet needs and the broken promises made to American Indians 

and Alaska Natives, as well as the immense inequalities that this 

has created in Indian Country. Yet, this budget slashes or eliminates key programs that aim to address the disparities. 

And looking over the budget for the BIA, I am very concerned 

that there is an effort to ignore the Department’s trust responsibility. Can you explain how cutting $27.3 million from tribal justice 

programs, $22.7 million from human services, $26 million from resource management, and $10.6 million from tribal government operations, how does this strengthen self-determination? With cuts 

like this, how do you expect tribal leaders to build the capacity to 

expand self-governance in these critical areas? 

Frankly, I am just sick and tired. Yesterday I was at a hearing 

in this room where we heard time and time again how tribal leaders are invited for a meet-and-greet meeting, but yet none of their 

input is ever taken for consideration. As a matter of fact, their 

questions are not even responded to. And that is incredibly 

offensive. 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, first, as a former Congressman in 

Montana, I was honored to represent the seven tribes in Montana. 

And I have always viewed sovereignty should mean something: 

self-determination and respect. And consultation should be consultation, so I agree with you on that. 

The budget is a starting point. Again, a balanced budget makes 

difficult decisions. The budget honors the core trust responsibilities, the core treaty responsibilities, but it does not add money into 

a lot of areas which we both would agree, it is going to be the 

Congress’ decision, are worthy—— 

Mrs. TORRES. Let me just say that if this were to become the actual 2018 budget, the overall funding provided to Indian Affairs 

would be lower than any level in the past 15 years, a full 20 

percent lower than the 2010 funding level. This is a disturbing 

trend, one that is dangerous for Indian Country. 

Native children, specifically, have substandard schools and facilities, and the result of their education suffers. Their future and 

their potential future is being stolen from them every day that we 

ignore their problems. And their safety is a major concern. 

Secretary ZINKE. I will get back to you. I don’t think that that 

is accurate. But if you want to look at education, for instance—— 

Mrs. TORRES. It is not accurate that we are shutting down health 

clinics—— 

Secretary ZINKE. I don’t, I will look—— 

Mrs. TORRES [continuing]. That school roofs are collapsing, sir? 

Secretary ZINKE. Schools, we spend $15,000-plus per student. 

That is well above the national average of $9,000. So, why are 

68 

Indian schools failing? Why is Indian health failing? Why is the 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, even if you increase the money, if you 

give us a grade, how we have done in the last 8 years, I would say 

that grade would be maybe passing in a few, but overall, failing. 

Mrs. TORRES. And I recognize this is not all on you, sir. 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, I think we do need a discussion of how 

to provide services better, but particularly on education and Indian 

health. And I am willing to look for it—— 

Mrs. TORRES. Ran out of my time. Thank you. 

Mr. GOHMERT. The gentlelady’s time has expired. At this point 

we recognize the gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Pearce, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 

Secretary, for being here. I appreciate all of the interesting questions. I just have several observations. I will kind of walk my way 

through them. I am probably not going to ask for too much response from you, but just to know what some of the problems we 

face in the budget are. 

First of all, as far as others have mentioned, the APDs and oil 

and gas drilling, again, oil and gas pays for 40 percent of our teachers pay in New Mexico, so that is a fairly significant contribution. 

So, as we are looking at the APDs, we have seen numbers as high 

as 440 hours to do APDs, compared to 220 nationally. Again, we 

need focus there. 

The discussion about, or the decision to pay for, in our budget, 

selling off the strategic petroleum reserve, I supported the 

President’s three-part agenda: jobs, jobs, jobs. But when you sell 

from the petroleum reserve, what you are doing is undermining the 

oil and gas production. So, just look at that with contemplative 

eyes, if you would, please. 

Also, you have commissioned the Royalty Policy Committee. 

Again, when an industry is struggling with low prices, the last 

thing you want to do is increase the tax take-off of that. 

I appreciate your objectivity on finding efficiencies in the BLM. 

We have fought that fight before. They were going to put 

New Mexico underneath Arizona, and Arizona has very little oil 

and gas production, yet it is one of the main functions of the BLM 

in New Mexico. We fought that off, but I fear that there are going 

to be people still in the agency who will resurface that suggestion. 

We have experience in that discussion, if you would. 

In 1988, and then later in 1993, Fort Wingate was closed. That 

was in the northern part of my district, and it was supposed to be 

distributed to two different tribes, the Zunis and Navajos. For 24 

years that languished. We put the distribution into the NDAA last 

year, so right at the end of the year. 

And yet, I get a letter, May 31, 2017, from the current Acting 

Secretary of the Army, Robert M. Speer. His basic conclusion is 

that public law neither imposes any legal obligation to divest the 

property at the closed installation, meaning closed after a BRAC, 

nor places any limitation on the stationing of new forces or functions at the installation. 

I think it is going to take the secretarial level to work through 

this. It is in the NDAA that it is supposed to be distributed, and 

69 

the Army refuses to comply. Your agency could offer a great deal 

of help. 

With respect to the wolf recovery program, the plan was devel- oped in 1982, $37 million has been spent. We still do not have recovery. We don’t even know what recovery looks like. So, we would 

request that no more money be spent on the wolf introduction and 

the wolf recovery program until they give us some plan and some 

program. 

The next area that we would like to talk about, and by the way, 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit the Robert Speer letter for 

the record if you wouldn’t mind. The national monument, Organ 

Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument, is a very highly volatile issue in the district. Even when the Democrats owned the 

House, Nancy Pelosi, they had a filibuster-proof Senate, and Mr. 

Obama was in the White House, they still could not get this passed 

through law because it was so contentious. 

I would like to submit a list of the 800 businesses who are opposed to the large footprint. Many people on this list feel that the 

law was not followed in the establishment of the monument, that 

it was supposed to be the smallest footprint. That would be 60,000 

acres, rather than the 600,000 acres that were used. So, I would 

like to submit this list, Mr. Chairman, for the record, the 800 businesses and the individuals who opposed that designation and would 

like to see it not revoked, but taken back down to the smallest footprint. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

Rep. Pearce Submission 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,

SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

May 31, 2017 

The Honorable Stevan Pearce 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Representative Pearce: 

Secretary of Defense James Mattis asked me to respond on his behalf to your May 

18, 2017 letter concerning the former Fort Wingate Depot Activity (FWDA). 

Let me assure you that the Department of the Army will completely and properly 

implement its responsibilities under section 2829F of the National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 (Public Law 114–328), without 

delay. The extensive due diligence and documentation preparation necessary to complete the initial transfer of approximately 2,496 acres under this newly enacted 

authority is underway. The Army expects to deliver the Letter of Transfer to 

Department of the Interior (DOI) for this initial phase by July 2017. The Army expects to transfer approximately 4,511 additional acres to DOI by 2022 as environmental remediation of additional parcels is completed with concurrence of the New 

Mexico Environment Department. 

It is important to note that the Department of Defense (DoD) does not currently 

control all of the lands that once comprised the former FWDA. Prior to enactment 

of section 2829F, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act governed disposal 

of the withdrawn public lands comprising the former FWDA. Pursuant to that law 

and its implementing regulations, DOI transferred jurisdiction over approximately 

5,855 acres at the former FWDA from the Army to the Bureau of Indian Affairs by 

70 

Public Land Orders published by DOI in 2000 and 2001. In subsequent years, as 

Army completed environmental remediation of additional parcels, the Army provided notices to DOI that an additional 2,384 acres were ready for transfer. DOI 

had not yet acted on those notices when section 2829F was enacted, establishing a 

new transfer process that the Army and DOI are now implementing. 

Furthermore, retention and continued use of the Fort Wingate Launch Complex 

(FWLC) portion of FWDA by the Army is wholly consistent with section 2829F, and 

neither reverses nor violates the 1988 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) 

recommendation to close FWDA. Section 2829F(a)(6) explicitly provides for retention 

of the area designated as the FWLC until ‘‘certification by the Secretary of Defense 

that the area generally depicted as ‘Fort Wingate Launch Complex’ on the Map is 

no longer required for military purposes and can be transferred to the Secretary of 

the Interior.’’ Regarding BRAC, the 1988 BRAC Commission, pursuant to the 

Defense Authorization Amendments and the Base Closure and Realignment Act 

(Public Law 100–526), recommended that the FWDA be closed and that its existing 

depot mission be relocated to Hawthorne Army Ammunition Plant, Nevada. 

Relocation of that mission was completed by January 1993, constituting closure of 

FWDA. Once implementation of the recommendation is complete, Public Law 100– 

526 neither imposes any legal obligation to divest the property at the closed installation, nor places any limitations on the stationing of new forces or functions at that 

installation. 

Thank you for your inquiry into this matter and for your continued support of our 

Soldiers and their Families. 

Sincerely, 

ROBERT M. SPEER, 

Acting Secretary of the Army. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you. Finally, Mr. Chairman, the decision to 

cut PILT in the budget reflects on the eastern viewpoint that PILT 

is simply welfare to the West. We, in the West, say either give us 

the land and let us use it for productive purposes, or pay the PILT. 

We have seen over the past decade decreases in PILT. Counties 

in New Mexico, the rural counties with a lot of public land, cannot 

even have a tax base to pay for their budgets. So, please take a 

look at that. 

And again, I am not looking for a response, I just wanted to put 

these things on your radar. I appreciate it, Mr. Secretary. Thanks 

for being here. 

Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman’s time has expired. At this time 

the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Guam, one of the classiest 

people ever in Congress, Ms. Bordallo, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome back, Secretary Zinke. It is nice to see you again. 

Mr. Secretary, as you know, the Department of the Interior has 

broad jurisdiction to administer and coordinate Federal policies in 

the territories. The Department is also responsible for providing assistance through the compacts of free association to our allies in 

the Federal States of Micronesia, Palau, and the Marshall Islands. 

And this agreement provides for development assistance, and allows for the FAS citizens to travel to the United States, while providing access to sea, air, and land for national security purposes. 

Mr. Secretary, I am very concerned by the cuts being proposed 

to the Office of Insular Affairs, especially the decreases in technical 

assistance to the territories, and the elimination of $3 million for 

discretionary compact impact provided to our local governments. 

Although this is seemingly very small compared to DOI’s overall 

71 

budget, the $1 million cut to technical assistance could have large 

negative impacts on a variety of programs at Guam and the other 

territories. 

I am concerned that you have eliminated $3 million in discretionary compact impact that helps to supplement the mandatory 

$30 million shared by the affected jurisdictions each year. 

In Guam alone, Mr. Secretary, the government of Guam esti- mates that it spends well over $100 million per year to provide social services to the compact migrants, especially in the area of 

health. When these migrants travel to Guam for special operations, 

or if they are on dialysis, or whatever the case might be, most of 

them have no insurance. We have to take care of them, and then 

it is costing us about $100 million per year, maybe over. And yet 

our share of compact impact is only about $16 million. 

The difference here is shocking to me. And certainly we cannot 

turn down anybody that has a health problem. Again, Mr. 

Secretary, what are your comments about these decreases? And 

how can you help us? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, thank you, and I certainly recognize the 

importance of the territories, particularly in the West. I will say 

that they, to a degree, are on the front line, again. In World War 

II, they were front-line on the Japanese empire expansion. Today, 

they are on the front line of the rise of China. 

Ms. BORDALLO. That is correct. We are very strategic. 

Secretary ZINKE. So, in our budget we did include $123.9 million 

in discretionary to Palau on that. We support the compacts. But 

you are right, I will go back to this is what a balanced budget 

would look like. There are some difficult choices. 

Congress gets the last say, but it is important also to give a 

forum for the territories, as you are, to express why the territories 

should not be forgotten, why such cuts or savings, depending on 

how you look at it, are inappropriate, and would hurt the citizens 

of Guam and Palau and everything out there that is important. 

Certainly, in my conversations with General Mattis, he is particularly aware of the strategic importance, as well the President 

is aware. The Vice President has been out there, Tillerson has been 

out there, Mattis has been out there recently. I intend to go out as 

well. But I am grateful that you represent such beautiful and great 

people, and I look forward to working with you on it. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Good. Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, when 

I think about this, to my colleagues here on the Committee, to our 

Chairman, being in the Minority, and being a Representative from 

the territory is certainly one of the most challenging jobs I have 

ever had. So, I hope in some way you can be of help to us. Thank 

you. 

Secretary ZINKE. I think you are up to the task. 

Ms. BORDALLO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. At this time the Chair recognizes the 

gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar, Dr. Gosar, for 5 minutes. 

Dr. GOSAR. I thank the Chairman. Mr. Secretary, it is great seeing you. Thank you for all that you do. And I know that Congress, 

at least on this side, should be petitioning our Senate Members to 

get your confirmations. When we have somebody hired for a job, we 

should empower them with the right tools, the right people, and 

72 

the right places to get their job done. I think it is up to us now 

to petition our Members in the Senate to make sure that those confirmations go through. 

I want to bring attention to the Administration’s idea in regards 

to improving our transportation and infrastructure. One of those 

aspects I believe in is that we have to look at the prevailing wage, 

a fair wage for a fair job that is fair to the taxpayers. 

But the second part of that is NEPA reviews. I am going to highlight, according to the 2014 ranking of countries for mining investments analysis, permitting delays are the most significant risk to 

mining projects in the United States. This kills jobs, it takes a lot 

of pressure, and increases the cost to do these. 

The discovery-to-production process in our country is 20 years or 

longer for large copper deposits, whereas in Canada and Australia 

they have shown to do it in 2 to 3 years, without limiting environmental protections. So, if we are serious about getting to this 

aspect and unleashing this wealth, we have to have those 

improvements. 

Here is my question. Can you discuss some of the concerns you 

have been made aware of regarding the BLM’s planning environmental review process? 

Secretary ZINKE. I can. As far as infrastructure goes, the permitting process has been a particularly painful issue, because it has 

extended programs out, in some cases stopped even replacement of 

a bridge. The mitigation, compensatory mitigation, that means 

things that are outside the construction of the bridge have been 

painful. In some cases, we are at 17 years for permits on a bridge, 

which ends up spending multitudes more money, because if you 

push a project out over time it increases the cost over time, and 

delays. 

So, the permitting process, particularly within prescribed easements, if you are going to replace a bridge, expand an existing 

road, those should be streamlined. And the President, who is a 

builder, gets it, and we are looking hard at doing that. Some of it 

can be fast-tracked, we believe, under the FAST Act, and we are 

looking at executive ways within the confines of the law to do that, 

particularly in the prescribed easements. 

On Interior, and maybe you would be surprised or not, what we 

are responsible for. About half the backlog in the parks, 

$11.5 billion, is roads. And about a third of those roads aren’t in 

the park. They are the Memorial Bridge that is a $262 million bill, 

which this budget has $18 million set against it. We got matching 

grants from the Department of the Interior. But a lot of our parks 

are gateways, actually, are part of the Department of the Interior. 

We own the George Washington Parkway, the parkway out to the 

Baltimore Airport. It is amazing what we own but are also responsible for that is ‘‘outside our park system.’’ 

Dr. GOSAR. Do you look at coordination and working with states 

and limiting some of the duplicity as an option? How do you look 

at that opportunity to help with that backlog? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, we are thinking the reorganization will be 

helpful. For example, within the Fish and Wildlife, there was a bat, 

an Indiana bat, that came into the great state of Georgia. One bat, 

radio-controlled, shut down, I think, 30 counties because it was 

73 

now potential habitat for a bat, and they will never be able to find 

the bat again. They have looked. It has been millions of dollars. 

But this one bat caused disruption and about $1 billion worth of 

construction, and that is the Fish and Wildlife part of it, and then 

within bureaus on my side, we had to coordinate better. 

And that was one single bat with a radio tracking device caused 

havoc in 30 counties or so in Georgia, again, at an expense of delaying projects that were $1 billion worth of construction. 

Certainly, we can do better, as a country, than that. 

Dr. GOSAR. Let me ask you about right-sizing the NEPA process. 

Can you give me an example or ideas on how you would use environmental assessments, compared to environmental impact statements? And maybe right-sizing those types of mitigations? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, up front, I think NEPA has been the 

backbone of prudent environmental policy. I am a great supporter 

of NEPA. But within prescribed easements, there is CatEx, environmental assessment, and EIS, and I think we have to realistically look what is appropriate to the project. 

If it is replacing a bridge in a prescribed easement, then maybe 

a CatEx is more appropriate, or an EA if it is in the sensitive area. 

But certainly not an EIS. So, I think, looking at giving some judgment, and making sure that we coordinate and collaborate with the 

local community and the state better on such things to make a determination that is in the best interests of the taxpayer and 

America would be a great step forward. 

Dr. GOSAR. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman’s time has expired. At this time, 

without objection, the Committee will stand in brief recess. It will 

be no more than 5 minutes, so I would ask the folks here in the 

audience to be close, because we do not want disruptions when we 

start back promptly. 

Thank you; we will be in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. GOHMERT. The hearing will come back to order. At this time 

the Chair will recognize the gentleman from the Mariana Islands, 

Mr. Sablan, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome back, sir. And congratulations, again, on 

your appointment. I want to begin with some thank you’s. First, I 

want to thank, the President included in the Fiscal Year 2018 

budget funding for the long-overdue, I think it is 8 years now, compact review agreement with the Republic of Palau. My bill, 

H.R. 2085, to authorize that agreement has passed this 

Committee. So, thanks to the Administration for recognizing the 

strategic importance of America’s relationship with our Pacific ally. 

Also in February, Mr. Bishop visited the Northern Marianas. 

One highlight, sir, was the tour of an ancient village on the island 

of Rota. The national parks resource study team, which Congress 

authorized to look at a possible national park on Rota, gave us the 

tour. I learned a lot of things in that, and all of us appreciated it, 

and we are looking forward to the team’s recommendations on the 

park status. 

Thank you also for inviting my comments to assist your review 

of the Marianas national monument under Executive Order. In my 

74 

reply, I wrote about the promises made to the people of the 

Northern Marianas that remain unfulfilled, Mr. Secretary. We are 

frustrated, very frustrated for some, that the required monument, 

the key to long-awaited public education programs and the development of a visitor center is over 6 years past the due date stated 

in President Bush’s proclamations. 

So, would you, sir, maybe even at a later time, but soon provide 

us with an update on any progress, maybe have someone in your 

office provide us with an update, and a specific date for issuance 

of the plan, Mr. Secretary? I don’t know if you have the answer 

here now, but I—— 

Secretary ZINKE. Thank you. As you know, the President tasked 

me, through an E.O., to review all monuments from 1996 forward 

of 100,000 acres or greater. 

The Department of Commerce has the lead on maritime, although it seems we are taking the lead on many of the maritime 

monuments. 

Mr. SABLAN. I understand, but that decision has not been made, 

so I am continuing to look at the President’s decision that there is 

still a monument in the Marianas, and maybe with the management plan issued, maybe you would decide that that monument 

remains. 

And in 2005, your Office of Insular Affairs started a competitive system for allocating among the U.S. territories the $27 million in 

covenant funds that originally all went to the Northern Marianas 

to help us build our public infrastructure. The competition is largely based on financial management criteria. And today, the 

Northern Marianas, which was the principal, the sole recipient intended in that fund, gets less than a third of the money. 

Financial management is very important, I agree, and no one can 

argue against that. But so is the infrastructure needed to provide 

basic services. According to the EPA, Saipan, the main island in 

the Northern Marianas, is the only U.S. municipality without 24- 

hour potable water. To me, sir, and I am sure you would agree, 

that is a very serious public health concern. 

Shouldn’t new criteria be established for the $27 million in 

Northern Mariana’s covenant funds so public health and safety 

needs in the Marianas are prioritized? 

Secretary ZINKE. Yes. And again, the budget presented is a balanced budget, but also it gives an opportunity to hear from you on 

it. I recognize the importance not only strategically, but also the 

contributions. I think we forget about that side of the Northern 

Marianas, and the contributions you continue to make. 

Mr. SABLAN. Right, and—— 

Secretary ZINKE. I will be glad to look—— 

Mr. SABLAN. And as you know, sir, I think I invited you, a standing invitation, Mr. Secretary. And my time is running out, but I 

want to mention some justification. The importance of technical 

and maintenance assistance programs, the brown tree snake control and coral reef initiative, the Empowering Insular Communities 

program. However, the request includes deep funding cuts to each 

of these programs. The brown tree snake control program costs a 

few million, but if these snakes spread, as they have on Guam, and 

if they spread to Hawaii or the Northern Marianas, or any other 

75 

place, the cost in extermination of native endangered birds could 

cause tens of millions of dollars more. So—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman. 

Mr. SABLAN. My time has—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Time is expired. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you. 

Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman from Colorado is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, great to have you here. I did want to be able to 

point out I really appreciated the comments that you have made 

to Senator Gardner on Tuesday in regards to the Canyon of the 

Ancients. And I will not re-ask the same question, but I would like 

to be able to reiterate how the Canyon of the Ancients is important 

in my district and to me, personally, of course. And should there 

be any changes moving forward, we would really appreciate making sure that we are in concert with your office, and having good 

communication on it. 

Secretary ZINKE. My intent on the monument review is to ensure 

that some of the monuments are settled. My intent was not to, and 

I have said before, not to rip off Band-Aids and then create wounds 

where there are none, to make sure that the monuments had public input, that there is overwhelming support with it, and to make 

sure that the monument designations in the prescribed period follow the law. 

So, there are monuments, there were 27 on the list, and I think 

we are focusing on just a few. And, quite frankly, most of them are 

either on the proclamation side, maritime monuments is fishing, to 

make sure that we have a vibrant and healthy fishing community, 

so in some cases, the proclamations on that would eliminate our 

ability to fish, which is a big issue, especially out West. So—— 

Mr. TIPTON. Great. Well, I appreciate that. And one other issue 

that you are probably aware of, that Senator Gardner and I are 

working on as well, is the BLM Headquarters Relocation Act. And, 

as you are going through some of the reorganization in your 

Department, I just wanted to make you aware of that, and look forward to being able to work with you on that, as well. 

We do have one important issue. It does fall under your area, as 

well. It is called the Arkansas Valley Conduit Project. Actually, it 

goes back to 1962, with the Frying Pan Arkansas Project legislation, which requires clean drinking water to be able to be delivered 

down into southeastern Colorado. 

Unfortunately, we have only seen enough resources that are 

going through right now to be able to make sure that the feasibility 

design be able to service 50,000 people in the Arkansas Valley who 

would benefit from completion of the project, those are the only resources that have been provided. 

The Southeast Colorado Water Conservancy District has recently 

come up with a new plan that would shave somewhere between 20 

to 25 percent of the cost of the project off, and the Bureau of 

Reclamation thus far seems to be amiable to pursuing that. 

I have to note that yesterday there was some disappointment in 

our office, certainly, that the project was not given any of the Fiscal 

Year 2017 plus-up dollars for water-related resources account, 

76 

despite the fact that we have been advocating for this for an 

extended period of time. 

I would like to be able to get, actually, your commitment to be 

able to work with my office to be able to ensure that every effort 

will be made by the Department, under the Bureau of Reclamation, 

under your purview, to complete it in a timely manner and a costeffective fashion, which I believe we all want to be able to achieve. 

Secretary ZINKE. Yes, and I believe the budget has a $3 million 

target for that project, so you have my commitment to work with 

you to finish it on time. 

Some of these projects, as you know, as they extend out, they become more expensive, just because of the time. So, the art is to reduce the amount of time, that will reduce the amount of cost and 

get the projects done. 

Mr. TIPTON. Exactly. And your comments to an earlier question, 

in regards to going through some of the review process, as well, 

and the environmental assessments, EISs, is something that can 

certainly help accelerate this project and to be able to save some 

resources for a very important project for southeast Colorado. 

One issue that I believe you are aware of is we have had, 

through the Forest Service and now somewhat through the BLM 

as well, conditional use of permit. We just had testimony in 

Committee a few weeks ago in Utah, under the BLM, for ranchers 

to be able to divert water out of a stream, to be able to fill a stock 

pond, conditional use of permit. If you wanted to be able to do that, 

you were to sign your water rights over to the Federal Government. 

We have draft legislation that we are working on right now, the 

Protecting Our Water Rights Act, which I think is going to be very 

important to standing up for a very western issue: private property 

rights, when it comes to water in the West, priority-based systems, 

and also State Law, as well. 

I want to make sure that that is going to be on your radar, going 

forward. An important issue, certainly for the West, and for our 

economies, as well. 

Secretary ZINKE. And as I find myself the water master, to a degree, in the West, I am learning. And I will go back, it is very similar to Montana. Whiskey is for drinking and water is for fighting. 

It is absolutely an important issue in the West. 

Mr. TIPTON. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Time is expired. The Chair recognizes the 

gentlelady from Massachusetts, Ms. Tsongas, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Zinke, welcome back to the Committee. Nice to have 

you here. Looking at the big picture, I have to say I have real concerns with the Administration’s entire Fiscal Year 2018 budget request. The President’s approach to budgeting prioritizes defense 

spending around which we know we do have to make some additional investments, but does so at the expense of many other 

national priorities, including those at your Department. 

As your testimony indicates, and as we on this Committee know 

so well, Interior has a very broad mission, and plays a critical role 

in the lives of all our constituents. Managing our treasured public 

parks and public lands, overseeing development of U.S. energy supplies, understanding and reacting to the impacts of climate change, 

77 

serving as the largest supplier and manager of water in the West, 

and working closely with 566 federally recognized tribes, all this 

has to be managed on behalf of all Americans. Cutting Interior’s budget by well over $1 billion, approximately 

10 percent, while not as bad as some other departments, nevertheless, it will significantly and certainly hamper the Department’s 

ability to meet these many responsibilities. 

As you well know, the National Park Service is facing many challenges, you have referenced some of them, including responding to 

disturbing reports of sexual harassment in the workplace. 

Representative McEachin has referenced that. There have been a 

number of troubling Inspector General reports and newspaper stories regarding a number of incidents of sexual harassment in some 

of our most well-known national parks. 

We, on this Committee, have worked across the aisle to make 

sure the Park Service was taking these reports seriously, which is 

why we recommended that the Park Service conduct a service-wide 

anonymous survey that hopefully will shed light on the extent of 

this problem. In my service on the Armed Services Committee examining the alarming incidents of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the military, we have learned that such cases do not 

happen in isolation. And the survey can serve as an important first 

step to better understand the scope of the problem. In fact, under 

the previous administration they reached out to the Defense 

Department as they were crafting this survey. 

So, Mr. Secretary, can you provide an update on the status of 

this survey, and the Park Service’s work analyzing the results? 

And also, in responding to that question, it is my understanding 

that the Park Service will also be conducting a second survey in 

July to include seasonal employees who were not included in the 

first survey, and want to be sure that that is correct moving 

forward. 

Secretary ZINKE. I share your concerns about sexual harassment 

and intimidation in the workplace, and I think the overall survey 

of job satisfaction reflects that something is wrong. 

We did complete the survey. We will gladly share the results 

when we get the review done. We are doing a second survey, you 

are correct in that, on seasonal employees. 

I attribute a lot to leadership. And I take my job enormously 

serious on being a commander of what I see as a 70,000-member 

command. We have a lot of good people. I am surprised, maybe not 

surprised, that is not the right word, I am honored a lot of times 

to go in these places and you see really dedicated people. 

There is some frustration, though. The frustration is, again, they 

feel like they have been micro-managed, they feel like the job description does not match the job execution. They are spending a lot 

of time in the office, rather than the field. They feel like the resources to the front line have been pared down, which they are correct, in lieu of building these larger regions and headquarters. And 

it has kind of been a, when you see a broken window, go past it. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Well, Mr. Secretary, I appreciate your looking at 

the broader issues around the culture of the National Park Service. 

But as we have learned so well in the Armed Services, and all the 

work that has been done there to address the egregious issues of 

78 

sexual assault and harassment, it takes both a top-down approach 

and a bottom-up approach, and there are unique ways in which one 

has to address the situation. 

I hope that you will commit to coming forward to letting us know 

the results of both surveys so that we can have a better understanding of how the Park Service is going to specifically address 

the issue of sexual harassment. Would you commit to that? 

Secretary ZINKE. Absolutely, and I think this is going to take 

working together. It is not just the Park Service, it is BLM, and 

we talk a lot about the Park Service because most of America sees 

the Interior through the eyes of the parks. But also we have 

Bureau of Reclamation, Wildlife, BIA, and all the different bureaus 

that make up the Interior family. 

Ms. TSONGAS. So, you are suggesting it is a broader issue 

throughout the Department of the Interior? 

Secretary ZINKE. I am suggesting there is indication that it is a 

broader issue than just the parks. Certainly BLM has had issues 

on it. I am aware of other issues within it. So, I think, it may be 

department-wide. I think that would be a fair assessment. 

But it is going to take us working together. Some of it might be 

legislative, to make sure that a voice is heard, and make sure that 

the voice is protected when that voice is heard. 

And also, culturally, do some hard thinking about what we 

should be, what our goals are. I think the military, overall, has 

done a good job with it. But there are imperfections in the military, 

and there are improvements the military could do. And I don’t 

think there is one person that knows all the answers, but certainly 

working together I think we can carve a good path, because I know 

where we want to be. We want to make sure we have an environment that is free of harassment, free of intimidation, that allows 

our employees to be the very best they can be. 

Ms. TSONGAS. Well, I agree with you that wanting is not always 

enough. 

Mr. GOHMERT. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Ms. TSONGAS. I look forward to hearing how you plan to address 

it. 

Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman from California, Mr. LaMalfa, is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, great to see you, good to have you here today. You 

will be pleased to know H.R. 1873 moved across the Floor yesterday. That was the bill to streamline the process for removing hazardous trees from power lines, a topic, in the previous session, that 

you were very interested in, as well. 

Secretary ZINKE. It took an Act of Congress to remove a tree. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. LAMALFA. Yes. It is my understanding also that you have 

made contact with the National Sheriffs’ Association for a meeting 

on improving coordination between Federal and local law enforcement, which could be very, very helpful and important in establishing a little greater trust with local rural residents and the 

agencies under your jurisdiction. And also issues we have had with 

marijuana cultivation by foreign nationals under local enforcement. 

And we have had legislation on the Plant Act in the past, on helpVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:58 Dec 14, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\115TH CONGRESS\FULL COMMITTEE\06-22-17\25970.TXT DARLEN
79 

ing with that, so I appreciate that contact, whatever you are able 

to make with the National Sheriffs’ Association, and then establishing that. 

Let me shift real quickly to the Indian Affairs issues. I sit as 

Chair of the Subcommittee on Indian, Insular and Alaska Native 

Affairs. We had a very important hearing yesterday about some 

issues in the Great Plains area with tribal health and the facilities 

there, too. 

So, I urge you, in the infrastructure bill that might be coming 

out, legislatively, later this year or whenever, that we have an important funding component there, addressing the backlog on Indian 

health facilities and their issues, as well as some of the other 

issues they are working on for transportation, education they are 

needing in Indian Country. If you heard the testimony yesterday, 

there are some big, big problems with Indian health, and especially 

in some of the Great Plains areas. 

Also, more uniquely to California, but in general, as well, the 

previous administration had engaged in litigation supporting two 

off-reservation gaming facilities in California. One was outright objected by the voters and was rejected. The other of which did not 

ever have a valid state of California compact. So, if you would, Mr. 

Secretary, if you could review those cases that are being litigated, 

and determine if the activities of the Interior really reflect the policies that we should be pursuing, and in the Administration as well. 

Last, and coming back to California, on water issues. Obviously, 

big challenges here. We had some very huge snowpack and rainfall. 

We are blessed by that, and happy for it, but the infrastructure 

still needs to keep up with that, as well. 

So, may I ask, what actions would you be looking at to help with 

the non-Federal water storage projects we have, like Sites 

Reservoir in California, which is an off-stream project I am sure 

you are well aware of, 1.8 million acre-feet, or other projects similar to that, where Federal investments could trigger several times 

as much funding from other sources as a source of confidence in the 

investment? And that should be part of the key infrastructure plan 

the Administration has. 

We could see a three to four time return in other investment, 

buttressing the Federal one. What do you think we could be doing 

to advance that with some Federal investment in water projects? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, thank you. And real quickly, on the 

Indian gaming land-into-trust issue, on January 19, there were a 

number of Indian trust issues that were assigned by the previous 

Secretary. We are reviewing how much latitude I have to review. 

Some of it is legislatively, when land is taken into trust, what are 

my options. We are looking at that and going through them. I think 

I got sued six times the first day in office. So, we are reviewing 

what legal course and determination, and what should be our policy on it; and we are coordinating with the tribes in question on 

that to get a path forward. 

It is a mistake to think that the Indian tribes are monolithic. 

Every tribe has a different story, different cultural backgrounds, 

and different expectations and we are working through that. On water in the West, we committed to about $23.4 million on 

grants for reuse projects. Clearly, in California, water storage is an 

80 

issue. One of the first trips I made was to California and visited 

with the governor to try to align our priorities on expenditures, so 

we weren’t at loggerheads moving forward with that. We were lacking in storage capability. 

And also, if water begins in California and ends in California, 

what is the role of the Federal Government? Clearly, if water transits outside, between state boundaries, to a different state. But if 

the source and end and use is in California, in this case, the 

Central Valley, what is our long-term role, as the Federal 

Government? 

There are Federal water holders, but I find myself being the adjudicator between all California issues. And, no matter where I 

turn, I am not sure that we can ever get in the position where we 

are not the adversary. So, we are looking at, structurally, what is 

best to protect all users. But then, going forward, what should we 

do as a Federal Government? 

Mr. LAMALFA. Thank you. 

Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair 

recognizes Mr. Beyer for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BEYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome back. Congratulations on the new job. I 

have a plethora of questions, so I would appreciate not one-word 

answers, but maybe two-sentence answers. 

Number one, you mentioned 70 appointments that you don’t have 

yet. Can you tell us how many political appointments President 

Trump, other than yourself and the Deputy Secretary, has submitted to the U.S. Senate? 

Secretary ZINKE. I will get that number. The White House slate 

has been approved, to a degree. I can tell you the hold-up has been 

the Office of Government Ethics. I could give you a core example 

in two sentences. 

I have a terrific candidate for USGS. I don’t think I could find 

a better kind of candidate for that. And TS, SBI, SSEI. He has circled the earth. I will give you a hint: a great, great candidate, but 

trying to get through candidates of that caliber—— 

Mr. BEYER. OK. I just wanted to make clear that it was not the 

Democrats that were holding up your appointments, so—— 

Secretary ZINKE. At least so far. It has been frustrating. 

Certainly, David Bernhardt is the first up—— 

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Secretary, let me move on to the Memorial 

Bridge. 

Secretary ZINKE. Yes. 

Mr. BEYER. I heard you had mentioned that earlier. Thank you. 

It is in desperate need of repairs. It leads into Arlington Cemetery. 

We have the first $90 million for the Fast Lane Grant project, but 

it requires a 40 percent match from the National Park Service. 

The whole National Park Service transportation budget is $268 

million. So (a), do you have a plan for addressing Memorial Bridge? 

(b), can we perhaps request that appropriations get rid of the 

match? Or (c), a one-time step-up in the Park Service’s transportation budget? 

Secretary ZINKE. What we are looking at to incorporate in the 

President’s infrastructure bill are some pathways to particularly 

81 

address the national parks part of it. We are also looking at publicprivate partnerships. 

I would love to transfer ownership of the bridge and some of our 

parkways to the states, but I don’t think the states want to assume 

that liability. Clearly, for northern Virginia, Maryland, and DC, 

those bridges are less of a park and parkways as they are a vital 

transportation hub. So, I am particularly concerned that we honor 

our obligation to make sure that the potholes are fixed, and the 

bridge is fixed, because I think it would be catastrophic for 

Washington, DC to have that bridge—— 

Mr. BEYER. Well, we would love to work with you on plans going 

forward, because you do own it for the time being. 

Secretary ZINKE. I do, and I have talked to Elaine Chao at 

Transportation, and she wouldn’t take it either. So, I guess it is 

going to be mine in the outyears. 

Mr. BEYER. Mr. Secretary, you and I, and many others, have 

gone back and forth on the Endangered Species Act. And one of the 

great concerns, and this is one of the most successful Federal programs of all time: 99 percent of the list of species have been preserved so far. But we see a 17 percent cut in the President’s budget 

to listing, almost $4 million in recovery. 

So, three quick questions: Is the budget sufficient for you to meet 

the ESA obligations under the law? Can you achieve the goal of delisting more species without running afoul of the good science, the 

best available science? And can you do it in a way that the Fish 

and Wildlife Service will not continue to lose lawsuits over failing 

to take the required actions? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, it does fund core tasks. Some of the reintroduction of species is not funded. In regards to the courts, I 

think we are on firm ground on many of the cases we put forward, 

and the courts have rejected those grounds, even though we have, 

in some cases, the American Academy of Science’s back. 

So, we have what I think is a fine legal argument by some of the 

greatest biologists, wildlife experts, and yet the court will not see 

that in the same light. I am hoping we can narrow the gap on such 

things, because we spend a lot of money on litigation that could 

have been spent in better uses. 

Mr. BEYER. Well, let me ask you—— 

Secretary ZINKE. I want to work with you on that one. 

Mr. BEYER. OK. Yes, please. In the last 30 seconds, one more endangered species are senior executive service employees at the 

Department of the Interior. I know we just had 36 of them receive 

letters getting relocated. Are there going to be more letters to 

come? How many more people are going to be affected by this? 

Secretary ZINKE. It is interesting, because it is normal course. 

The SESs, by definition, should be prepared to move. We looked at 

it, we had a board, and some of the positions had been there for 

30 years. Some of it is looking at where we need help, which is actually the front lines. I don’t need a lot of help in Washington, DC, 

other than maybe my Deputy and a few people. I need more help 

in the front lines. 

So, moving people that are in the designated areas, by definition, 

I think it was appropriate. And quite frankly, some of them are voluntary moves. And we will have a list of who, because they could 

82 

voluntarily move or not. And some of it is trying to match skill 

sets, if they have a degree in biology, a degree in things like that, 

where should they go, better served. So, we are looking at that. 

It is our first round, I am sure we will look at other rounds, as 

necessary. The reorganization is going to have a look at that, too, 

as we look at shifting more assets to the front line. What the structure of that front line should look like, that is yet undetermined, 

because we don’t want to do the same thing that I talk about, is 

one-size-fits-all. So, we actually have to coordinate with the front 

line to see what skill sets and what structures would be 

appropriate. 

Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman’s time has expired. The Chair 

recognizes the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Secretary Zinke, 

thanks for being here today. It was good to see you in Idaho recently. I hope the comments you heard there from Idahoans will 

have a positive impact on the decisions you make as Secretary. 

I recently heard from some Idaho companies that to print simple 

notices in the Federal Register, the BLM process takes up to 6 

months or longer than the Forest Service process. I am told that 

this is due to extra redundant steps of bureaucracy that do nothing 

more than delay. 

Mr. Secretary, I think, and I think you believe that this can be 

remedied by mirroring the Forest Service’s process and implement 

through internal policy. It does not take an Act of Congress. Will 

you work with me to make the necessary changes to address this 

issue? 

Secretary ZINKE. I will. I look forward to working with you. I am 

not sure the Forest Service, and I don’t mean to be critical, it may 

be a better model than what we are doing, but I am not sure the 

Forest Service is the best model. So, I think we should work together to find the best model, of which the Forest Service and BLM 

can be on the same page. Because a lot of times the checkerboard 

system in the West, we should be consistent in superior 

performance. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Excellent, thank you. I appreciate that. 

In its Fiscal Year 2018 budget justification, the Office of the 

Solicitor noted an anticipated increase in litigation brought against 

the Department in the coming year. How does constant litigation 

impact the Department’s ability to fulfill its core missions? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, certainly being sued six times in the first 

day, it is different because all of a sudden it is Ryan Zinke versus 

somebody, and they very artfully, by name, I follow the law. So, if 

the court mandates that we stop, desist, or change, then I am going 

to follow the law. Does it slow me down? Depending on the suit. 

I wish that the country was not as polarized as it is. And I think 

the law sometimes should be clearer on direction. 

I could tell you we have a great staff of people that, when we 

make a ROD, or record of decision, I think it is based on science, 

it is based on what is appropriate in the best interest of the public 

lands and all parties concerned. So, I am pretty confident what we 

bring forward is a good piece, at least during my tenure. The courts 

may or may not see it differently. And it also depends on what 

court it is. 

83 

Mr. LABRADOR. Yes. You recently issued a Secretarial Order on 

sage-grouse. Can you describe your order, and how you will involve 

states in the review process and beyond? 

Secretary ZINKE. Yes, the Secretarial Order did two things. One, 

it established a group, an advisory within Interior, because Fish 

and Wildlife, BLM, National Parks in some cases, Bureau of 

Reclamation, we want to make sure that we are unified in our message. And two, to give an indicator to the states that we are willing 

to look at the state issues and state plans because they are 

different. 

So, we are going to be flexible in approach, and not be one-sizefits-all, to give latitude to the states to include if a state so chooses 

to look at numbers, a numbers management vice habitat, we are 

going to honor that. Then we are going to work with the state to 

determine what a healthy population would look like, and then 

work with the state to develop a management plan that addresses 

that vice just habitat alone. 

We also incorporated things like predator control, captive breeding, and give the states latitude in the development of their plan. 

Mr. LABRADOR. During the previous administration, your predecessors repeatedly said that they were going to work with the 

states. But when the states had some plans, then they wouldn’t follow the input of the states. Are you committing to this Committee 

that we will work together with the states, and we will be able to 

have better management and input from the states? 

Secretary ZINKE. I am absolutely committed to work with the 

states in many ways. I think the states are in a better position to 

manage the sage-grouse than the Federal Government, and we 

should honor a flexible approach based on a variety of metrics to 

make sure that we do our part to ensure the bird does not get 

listed. 

Mr. LABRADOR. And finally, I wish Mr. McEachin was still here, 

but I thought his line of questioning was interesting. 

Last year, he is a freshman, so maybe he didn’t know this, but 

last year the OGR Committee, the big oversight committee, not the 

Natural Resources Oversight Subcommittee, had four hearings on 

sexual harassment, two in the National Park Service, one in the 

Forest Service, and one in the EPA. I don’t mind having another 

hearing on that, I am the Oversight Chairman here in Natural 

Resources. I don’t mind having that hearing. 

But I thought it was interesting that he would accuse you of not 

doing something that happened under the previous administration. 

All he had to do was ask me, and I would have agreed to do a 

hearing in our Committee. Anyway, thank you very much. 

Mr. GOHMERT. The gentleman’s time is expired. The Chair 

recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Costa, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, welcome. Congratulations. I don’t know if the 

view is any better from where you are sitting today from where you 

used to sit, but I look forward to working with you, and this will 

be part of a longer conversation that we will continue to have. 

There are many areas, from forest management to our parks that 

I would like to talk to you about, but I am going to confine my 

focus today to water. Water, water, water. 

84 

You noted a bit ago that you are not so sure that you are ultimately going to be able to be Solomon-like in dealing with all the 

challenges we have in California, but I think you are off to a good 

start. You are meeting with the governor, obviously, who is important as we look toward fixing a broken water system in California. 

And as you know from your previous experience, it is either feast 

or famine in California. 

The fact that you have taken the time to come out there in your 

early months, not only to visit our parks but to meet and talk with 

other folks, I think is a significant good step, first step forward. 

You and I voted for the WIIN Act last December, which was important. The President signed it, that really begins to make incremental progress in fixing that broken water system. The legislation 

has multiple provisions that impact all of California water users, 

which is why we had such a broad-based bipartisan support. 

I want to talk to you about some specific areas of the legislation, 

Sections 4001 and 4003 that provided greater flexibility for the 

Department to operate the movement of water through the Federal 

pumps. Can you provide details on how these sections have been 

implemented during this very wet water year that we have had? 

We are very thankful to God for it. As well as whether operating 

these sections resulted in any additional water supply. 

Quickly, and then I have a couple of other questions. 

Secretary ZINKE. I don’t know the specifics of that, because I 

don’t want to mislead you, but I will find it. 

But I know that, given the wet winter, it was a unique winter 

because it was a lot wetter. 

Mr. COSTA. Right. 

Secretary ZINKE. And it did not provide the opportunity to look 

at what would happen as depletion goes lower. So, our report will 

be more on the, well, geez, we got a lot of water vice on how well 

we reacted when we didn’t. 

Mr. COSTA. Right. 

Secretary ZINKE. That was some of it. But I agree with you, that 

providing more flexibility, and some of this solution needs to be a 

made-in-California solution with us in the supporting role, rather 

than the other way around. 

Mr. COSTA. One size does not fit all, that is for certain. 

Sections 4010(a)(4) and 4010(b)(5) both deal with efforts to restore delta smelt, a listed species that impacts project operations. 

Specifically, 4010(a)(4) requires delta smelt distribution study to be 

completed to better inform real-time operations under Section 

4010(b)(5). It also requires utilization of the delta smelt conservation fish hatcheries. Can you provide an update on the status of the 

Department’s implementation of these actions specifically related 

to the Fiscal Year 2018 budget? 

Secretary ZINKE. I know we are working with the state and the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, which is NOAA, and the Bureau of Reclamation. Again, this is part of our problem, that we are 

not acting as joint as we should be, so there are different views 

within different departments that has created an issue for the 

smelt. 

Mr. COSTA. Right. 

85 

Secretary ZINKE. As you know. But we are looking at new facilities and to evaluate supplementing the native fish. We are also 

looking at the problem with the striped bass. 

Mr. COSTA. Right, the predator species. 

Secretary ZINKE. Yes, predator control, which was previously not 

a priority. 

Mr. COSTA. You know, some of the water agencies up on the Sac 

Valley and Reps. LaMalfa and John Garamendi know this and are 

doing some very unique things to provide other habitat for salmon 

that we should continue to encourage and expand. 

Also, on the monitoring, for real-time monitoring, a number of 

water agencies have offered to provide us additional support for 

boat crews, so that we can improve coverage and resulting data at 

real time. I would like you to get into that or provide some support 

for that. 

There are also some areas on how the capability of the USGS 

could be used to assist in implementing science activities. And if 

you could look into that, as well. Additionally, other partnerships 

with public agencies, as I noted above, can be helpful toward dealing with the biological opinion consultation process for not only 

delta smelt, but other listed salmonoid species. 

What do you think about the Stafford Act applying to dealing 

with emergency, with the fire conditions that we are facing, instead 

of using all the management for forestry to put out fires? 

The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. Which you will have a chance to 

answer soon. Thank you. Your time has expired. 

Mr. Westerman. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Zinke, it is great to see you back here in the 

Committee. It was an honor to be elected with you in the same 

class in Congress, and to serve with you here on this Committee. 

And I know that not just me, but a lot of Americans, are grateful 

to you for your military service, your service in Congress, and now 

it is great to see you over at the Department of the Interior. 

I know from personal experience that you and I share a lot of the 

same ideas on conservation and land management. I know that one 

area that you have supported during the last Congress was on reauthorization of the LWCF, the Land and Water Conservation 

Fund. And I know that in your testimony you mentioned briefly 

that the LWCF receipts authorization expires at the end of Fiscal 

Year 2018, and the Administration will review options for 

reauthorization. 

If we look at that fund and the history of it, it has generated 

about $38 billion since it was set up in 1965, $17.5 billion has been 

spent, which leaves a balance of about $20.5 billion. Over that time 

frame there have been over 5 million acres purchased, 42,000 state 

and local projects done through that fund. When the fund was 

originally set up, it was supposed to be 60 percent state and 40 

percent Federal. It is now, in reality, about 40 percent of the fund 

went to state projects and 60 percent went to Federal projects. 

The purpose of that fund is to require, preserve, and ensure 

access to outdoor recreation facilities. And I want to tie this in to 

infrastructure. I am so pleased to see your emphasis on infrastrucVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:58 Dec 14, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\115TH CONGRESS\FULL COMMITTEE\06-22-17\25970.TXT DARLEN
86 

ture and the recognition that we need to do more on the infrastructure on our public lands, especially on the Park Service. 

But there has not been a whole lot of the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund, I believe, spent for the preservation and ensuring access to outdoor recreation facilities, and infrastructure plays 

a vital role in that. So, my question to you is, do you think that 

there is opportunity, maybe through a reauthorization, to restructure LWCF so it is focused more on state projects, focused more on 

taking care of the assets that we currently have in the system? 

Secretary ZINKE. I do, and it is hard to recreate on a beach if the 

beach doesn’t exist because there is not a reclamation program to 

support it, particularly on the Gulf Coast, and in the Gulf states, 

I don’t mean to talk for your esteemed colleague to your right, 

but—— 

Mr. WESTERMAN. I am sure he will have—— 

Secretary ZINKE [continuing]. When all the money is received, 

revenue is received offshore, and much of it goes inland, there is 

always an argument about why is it appropriate. But I think the 

mission of LWCF and expense, I think we need to look at it. It is 

hard to recreate if you don’t have a road to get there, or the road 

is closed because they do not have the maintenance to make sure 

it is safe. 

So, using the LWCF in the spirit of how it was formed, to restore 

lands that would provide access to public activities, recreation, I 

think is an area where we would agree that the states should have 

more say. It was set up where, the states are always in a better 

position to look at recreational opportunities within that state, and 

to highlight their assets. 

So, giving more latitude to the states so the states can decide 

what their opportunities are, what they should be, I think is a good 

thing. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Do you feel like you have authority under the 

current authorization to use more of the LWCF funds for 

infrastructure? 

Secretary ZINKE. It would be nice if I had more latitude, quite 

frankly. The law is pretty clear. But it would be nice, one is if we 

had a steady stream of income. You rightly point out that there is 

over $20 billion that has not been used, even though offshore assets, oil and gas primarily, have given the revenue for a purpose, 

and that purpose has not been authorized and not used. 

Same with Bureau of Reclamation, by the way. Bureau of Reclamation, about $18 billion of unused. These are revenues intended to build our rural and reclamation opportunities for water. 

That is untapped, so I would like, personally, to work with you to 

have a steady stream, and give the states more flexibility, and use 

those monies with more flexibility to provide greater public access 

and use. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. I look forward to working with you on that. 

Secretary ZINKE. So do I. 

The CHAIRMAN. You will get it. 

Ms. Hanabusa. 

Ms. HANABUSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I am sorry you came in between my two stints in 

Congress, so I did not have the pleasure of working with you. I am 

87 

the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Federal Lands. So, 

as you can imagine, the issues regarding the National Park Service 

are of great concern to me. 

You have stated in your opening statement, as well as throughout your statements that you have provided to us, that this is a 

balanced budget. And I would like to understand how. 

We know that the National Park Service has about 417 units. In 

2016, it had a record 331 million visits and about $18.4 billion in 

direct spending, 318,000 jobs, and $34.9 billion in economic output. 

You also issued in your statement that, and it is on Page 3, ‘‘In 

my first days in office I issued two Secretarial Orders to expand 

access to public lands and increase hunting, fishing, and recreation 

activities nationwide.’’ Yet, your next sentence talks about a $354.3 

million reduction in the 2017 budget. 

If I am understanding where you are getting those figures from, a lot of it is coming from National Park Service because of the $2.9 

that was there in 2017, $2.6 is part of the 2018 budget. I am trying 

to understand how you justify the budget cuts and say you are 

opening the access, and at the same time your statement to NPS 

says basically that they will utilize various strategies on a park-topark basis, which may include limiting the use or closing of certain 

areas as campgrounds. How do those two actually jive? 

Secretary ZINKE. Thank you for the question. It is a balanced 

budget. As you know, the President submits a budget. It is what 

a balanced budget would look like, overall. 

The Park Service itself did not receive more of a savings than 

any other one. But also, you notice that there was an increase in 

areas where we gain revenue. And I don’t give judgment, it is just 

that the revenue picture has been tough. The best use, or the most 

flexible funds, are through the front door in our parks. 

And you are right, we had 330 million visitors last year. But here 

are the statistics. About half the parks do not charge anything. The 

Park Service has a four-tier system. A lot of the parks do not even 

follow that. So, I have also commissioned an internal study, and we 

want the parks to be the most outstanding, great deal, and 

incentivize families and usage. But by the same token, we have to 

look at our revenue picture. 

So, what we are looking at on the revenue process, so we don’t 

have to go through these cuts, in a balanced budget is looking at 

making sure the front door tickets are appropriate, that incentivize 

families. 

Public-private partnerships, since you sit on the Federal Lands, 

look at Yosemite. What is the opportunity at Yosemite in regards 

to how do you mitigate the traffic problem? 

Ms. HANABUSA. Mr. Secretary, I don’t mean to interrupt you, but 

is that really what NPS is supposed to do? Is it supposed to be a 

revenue-generating enterprise? Because I always thought one of 

the things that we talked about was the fact that NPS and the 

Park Service were a way to get our families engaged. 

And Mr. Secretary, I don’t have very much time, but I want to 

talk to you about an issue that is also very dear to my heart, which 

is also one which talks about cuts. And that is the Japanese confinement. It is not a lot of money in your budget, it is about $2.8 

billion now. You have cut it to $1 million. I am the granddaughter 

88 

of someone who was in Santa Fe, New Mexico, but also in Hawaii, 

where we are beginning to do what we need to do. 

Honouliuli was very unique in that Honouliuli not only had 

Japanese-Americans, but also German-Americans and ItalianAmericans, because Hawaii’s makeup is very unique. We are all 

minorities, so everyone that was considered an ‘‘enemy,’’ even 

though the Japanese-Americans, and neither were they truly enemies, were interned. And these cuts are going to slow down the 

necessary work, so I would really like for you, when you say a balanced budget, to keep that in mind. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I appreciate Mr. Gohmert taking 

over in my absence, and he missed his chance to give you questions, so I am going to go to him next for questions. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, Mr. 

Secretary. You really are a breath of fresh air, and the Department 

could use it. 

I am curious. You mentioned 70 nominations that are still out 

there unconfirmed that you desperately need to help achieve your 

mission. In your office, in the building, Department of the Interior 

over there, how many of those people that are working there 

around you are actually people you personally hired? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, I want to correct it there. I have 70 

appointments. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Right. 

Secretary ZINKE. In the 70 appointments, some of them have 

been appointed by me. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I see, OK. 

Secretary ZINKE. I have, I would probably say around 20 or so. 

Some of the deputy acting assistants are. But to date, the Senateconfirmed, which are the major leadership team, that is solicitors, 

the five solicitors I have, my deputies, directors of all the departments, the assistant secretaries, all of them are yet to be in the 

seat. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Right. About how many employees are in that 

building? 

Secretary ZINKE. Overall, I have about 70,000 employees within 

the Department of the Interior. In DC, somewhere in the order of 

maybe 6,500. In Denver, 4,200. We had some really large regions. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. 

Secretary ZINKE. And yet in the field we are pretty short when 

it comes to a specific—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. I am sure it would be great to have at least some 

of those folks that are as allegiant to you as they were to the 

Obama administration. 

I want to take you to a problem that seems to exemplify problems we see across the country. In Harrison County in my district, 

east Texas, we have one of the greatest natural assets in the country called Caddo Lake, at one time the largest natural lake south 

of the Great Lakes in the United States. At one time during World 

War II, there were 10,000, 11,000 or so employees working at a 

plant there, an ammunition plant. 

But when BRAC said military no longer needed the land, it had 

been used for a lot of purposes, they worked great with the commuVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:58 Dec 14, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\115TH CONGRESS\FULL COMMITTEE\06-22-17\25970.TXT DARLEN
89 

nity, and you can imagine that many employees, what a difference 

it made in our small county. When you lose that many employees 

and then we look into BRAC, OK, maybe the community could get 

it. Could it be a park? Could it be something great, really help? 

Well, under BRAC, any Department of the Federal Government 

can jump in and claim it. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife, it turns out, apparently, they love to run 

in and grab land. And I found out previously that, actually, if they 

go through and mark pine trees for clearing, and I am a big fan 

of management, we don’t do enough of it, but they do get a personal bonus, based on how much money is made cutting the pine 

trees. 

Well, I went wow, that gives them incentive to claim land that 

they may not need, but an area where they can make personal 

money. 

Well, we got a new guy in there named Eric Derkov, and he met 

with me and county judge, Hugh Taylor, Sheriff McCool. He arbitrarily decided that, he felt like it was probably against the law, 

but he cited NEPA and some other things, and showed a complete 

ignorance of the law. But despite his lack of knowledge and ignorance, it didn’t prevent him from being immovable and incalcitrant. 

There was a firing range there that law enforcement, for 130 

miles, from Louisiana over to Dallas, would come and use. They 

would train people to drive. And Eric Derkov just decided that that 

is inconsistent with NEPA and the Department of the Interior and 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife, nobody would be allowed there. They say 

we may have as many as 10 local people walk their dogs through 

there, but we are talking about a huge area that is basically devastated, Harrison County, surrounding area, and now we have, I 

am sure he is competent in some areas, I just couldn’t find any 

within U.S. Fish and Wildlife. 

But we need help, and I am just asking if you would look into 

Mr. Derkov and the damage he is doing there to people in east 

Texas. 

Secretary ZINKE. I will look into it and make sure he is consistent with the policies. You will be happy to know, too, that 

Interior’s south building, we gave that up as we are bringing 

National Park Service into the main building. And we have given 

up Interior south back to GSA. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you so much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can we have it? 

Secretary ZINKE. I am sorry, sir? 

The CHAIRMAN. Giving it up? Can we have it? We are doing 

construction out here. Never mind. 

Mr. Soto. 

Mr. SOTO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome, Mr. Secretary. I am from Florida, and we care 

deeply about the Everglades. We recently sent you a letter about 

designating the Kissimmee River, where we spent billions to restore it, on making it a wild and scenic river. Can we expect a 

response at some point soon? 

Secretary ZINKE. Yes, absolutely. And I have met with the governor, and am catching up to speed on the seagrass, which has become the creek of not much. I understand the problems with the 

90 

overflow and the reservoir, the need for the levee system to be 

redone. 

My intention is to be down in Florida right after the break in 

there to look at it and assess it, and I would be glad to work with 

you on that. I understand it is a huge problem, but there are solutions. And my commitment to you is to work together to find the 

solutions. 

Mr. SOTO. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. We also have a 125-mile 

buffer through 2022 in the Gulf of Mexico off of Florida for oil drilling. Is that buffer in jeopardy right now? 

Secretary ZINKE. We are looking at, with the military, there are 

some areas that are closed that we would look at seismic assessment. We are working with the military to look at their letter, 

which I am sure you got a copy of, to make sure that we are all 

on the same page. I would not say it is in jeopardy one way or the 

other, we are just making sure it is based on military needs. 

As a former military officer, if the military, which is nonpolitical, if they say they need an area, then certainly I would pay 

attention to that, which I am. 

Mr. SOTO. We also saw White House attorney Udham Dillon say 

that individual Minority Members, Ranking Members, and basically, Democrats and rank-and-file Republicans do not have an individual authority to conduct oversight. Is that the policy of the 

Department of the Interior, that unless our Chairman sends a request we don’t have an oversight right? 

Secretary ZINKE. My policy has been any Member has a privilege 

of being a Member, so I have, as you know, offered to come quarterly and sit down with the Minority in a group and discuss the 

issues so you know exactly where we are. I think I have given more 

access than certainly any Secretary in my time. 

I think, as an elected official, you deserve the courtesy. As a 

Secretary of the Interior, it is our Interior Department, it is not 

just one party’s or another. And my commitment is to be responsive 

to you and make sure there is a level of trust that exists in the 

Minority, just like the Majority. 

Mr. SOTO. And then we have had such a focus on Bears Ears. 

I know you went over there, there have been a lot of hearings on 

it. What is the main focus? Why are we setting our sights on an 

area that has ancestral ties for five Native American tribes? What 

is it about Bears Ears that has brought your gaze to it? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, an excellent question. Here is the laydown 

for those that have not been out there. It is 1.5 million acres, about 

1.5 times the size of Glacier Park. Within Bears Ears itself, there 

is a monument, an existing monument. There is a wilderness study 

area, about 400,000 acres. There is a national forest. There is BLM. 

And there are antiquities. So, reasons why it became a monument 

are varying, but it became a monument. 

My task was to look at a monument and make sure, first, are 

there antiquities there? Yes, there are. Does it follow the law, 

which is smallest area compatible with protection of the object? 

When I looked at it and talked to everyone, the tribes before, and 

it is not true that I only spent an hour with the tribes. We had 

meetings before I got there, we have had meetings afterwards. I 

called the tribes, and this was the recommendation, that the antiqVerDate Mar 15 2010 08:58 Dec 14, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\115TH CONGRESS\FULL COMMITTEE\06-22-17\25970.TXT DARLEN
91 

uities within the Bears Ears can be segregated, identified, and the 

border revised to protect those antiquities. 

What I found is when you go out there, and the antiquities that 

are to be protected, some of the dwellings, when there is no parking lot, designated parking lot, there are no bathrooms, there is no 

infrastructure that, you can drive in it multiple ways and pilfer. 

Part of the responsibility when I become the monitor and protector 

of the antiquities, we need borders to make sure that I can actually 

do my job. So, the border is revised. 

The second thing is I am asking Congress to authorize comanagement of that monument with the tribes there. This has 

never been done. And the authority does not rest with the executive. The authority rests with you. So, I have to ask you to provide 

co-management, and the request from the President, I think, will 

be to ask you that. 

Last, there are areas within the monument that are better suited, in my judgment, to be national recreation areas, conservation 

areas. 

And last point, Mr. Chairman, if I can indulge you for 

15 seconds, is that what happens when you put a monument over 

a wilderness, over an existing wilderness. A monument is managed 

by the proclamation. A wilderness, in many cases, can be more 

stringent in its management application. So, I am asking Congress 

to provide clarity of what the intent of Congress is when you put 

a monument over top of the wilderness. What system do you manage it as? 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. We accept that responsibility, we are 

going to do it. 

I will just notice here that there is no policy anywhere that says 

all the questions have to go through the Chairman. But I would 

like to note that I wouldn’t mind that. If we want to do that, I kind 

of appreciate that one. 

Mr. Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much for being here. 

I want to make note for the record that, actually, at a hearing similar to this with Secretary Jewell, I actually asked her to provide 

follow-up information to our office, and we never heard back. We 

called them after that and never heard back. 

As a delegation, we requested a meeting with the Secretary. That 

meeting was refused, as a delegation. We requested a meeting with 

BSEE Director Salerno. That meeting was refused. And we also 

tried to get NOAA to accept some of Louisiana’s science, which was 

much improved, based upon NOAA related to red snapper fisheries, 

and NOAA refused to accept that data, or utilize the state data 

that was better. 

Mr. Secretary, you mentioned earlier that in the last year of the 

Bush administration in excess of $18 billion was generated from 

offshore energy revenues, and the last year of the Obama administration approximately $2.7 billion was generated from Outer 

Continental Shelf energy revenues. Extraordinary disparity. 

And, as you correctly noted, there are certainly in addition to 

policies by the administration, certainly what goes on in the Middle 

East, policies and other issues affected energy production and 

revenues. 

92 

If you add up the six states that produce offshore energies in 

Federal waters: Alaska, California, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, 

and Alabama, and if you add up the production of the five states 

of Alaska, California, Texas, Mississippi, and Alabama, multiply it 

times three or four, that is what Louisiana produces in our Federal 

waters. 

Right now, based upon Federal policy, other states like the states 

of perhaps Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, wherever, they benefit 

more from the offshore energy revenues than the state of 

Louisiana. I don’t understand that. And while the Obama administration in the last 2 years proposed to cut the Gulf of Mexico 

Energy Security Act revenue-sharing funds, I was shocked to see 

that it was also in the budget that this administration put forth. 

I am curious if you can give us some type of explanation as to 

why you think other states should benefit from our offshore energy 

production more so than the state of Louisiana. 

Secretary ZINKE. Thank you. And it is not a surprise you would 

ask that question. Senator Cassidy also asked that question in the 

last couple days. But here, as the argument lies, is that all states 

share in the OCS revenue. 

The argument is the increase in activity will benefit the great 

state of Louisiana in ways of jobs, et cetera—— 

Mr. GRAVES. OK. Mr. Secretary, can I actually interrupt you 

right there? Because I want to go back and point to your budget, 

where you talk about the recreational fee program, where it says 

that the recreational fee program, $290 million annually, is an important social revenue for land management operations, maintenance, and improvements to recreational facilities on public lands. 

What I am concerned about is the disparity in treatment in 

Federal lands. Right now, under the Mineral Leasing Act, states 

share 50 percent of the revenues or, in the case of Alaska, 90 

percent of the revenues go back to their states. In the case of 

national parks and other fees, the dollars go back into those states. 

Right now, we are investing more of the OCS revenues into conservation in other states than in Louisiana, that has lost 1,900 

square miles of our coast. 

Mr. Secretary, I just want to ask you. I would like for our delegation to have the opportunity to sit with you and talk through this 

and explain this. I know you have been to the coast of Louisiana, 

and I know you share our concerns with the erosion and what it 

is doing to our ecosystem and vulnerability to our communities. I 

just want to ask for a commitment that you give us an opportunity 

to sit and discuss this, and explain why we think it is an important 

reinvestment in revenues into the productivity of our ecosystem 

and the resilience of our communities, rather than, again, allowing 

other states to benefit. 

Secretary ZINKE. I look forward to working with you on it. And 

I think you would be a magnificent governor in the great state of 

Louisiana. No one represents Louisiana better than you. I look forward to your future, but I would be glad to sit down with you and 

work on it. 

Again, this is what a balanced budget would look like. And it is 

a great line of discussion back and forth, and I get the GOMESA. 

93 

Mr. GRAVES. That flattery will get you everywhere. Thank you. 

No, seriously, I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you, 

and I know our delegation will, as well. 

A quick question, Mr. Secretary. When you look at the portfolio 

of the Department of the Interior, and you compare it to other 

agencies like Department of Commerce, it is somewhat of a headscratcher sometimes, why fisheries management is in Department 

of Commerce, with other missions that appear inconsistent. Do you 

believe that that would perhaps be better aligned with Interior? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, certainly our reorganization looks at the 

problem set before us. And you correctly point out, and I gave the 

example of a salmon and a trout in the same stream, and the two 

departments sometimes are not reconcilable. 

Certainly, a path forward would be to make things more joint at 

the region so the government is on one page, so industry can have 

some clarity and certainty on either investment or the activities, as 

well as the public. The public should know that we are efficient. 

But I think organization and a change is necessary. 

Mr. GRAVES. Mr. Secretary, thank you. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Graves, from now on I am referring 

to you as Governor. 

Mr. GRAVES. I am not saying that is a step up, Mr. Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. It is definitely a step down. 

Mr. GRAVES. He just wants me out of here. 

The CHAIRMAN. If you had said Senator, that would have been 

depths of stepping down. 

Mr. Panetta, you are recognized. 

Mr. PANETTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, good afternoon by now, and welcome. I appreciate 

you being here, appreciate your testimony, your preparation as 

well. I also appreciate the fact that you did come here and speak 

with the Minority staff. Unfortunately, there were some votes that 

were going on, our Minority Members didn’t get a good chance to 

talk to you. And thank you for your willingness to come again. And 

also, thank you for your willingness to have individual conversations with Members. 

As a freshman Member, I appreciate that. The last thing I would 

want to do is bother you with a phone call. And know that if I do 

call you, it is only because there is an emergency, or because our 

letters didn’t get responded to. But once again, thank you very 

much. 

I come from the central coast of California. We have the 

Pinnacles National Park there, Fort Ord National Monument, the 

coastal monuments there, as well. I was fortunate enough to meet 

with BLM employees last month, a very dedicated group out there. 

But obviously, they are worried about the lack of funding and a 

lack of resources that they are getting. 

On that note, the Federal hiring freeze, how did that affect the 

DOI? 

Secretary ZINKE. The hiring freeze was relaxed, with the exception of Washington, DC and Denver, with the exception of GS-12 

and above, which just requires an exception on there. 

94 

Our priority was to make sure that we shore up the front line, 

first, if there is a qualified candidate within Washington, DC or 

Denver, we were going to fill from that first, and then make sure 

that the hiring itself, we are looking at the process of allowing superintendents and those on the ground more flexibility to hire locally, which we think is an important aspect on that. Some of it 

is coordination with the Office of Personnel. 

You would be surprised or not surprised, how much latitude a 

Secretary has in such matters, but we are looking at providing the 

superintendent more hiring authority to hire local, and then shoring up, again, the front line by looking at qualified individuals from 

Washington and Denver, and some of our larger regions first, before we go out. 

Mr. PANETTA. OK. Great, thanks. You mentioned earlier with 

Representative Hanabusa, you started to talk about public-private 

partnerships. You started to get to Yosemite National Park. Can 

you give us some examples of how that could help the facilities that 

you oversee? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, in the case of Yosemite, clearly we all 

want to protect the experience of a park, because the culture and 

experience of going to a park should be a wow, right? It should be 

a five-star. That means that when you get there, we should be in 

the right uniform, the bathrooms are clean, and the experience 

should be the five. 

Part of that is looking at public-private partnership on transportation. I don’t want to say a bus. I like to say a transport. But developing and looking at what that transportation means, should 

look like, it should be an enriching experience. People should want 

to get on the transport. If they don’t get on the transport and do 

the park, something is going to be missing. 

An example would be the red buses in Glacier Park. Those were 

made in the 1930s, but it has become an iconic feature of visiting 

our park. Zion has a pretty good transportation system. But that 

is where we are looking at public-private partnerships. I don’t want 

to run a bus system, but I want to get the greatest talent of people 

in this country that care about our parks to design a transport system that, for lack of a better term, is the coolest system around so 

it enriches the experience. 

WiFi is another example. In parks, we are the old generation. 

The younger generation appreciates WiFi, and we should embrace 

that to make sure that the park experience going down a trail is 

available on your cell phone: the geology, the wildlife, what you are 

going to see. And, oh, by the way, if you see a bear, I mean, there 

is an app that says ‘‘bear’’ that goes down to the local superintendent, so he can notate it. 

Mr. PANETTA. OK. Got it. Throughout your testimony today, you 

have consistently said this is what a balanced budget looks like, in 

regards to the President’s budget. Is this budget, in your position— 

I mean is this the budget you are willing to go out there and look 

your employees in the eye and say, ‘‘This is one I support, and this 

is one that I want for you’’ ? 

Secretary ZINKE. I support the budget, but I also support and realize this is a starting point. And what is important, I think, is if 

95 

nothing else, it has highlighted the Members’ priorities, which is 

important to go back to. 

It also highlights our revenue problem, is that we need to work 

together for our revenue. If you have money, then the decisions are 

really easy. But if we keep having to borrow, then the decisions became more difficult. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I think Grijalva and I both agree we 

are not crazy about your WiFi idea there. 

Mrs. Radewagen. 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank 

the Ranking Member. Mr. Secretary, thank you for appearing before the Committee this morning, a Committee that you were serving on just last year. You are missed, and it is great to see you 

leading the Interior. 

I want to express my personal appreciation to you for inviting me 

to participate in some of the events surrounding the 100th anniversary of the U.S. Virgin Islands Transfer Day. I very much appreciate the interest you have shown in the U.S. territories, not only 

as a colleague on this Committee, but also since you were confirmed as Secretary. 

Being the most economically challenged state or territory in the 

Nation due to our economic and geographic isolation, American 

Samoa has been the grateful recipient of funding from the Department of the Interior to supplement funding for local government 

operations, including the local and only community college on the 

island, the judiciary, the Department of Education, and last, but 

certainly not least, the only hospital in the territory, which our veterans cannot even use due to the lack of adequate resources. 

Beginning in 1974, the Department of the Interior created the 

American Samoa operations grants account, at which time the allocation was $17 million. In 1986, that amount was raised for the 

first and only time to $22.75 million, where it has remained since. 

If you were to use the CPI and adjust for that over time, that 

amount would be approximately $50 million today. 

In the Department’s budget proposal, it states the reasoning behind the lack of any increase is to promote self-sufficiency on the 

island, which is all fine and well, except for the fact that the 

Federal Government has imposed unfunded mandates and regulations that extremely hamper that effort, including the mandatory 

raising of the minimum wage in American Samoa until it meets 

the Federal minimum standard, a perfect example of the Federal 

Government placing the territory on the same economic playing 

field as the states, which is a somewhat irresponsible policy, to say 

the least, which has done tremendous harm to the local economy, 

and contributed greatly to two tuna canneries, which are the lifeblood of our economy, leaving the island since 2009. 

Couple that with the closing off of large swaths of the Pacific 

Ocean, which our people have utilized as their traditional fishing 

grounds for centuries, and you can see how frustrating it can be 

to hear that we must become more self-sufficient. 

This year, that critical funding was reduced by $1.2 million, 

which is not much money if you are a state. But it is a tremendous 

amount for our local government to absorb. 

96 

Mr. Secretary, I look forward to having you visit the territories. 

In February, a congressional delegation visited the territories led 

by our Chairman Bishop. While there, the CODEL received an eyeopening firsthand account of just how many issues we are facing, 

particularly our hospital which is over 50 years old and in such disrepair that our military veterans are not able to use it; they, therefore, must be flown to Hawaii and put up in a hotel for at least 

a few days, all on the U.S. taxpayer’s dime, even for the most 

minor procedures, as flights to and from American Samoa are very 

limited, which happens to be another issue we are trying to fix. 

This does not even take into account the time that our veterans 

must be away from their families for medical treatment, any medical treatment whatsoever, treatment they have rightfully earned. 

While I understand the need for austerity measures, they simply 

cannot come on the backs of the most economically challenged people in our Nation, the people who love this Nation so much, as 

demonstrated by our record rate of enlistment into the armed 

forces. 

Mr. Secretary, we as Republicans are always talking about pro- viding a safety net for the less fortunate. This $1.2 million is part 

of our safety net. I have been working with Chairman Calvert and 

Senator Murkowski, and should we be successful in rescinding the 

proposed cut, I humbly hope that the Department will pose no 

objections. 

Thank you again, Mr. Secretary. As always, it is a pleasure to 

see you, my friend, and I look forward to continuing to work with 

you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Clay. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me too welcome 

the Secretary back to this Committee. 

I noticed that on your first full day of work you chose an interesting mode of transportation to go to work. Have you ridden your 

horse to work lately? 

Secretary ZINKE. Mr. Chairman, I have. 

Mr. CLAY. Oh, you have? 

[Laughter.] 

Secretary ZINKE. At least around the mall a couple times. 

Mr. CLAY. Very good. I think that for lack of a better term, I 

thought that was cool. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. CLAY. Mr. Secretary, are Federal agencies required to consult with tribal nations before they recommend a course of action 

that has the potential to affect their tribal rights and interests? 

Secretary ZINKE. They are required, it is interesting on consultation, talking to tribes. Some of the consultation has been a website, 

rather than personal. Some of the consultation has been more notification, rather than consultation. I think we need to do a lot of 

work on what consultation really means, and a lot of it is trust, 

quite frankly, taking the interest. 

And I find myself, as the Department of the Interior, to be the 

champion of all things Indian, and I take that responsibility very 

seriously. 

97 

Mr. CLAY. All right. Several tribes, including the Navajo, Osage, 

Oglala, Sioux, Crow, Piikani, and Hopi have indicated that the 

Federal Government, in particular, the Fish and Wildlife Service, 

has abandoned that responsibility in its proposed rule to remove 

ESA protection for grizzly bears in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. 

In a treaty, letters, and resolutions, tribal nations have raised 

concerns over the science being presented by the Service, and the 

irreparable harm of tribal sovereignty, sacred site protections, 

treaty rights, consultation mandates, and spiritual and religious 

freedoms. Can you discuss your plan to honor the mandatory predecision and meaningful government-to-government consultation 

with tribes in this matter? 

Secretary ZINKE. I will continue to live up to my obligation to do 

that, I look forward to it. I try to have a great relationship with 

the tribes. Me in Montana with the grizzly bears has been an interesting thing to watch. It extends beyond the grizzly bear. The buffalo, as well, within Yellowstone, making sure we honor cultural 

and historic rites of hunt with that. 

But I look forward to working with the tribes. As a Congressman, I represented seven tribes in Montana, and now I have a lot 

more. I know that the tribes in Montana are not monolithic. Wait 

until you get to the tribes across our Nation, they are anything but 

monolithic. Each of the tribes has their own expectations, culture, 

opportunities, and challenges. 

And what I really would like is the Senate to push along my BIA 

Director, I think the tribes are going to be thrilled with that. But 

we need some help on leadership. 

And also the restructure of BIA. I don’t think we are doing a 

very good job, and certainly entertaining how to do it better, working with Congress, I think is a frank discussion. 

Mr. CLAY. Will you commit to consult with affected tribes prior 

to any de-listing announcement? 

Secretary ZINKE. I will commit to that. I think it is not only a 

right, it is the law. And it is the right thing to do. 

Mr. CLAY. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for your answers. I yield 

back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I appreciate that. Mr. Zinke, I know 

that you said you had a 12:30 drop dead date, but you committed 

to stay a few more minutes to see if we can get all the questions 

in. 

Secretary ZINKE. Absolutely. 

The CHAIRMAN. Is that news to you? 

Secretary ZINKE. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. OK. We will try to do that. General, you are up 

next. 

Mr. BERGMAN. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Zinke, first, thanks for your leadership style and approach to organizational development. It is already showing. Also, 

thank you for your proactive approach in all the work you have 

done in husbanding our Nation’s natural resources, as both a 

Member of Congress and now as the Secretary. 

My question today deals with an ongoing issue facing my district 

in northern Michigan and the Great Lakes region in general: the 

98 

double-crested cormorant. For those of you who don’t know, or 

might not be aware of what a double-crested cormorant is, it is a 

large bird that spends most of its day either resting or eating. It 

will fly low to the water’s surface, and then dive straight into the 

water to feed on foraged fish, stock trout, salmon, small-mouthed 

bass, yellow perch, and even catfish in some areas. 

By 2009, the cormorant population in Michigan waters alone was 

estimated at 326,000. Cormorants are protected under the 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and are currently managed by the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. While states have been given the authority to 

control cormorant populations through a depredation order for over 

a decade, a May 2016 court order stopped my state of Michigan, 

among others, from being able to effectively manage this bird population until a new environmental assessment can be issued by the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. 

That decision has ultimately led to a degraded situation for our 

fish populations in the Great Lakes. Without a new EA to reestablish these depredation orders, the livelihood of our recreational and commercial fishing industries is at risk and it is directly affecting our local economies. 

Can you share with us where your Department is on this? And, 

more specifically, where the Fish and Wildlife Service is on issuing 

its revised environmental assessment? 

Secretary ZINKE. I will look into this. This is the first I have 

heard of this particular issue. And this is why I think, quite frankly, a reorganization is important. When it comes to the Asian carp, 

or things that are sensitive to the Great Lakes and in that region, 

sometimes they get lost when they get to DC. So, a reorganization 

based on more watersheds gives more authority to the states, gives 

more authority to the regions outside of DC that would be able to, 

I think, better highlight these areas. 

Because I haven’t heard of the double-crested before is an indicator that it hasn’t been followed in DC, which is absolutely an indicator on why we should reorganize and push more authority to 

these different ecosystems or JMAs, so they can be addressed. We 

should be working with the states, rather than against. 

And, by the way, I think Asian carp should be renamed the 

Asian trout, or the Asian bass. 

Mr. BERGMAN. Fair enough. And given your answer, I look forward to working with you, your staff, at whatever level necessary 

to get quick resolution on this because the problem is increasing. 

And last, I would like to say you have indicated that, as a 

Representative from Montana, you represented seven tribes. In the 

1st district of Michigan, I represent eight. And not that we are 

playing the numbers game here, but the bottom line is we know 

there are a lot of folks who are affected by those decisions. I look 

forward to working with you and your team to ensure that all our 

tribes are recognized and included in the decision making at all 

levels. 

Thank you very much, and I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. But you have done a good 

job on the single-crested. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Barraga ́n. 

99 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. Thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, for the last 50 years, the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund, also known as the LWCF, has been instrumental in ensuring that Americans across the country, especially 

those living in underserved urban areas, have access to public 

parks, playgrounds, and green spaces. 

In fact, I have been working with the Urban and Community 

Park Coalition on a bipartisan bill that I introduced a few days ago 

with Congressman Mike Turner. It is H.R. 2943, the Outdoor 

Recreation Legacy Partnership Grant Program, which I invite all 

of my colleagues here to co-sponsor. It creates a dedicated source 

of funding for projects that expand outdoor recreational opportunities in cities across the country. 

Urban parks are not only safe and beautiful, but they also serve 

as green engines to help address nearly every critical urban need, 

from health to housing to education and environmental justice, and 

countering sprawl to combat crime. I was quite disappointed to see 

that this budget cuts the LWCF by more than 80 percent, and 

eliminates the Urban Parks and Recreation Recovery Grant 

Program. 

The LWCF stateside assistance grants have created parks, playgrounds, and outdoor recreational facilities such as basketball 

courts and skate parks in over 42,000 communities across the country. As 80 percent of Americans live in urban areas, more funding, 

not less, is needed to provide these much-needed outdoor outlets for 

city residents. 

In your testimony, you noted your goal for the Department of the 

Interior is to continue delivering access and services critical to 

Americans. My question is, would you be able to tell me how cutting the LWCF by 80 percent helps you in accomplishing this goal, 

especially when those living in urban areas already face barriers 

in accessing public lands? 

Secretary ZINKE. The cuts in the LWCF were for new land acquisition. As I am sure you are aware, in the Park Service itself we 

are $11.5 billion behind in maintenance and repair, $11.5 billion 

behind. So, the position is, let’s fix what we have before we encumber ourselves with more assets. 

On the LWCF, as you know, I have been a strong champion over 

time, and I think it has done some great things. I think on the 

funding side, we need a steady source of funding. In review, over 

the course of time there has been about $20 billion that have been 

unused in appropriation. 

And I think that having the LWCF program funds used for programs would be beneficial, and also giving the states more say. 

Some states are more urban or more rural than others, but giving 

the latitude of the states to direct those funds to issues that they 

feel important themselves. At one time it was 60 percent went to 

the states. It is much less today. 

So, I think Congress has a role to play in making sure that the 

states have more latitude. You, as a Representative, should have 

a say, I think, in where those funds should go in your district. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. But if we are cutting funding, how does that help 

the states? Doesn’t it just cut the funding? Or are we directing the 

money to the states for them to decide? 

100 

Secretary ZINKE. The cut in the funding is for new acquisitions, 

new land acquisitions. It does not cut funding for operations, for 

maintenance. It does not cut funding for conservation easements 

and those type of things. 

Your colleague, Ms. Dingell, had a lot to do, her husband had a 

lot to do with building that structure. If it changes for more of a 

rural or more of an urban taste, then that is the legislative decision 

that Congress will have to make on how to direct it. 

But the budget right now simply has a reduction in land acquisition because, again, the tact is, let’s take care of property that we 

have, rather than buying more property that we also have a maintenance liability on. 

Ms. BARRAGA ́ N. So, are you suggesting you believe there are 

already enough green spaces, that we shouldn’t invest in more? 

Secretary ZINKE. No, I am suggesting the budget reflects this. 

The budget reflects that we should not encumber more liability 

until we maintain what we have. If you want to look at maintenance-wise, if you haven’t been to Arlington, I would suggest taking a look at Arlington. I am also going to do a tour on Friday of 

our regional parks in Washington, DC. Most of our parks in DC, 

which I am responsible for, are not maintained. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Ms. Cheney. 

Ms. CHENEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you very much, Secretary Zinke. First of all, thank 

you for sticking around past the time, those of us who are on the 

bottom row here very much appreciate it. 

I also want to thank you for efforts that you have already made 

and steps you have already taken for Wyoming in particular. Lifting the moratorium on coal leasing on public lands is crucial, and 

we are very grateful for that. 

I was also very pleased to hear your comments earlier about the 

reform at the BIA. I represent, as you know, two tribes in 

Wyoming, and it is crucially important. So, we are looking forward 

to that. 

I wanted to ask you a bit more about what you are doing in 

terms of the energy permitting. I appreciate the increased revenues 

that are going in, in terms of BLM, for oil and gas management 

and for the coal management program. But I hear just about every 

single day from folks across Wyoming who say, ‘‘Look, in some instances it has taken years, from getting an application for a permit 

to drill, from submitting that, getting the permit, until the project 

can begin, as long as 8 or 9 years.’’ And you can imagine the economic impact of that is just tremendous. 

So, could you talk a little bit more, in addition to the energy 

council you have mentioned, how you are going to go about streamlining that process so that we are not facing just this unbearable, 

really, burden of regulation from the BLM? 

Secretary ZINKE. I have a couple of approaches. One, in the budget, we added more money for permitting on it, because again, permitting is related to revenues. And one of my principal objectives 

is to raise revenues so we can afford to pay for the programs that 

this Committee and others and Americans support. So, revenue is 

important. 

101 

The other thing is the process. I have appointed and have in position my principal advisor for energy affairs, who is specifically 

looking at the permitting process. The permitting process has been 

very lineal and in sequence. In a permit process you can have sequential processes that go forward, rather than having 6 months 

and then it goes to someone else’s desk for 6 months, and 6 

months, and 6 months. We can do it simultaneously on the permit 

process. 

The other thing is if it is in our approved basin, then you don’t 

have to view a permit as if it has never been done before. If it is 

in the same geologic structure, and as long as there are provisions 

to make sure the casing is whole, that the reclamation plan is 

there, and best practices are used, you don’t need to take every permit as if this is the first well we have ever drilled. 

So, some of it has been the process has been in place, and some 

of it has been arbitrary. An individual, either willingly or not, can 

hold a permit for, in some cases, one would say nefarious reasons. 

We want to make sure we have the right leadership in place, that 

it is fair. And when you invest in a holding of the U.S. Government, at least the process should be fair, it should be straightforward. You have a good feeling in the first 6 months or 30 days 

on some of the easier ones, whether it is going to be approved to 

give an investment point of view some degree of certainty, and at 

least a confidence that your investment, if it is not going to be improved, maybe you should make another investment somewhere. 

But to kick the can down the road on a permit in the same basin 

surrounded by like activities, this is the problem we face. And we 

are going to get to the bottom of the solution. 

Ms. CHENEY. Well, I appreciate that very much. I know you 

know how important it is, economically. 

And then just one more question with respect to the BLM. As 

you know, in so many of these areas, the law is management for 

multiple use and sustained yield. And we have seen too often, particularly in the last 8 years, that the law has really been ignored. 

And there has been management, really, to preclude all human use 

of these lands. 

How are you going to go about changing the approach, changing 

the philosophy? Obviously, getting a BLM Director is going to be 

crucial, and we are very anxious to see that happen. But could you 

talk a little bit about how you are going to go back to ensuring that 

congressional intent, as indicated in the law, is followed? 

Secretary ZINKE. Some of it is leadership. And some of it is, you 

are right, adhering not to the law but a philosophy that parks and 

public lands should be for the use, benefit, and enjoyment of the 

people. 

And I think, to a degree, the reorganization has opportunity for 

both sides of the aisle, because connection to corridors, wildlife corridors, and watersheds is important. So, a holistic approach, to 

make sure we manage better, is where we should go. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. CHENEY. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I appreciate your willingness to stay to the end of this. Gohmert left some M&Ms, if you 

need lunch. 

102 

Secretary ZINKE. I will sacrifice lunch for the convenience of—— 

The CHAIRMAN. The last few questions, he has 10 minutes. You 

have a legal right for five. Be brief. 

Mr. Gallego. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Mr. Secretary, when you were testifying before the 

House Appropriations Committee a few weeks ago you stated, ‘‘I 

don’t favor oil and gas over coal, over wind, over nuclear. I am just 

all of the above.’’ Do you stand by that? 

Secretary ZINKE. I absolutely do. I stand by that, the President’s 

position is an all-of-the-above energy policy, and I support that. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Excellent. And for the sake of a time limit, let me 

just continue. 

Your budget, however, does not reflect that. Only two agencies 

in your Department have seen an increase, and both deal with only 

offshore oil and gas. One of them, the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, also issues offshore renewable energy leases, but 

while the overall funding for that agency would go up, the renewable energy program would be cut by more than 10 percent. 

We are just starting to see some windmills in the water, and you 

are proposing a stop to that momentum, when it comes, in its 

tracks. And it is not just me saying this. The agency’s budget justification admits that these cuts would have a significantly harmful 

impact. The agency itself states that these cuts would, ‘‘Slow the 

advancement of offshore renewable energy commercial leasing activities on both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts. This reduction will 

result in the loss of opportunity to add millions of dollars to the 

U.S. Treasury annually, to the collection of additional bonuses, 

bids, and future rents.’’ 

So, do you understand why we see this dichotomy, when you are 

saying that you have an all-of-the-above approach to energy production, but it is not necessarily reflective in the budget? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, in regards to when the budget matches 

the anticipated demand, and also, a group of people whose voices 

have not been heard, in my judgment, are the fishermen. I just got 

back from the great state of Massachusetts, and their concern is 

that some of the design of these systems would preclude fishing. 

And the President believes that jobs are important, and certainly 

the fishing industry is important, the vitality and the future of this 

country. 

I think to look at some of these projects, to make sure they do 

not interfere with fishing, and the fishermen have their voice is important. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Well, I thank you, Secretary. I think one of our 

concerns, again, is to keep true to at least the words of President 

Trump, as well as yours, an all-of-the-above approach to energy 

production should be continued and should be reflected in the 

budget, whether or not fishermen or any other concerns are involved. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do you yield back? 

Mr. GALLEGO. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Johnson. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. I will be very brief. 

103 

Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for your long record of service 

to our country, for accepting this challenging new position. I will 

cut this short. 

I heard you say earlier that you were more than willing to meet 

with this Committee’s members quarterly, and even in person to 

talk about their concerns. Isn’t that right? 

Secretary ZINKE. That is correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I also understand that you inherited, from the previous administration, numerous unanswered Committee requests. 

So, just to be clear, will you commit that your Department will 

provide written responses to this Committee’s official request for 

documents and information, in addition to the meetings you have 

already offered? 

Secretary ZINKE. Where appropriate. But it is interesting. When 

I assumed the job, I found a piece of correspondence from me, as 

a Congressman, that was there for months and months and 

months. I felt not to answer it, I didn’t have to. 

But my commitment is that on some issues it is better to go face 

to face, rather than having staff-to-staff discussions. The intent is 

to be transparent, be responsive, and to respect that you are a 

Congressman and you represent your great district, and I want to 

be responsive to not only you, but your constituents. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thanks for clarifying that again. I am particularly 

grateful for your emphasis on streamlining and reorganizing your 

vast Department, and I just had a quick question about an idea 

that you raised recently about consolidating two departments within your immediate control. 

You expressed a desire to consolidate the Bureau of Safety and 

Environmental Enforcement, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, to merge those two agencies back together, reorganize them in some fashion, so that we can maximize efficiencies. 

Can you just briefly explain why you think that would be 

important? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, it was the result of, of course, the tragic 

oil spill out in the Gulf. And we are looking at it. A decision has 

not been made. 

Whenever you do a reorganization of that size, you want to make 

sure you look at unintended consequences. From the industry side, 

the two agencies have gotten further and further apart. Relationships have gotten less and less than there was historically, when 

they were together. So, we are looking at how to do it, and unintended consequences, to make sure we hold accountable the industry, but also do it in a way that we are a partner. 

Some of it is, quite frankly, innovation. The government is behind on its ability to look at innovation and regulate innovation. 

In some cases, we are the problem. So, we have to have some flexibility and best practices in order to make sure that we are in a best 

position not to inhibit some of the technology that is better, safer, 

more environmentally responsive. That is the challenge. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Out of respect to my colleagues, I will waive the 

rest of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. This is unfair, I know, but Miss Gonza ́lez, Mr. 

Hice, 2 minutes each, if you can do that, just for the Secretary. 

Jenniffer, go. Two minutes. 

104 

Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, 

Secretary, for being here, for your time. I want to thank you also 

for the numerous contributions the Department of the Interior is 

making in Puerto Rico. And, actually, one of them is the preservation of the territory’s iconic national parks, and the protection of 

our endangered species like the Puerto Rican parrot. 

I just have one question, and it is relative to the National Institute for Water Resources. I know the current budget has a proposal 

to eliminate the program. How can we continue the initiative of 

managing the water quality, soil erosion control, and flooding in 

the Department of the Interior with relation to other universities, 

if we are eliminating that program? 

Do we have any other options? Are we looking to have any kind 

of a partnership or other initiatives that we can work on? 

Secretary ZINKE. Yes. And I think by bringing it up, it is important. And I promise to work with you on it, because Puerto Rico 

is important to the Department of the Interior, and you have some 

magnificent holdings. We will work with you on it. The USGS has 

some parallel programs, but I will work with you on it, and be glad 

to. 

Miss GONZA ́LEZ-COLO ́ N. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hice. 

Dr. HICE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Great to have you back, Secretary. We miss you, but we are glad 

you are where you are. 

As you know, the President has asked for an all-hands-on-deck 

approach to offshore research and development. And, of course, you 

signed an order in May directing the Interior to look at the Gulf 

of Mexico region for potential drilling sites. 

At the same time, Mr. Chairman, I do have a letter that I would 

ask unanimous consent to be added to the record here, the Under 

Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness has written a letter stating, in essence, that military training and related exercise 

in the Gulf necessitates a continuation of Congress’ ban. 

[The information follows:] 

Rep. Hice Submission 

OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

4000 DEFENSE PENTAGON

WASHINGTON, DC 20301-4000 

April 26, 2017 

The Honorable Matt Gaetz 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Representative Gaetz: 

Thank you for your letter dated March 24, 2017, regarding maintaining the 

moratorium on oil and gas activities in the Gulf of Mexico beyond 2022. Since military readiness falls under my purview, I have been asked to respond to your letter 

on behalf of the Secretary of Defense. The Department of Defense (DoD) cannot 

overstate the vital importance of maintaining this moratorium. 

National security and energy security are inextricably linked and the DoD fully 

supports the development of our nation’s domestic energy resources in a manner 

that is compatible with military testing, training, and operations. As mentioned in 

105 

your letter, the complex of eastern Gulf of Mexico operating areas and warning 

areas provides critical opportunities for advanced weapons testing and joint training 

exercises. The moratorium on oil and gas ‘‘leasing, pre-leasing, and other related activities’’ ensures that these vital military readiness activities may be conducted 

without interference and is critical to their continuation. Emerging technologies 

such as hypersonics, autonomous systems, and advanced sub-surface systems will 

require enlarged testing and training footprints, and increased DoD reliance on the 

Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act’s moratorium beyond 2022. The moratorium is 

essential for developing and sustaining our nation’s future combat capabilities. 

Since signing the 1983 ‘‘Memorandum of Agreement Between the Department of 

Defense and the Department of the Interior on Mutual Concerns on the Outer 

Continental Shelf,’’ the two departments have worked cooperatively to ensure offshore resource development is compatible with military readiness activities. During 

recent discussions between the DoD and the Department of the Interior’ s Bureau 

of Ocean Energy Management, a question arose concerning whether Congress intended the moratorium to prohibit even geological and geophysical survey activities 

in the eastern Gulf. We would welcome clarification from Congress concerning this 

matter. 

On behalf of the Secretary, I appreciate your interest in sustaining our testing 

and training activities in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. 

Sincerely, 

A.M. KURTA, 

Performing the Duties of the Under Secretary of 

Defense for Personnel and Readiness 

Dr. HICE. So, my question, and no one knows this any better 

than you, as a Navy SEAL commander. You have a great understanding, both of the military and of the Interior. The question is, 

how do you reconcile these two? Can the two co-exist? 

Secretary ZINKE. Well, you are right. As a veteran, I am extraordinarily sensitive to the responsibility of the Department of 

Defense, in making sure the Interior, that came from the Department of War, does not do anything to jeopardize our military. 

I think some of it, too, is the advance of technology, the ability 

to horizontal drill, and to look at the specific requirements that are 

involved with the military, and seeing if there is a path forward 

or not. But I think it involves, from us, getting the leading experts 

on how we drill. Some of it is subsurface now. As you know, the 

technology is moving forward. 

So, I think looking at what is out there. What we think the technology will be today, in 5 years, in 10 years, is it compatible with 

military operations or not? I think that is an ongoing discussion. 

But, certainly, we are going to honor the Department of Defense 

position, but work together with them if, in fact, that is the right 

choice. 

Dr. HICE. My time is gone, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Grijalva, do you have a UC? 

Mr. GRIJALVA. A unanimous consent request, a legal opinion by 

the legal counsel of the Justice Department relative to Members of 

Congress to conduct oversight of the executive branch, with no 

objection. 

The CHAIRMAN. It is in the record. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Secretary, thank you for being 

here. 

106 

To our Members who sat here a long time and at the very end 

we had to cut you short, I apologize for that. 

I appreciate you spending more time than you should have with 

us. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. We will make it up some time with you. I have 

no idea how, but—— 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I appreciate your candor, I appreciate you being 

back with us again. Thank you for spending your time. 

Secretary ZINKE. It is a pleasure to be with you, sir. It is a 

pleasure to be with your august Committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Take care. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:57 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

Rep. Grijalva Submission 

—Authority of Individual Members of Congress to Conduct 

Oversight of the Executive Branch, by Curtis E. Gannon, 

Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, 

from the Opinions of the Office of Legal Counsel in Volume 

41. 

Rep. Pearce Submission 

—List of Organization and Government Endorsements who opposed the designation of the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks 

National Monument. 

Æ